Image result for dr dans freedom forum

Help Educate America
Click on the following link to help educate America.
Donations are not tax deductible.

Keith Broaders
1230 N Street #510
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone (916) 399-4881



The Connection Between 9/11, JFK and The Global Collateral Accounts


The purpose of this article is to shed light on some topics that have garnered considerable attention over the years and to show the underlying thread that surprisingly connects them all. With the facts that will be presented, we can move forward with hope and optimism that there are indeed great things happening in our world and that there are those out there continuing to ensure the truth is known. Great times for us are at hand.

On November 22nd, 1963, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, one of the most beloved and famous US president’s was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Though there are many theories as to who killed him, to get closer to the truth we must ask why he was killed. In any murder investigation, the victim’s enemies are often looked at first. In this respect, it was well known that Kennedy strongly opposed the military-industrial complex, which included The Federal Reserve and the C.I.A.

In a speech on April 27th, 1961 before the American Newspaper Publishers Association in New York City, Mr. Kennedy openly stated opposition to “secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”  He stated further opposition to a “ruthless conspiracy…a highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.”

Creating considerable dissent with the status quo and more specifically with The Federal Reserve and C.I.A., Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 into law on June 4th, 1963, which gave the president the right to issue gold-backed currency, and completely without permission from The Federal Reserve. But where was Kennedy going to receive such large amounts of gold to back a new Treasury note?

A Little History

In the 1930′s, royal Asian families had seen that some of their gold and silver holdings in Southeast Asia were being plundered by the Japanese and needed to do something about it. In 1938, the Chinese Kuomintang government sent 7 warships loaded with gold and silver to the US Federal Reserve for safekeeping. In return, the Chinese were given 60 year gold bonds–a subject we will return to further down. A few years later in 1944, the infamous Bretton Woods Conference took place in which the US, France and Britain were given a 50 year mandate to modernize and transform the world for the better. Backing this new global financial system that had just been set up was a now estimated 2 million metric tons of gold, held by this group of royal Asian families, which is also known as the Dragon Family.

By August 17th, 1945, President Soekarno of Indonesia had been elected “M1″ or Monetary Controller of this large cache of assets, granted under  United Nations Resolution MISA 81704, Operation Heavy Freedom. These assets are better known as the Global Collateral Accounts and were originally intended to be used for the modernization of the world through several humanitarian projects. The Dragon Family are the legitimate Depositors of these accounts.


JFK and President Soekarno

By 1955, it was shown that the International Monetary Fund, which was also created at Bretton Woods, was not living up to its word and was instead serving only the interest of the banking and political elite. It was at this time that a growing alliance began to see that these funds were being used to fuel the Cold War tension and decided to strongly oppose the shady banking cabal.

By 1963, this alliance pooled their financial resources together to create the Green Hilton Memorial Agreement, which was signed by John F. Kennedy and President Skoearno and was finished on November 14, 1963. This agreement was to utilize the Global Collateral Accounts for global development and humanitarian projects (along with a new US Treasury Note, a new supernational/international note backed by gold and would bring an end to The Federal Reserve system and the CIA). Just 8 days later, JFK was assassinated.






The above pictures show The Green Hilton Memorial Agreement and signatures of President Soekarno and President John F. Kennedy along with several others with listed amounts of gold-backed certificates. 

A short time following Kennedy’s passing, President Soekarno was driven from power by way of a coup. By 1968, the Bush, Kissinger, Rockefeller and other influential families created a fake heir to the rights of the Global Collateral Accounts. Up until the writing of this article in November of 2015, these accounts have been illegally and fraudulently used by the central banking system.

The 9/11 Connection

In 1998, 60 years after the Federal Reserve Board and the Chinese swapped gold for gold bonds, the Chinese requested their gold back. After refusal from the Fed, the Chinese Kuomintang government followed with a lawsuit. The International Court of Justice ruled that the Fed needed to return the gold, which was later agreed upon by the Fed. The first payment was scheduled to be delivered September 12th, 2001.

Interestingly, on September 10th, 2001, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 trillion dollars went missing from the Pentagon defense budget. Even more conspicuous, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, the company that was handling the paper work for the gold to be delivered back to the Chinese, was inside One World Trade Center on floors 101-105. All 658 of their employees were murdered on that day as the towers fell and the gold was not returned to the Chinese.

The Monaco Accords, The Trillion Dollar Lawsuit and the BRICS

In August of 2011, representatives from 57 nations (none were invited from the West) came together off the coast of Monaco to create an alliance designed to legally take down the central banking cabal and create a new global financial system using the Global Collateral Accounts for many development and humanitarian projects.


Neil Keenan (right) with Count Albert of the Dragon Family

Reports from Neil Keenan, who helped arrange this historic meeting and has been entrusted with protecting and restoring the legal rights back to the Dragon Family and settling the Global Collateral Accounts for the benefit of humanity, has stated that this Monaco meeting alliance has now swelled to 182 countries and is being spearheaded by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

Neil also filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on November 23, 2011 to the tune of over a trillion dollars against the United Nations, the Office of International Treasury Control, Silvio Berlusconi, Ban Ki-Moon, the World Economic Forum and several others.


For those that want proof of this lawsuit, here is a screenshot of the filed case. This comes from, which is used to look up filed cases. Take a look at the plaintiff and defendants.

Since that time, Neil has withdrawn the suit (Obama’s economic advisor’s brother became the judge and he previously had never been a judge before) to refile in an even more effective jurisdiction and plans to do this in the very near future. This new lawsuit will be bigger and will expose the EU, the Federal Reserve and all the parties mentioned above, plus much more.

Neil Keenan has also filed liens and a Cease and Desist order against all twelve central banks in the U.S. and a Cease and Desist order on behalf of the Dragon Family against names like Queen Elizabeth II, Hilary Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, David Rockefeller and several other well known names.

CD_2_14_1 (1)




Above is the official Cease and Desist order. To download this pdf file, click here

Is Our World About to Be Set Free? 

Is this massive alliance about to make it’s move on the banking and political cabal? Is Neil Keenan and his team about to finish what JFK, President Sukarno and many others were trying to accomplish? Will the 9/11 connection to the Global Collateral Accounts finally come to light? To these questions, Neil Keenan has a statement for the world:

“JFK, Soekarno, 9-11 and everything surrounding it all boils down to one and the same groups or organizations etc., that being what is known as the Cabal or NWO. Look no further than Rothschild’s, Rockefeller’s, and on a lesser scale Bush’s, Netanyahu’s …etc. We must always remember that according to these people we the “goyim” are the enemy and furthermore we must understand not only are they Khazars (read Khazars and their empire) but Satanists and clearly want us all dead.

They want the world, this planet and everything they touch.  They taint everything they make, put together, manufacture, and one way or another are taking precious seconds and minutes away from our lives.  They go so far as to poison baby food (Johnson and Johnson’s most recently caught, simply stated we are sorry and will take the toxins out of the baby food) but when caught they simply walk away leaving a path of utter destruction for many families.

It is time we defend our families, our planet, our friends and those who will soon be life long friends.  It is time to bring our planet together as one, to fight these evil criminals disguising themselves as politicians.  It is time to fight them as they fight us and stop talking about it.

The road to the collateral accounts was initially filled with litter.  From OITC (Ray Dam), OPPT (Heather Tucci), Swiss Indo (Sino), Karen Hudes (who never did understand the collateral accounts and had never heard of the Dragon Family when she requested my help), Red Dragon Family, World Economic Forum (Davos and Giancarlo Bruno), the UN, and many others I have never mentioned all decided at one time or another they owned or managed the accounts when in fact not a one ever had any of the DEPOSITORS permissions to represent said accounts.  We took them all down and we laid them to rest but similar to a film script they often return to life and take a second shot at things after taking a deep breath but… they are all just fiction.

We are on the road to the accounts.  The litter has been tossed into the garbage where it belongs and upon completing this road the accounts will be open.  The big question, even one from the Dragon Family is… will I be able to move the notes and the answer is YES! We will be able to complete this impossible task and release the funds as initially planned for humanitarian purposes.  I need a little more time to get to where we must be but we will be there and when so, the Cabal is finished….FRODO LIVES…..hahaha”

Views: 394

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Synagogue Rising--Hugh Akins

When is the time we all meaning "We The People's", will see Corparate Heads go to prison on and for crimes against humanity? Politicians, and like non elected and elected, illumantists need to go to prison too?..
Would prison be a high enough charge for there crimes against humanity?..
I had heard a vast quantity of Gold was stored in the basement of the WTC which was moved out before the building was imploded with thermomite...
600 Canter Fitzgerald employees were killed to cover up this fraud...

alluh akbar;

WARNING: This is being imported to America via Obama's massive illegal immigration and refugee resettlement TREASON.... There is only ONE WAY to stop all of it and elections have nothing to do with it.... If the people do not unite, rise up and take their last chance to stop this, Americans will very soon be an impotent minority in their own country!!!!!

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations ...
This video will not be online long, download ASAP
this  is what Fbot is DOing to the jUSA

I used to get regular updates from Neil, but had not received any for months so I figured they had finally killed him. A statement that he has always made "When we get the accounts the cabal is finished".

This does not make sense and the cabals resources are over 100 trillion. I applaud his courageous efforts and securing the accounts will help it will not end the cabal.

I didnt expect to still BE alive, many attempts on my Life now

EXPOSE and PROSECUTE them all ; what a great time to trash Hillary .

Well my latest activism got my new puter whacked, any1 wanting to donate, pls do; Petes Farm County Rd 15, Minto ND 58261 as We r all in this together-or we hang seperatly, FTG

   I am on an old Dell From HELL, it is so slow tisn't worth using, so pls donate & has anything been done on making something for my research. I am on SSI, a form of cruel & UNusual punishment

The IRS A Private Corporation


By JeffAnderson The second plank of Karl Marx’s communist manifesto calls for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. This identical immoral and illegal tax structure plagues our country today. We now have socialist and communist politicians who masquerade as Democrats or Republicans. Is there any wonder why so many campaign promises are never kept? Here are some facts concerning this terrorist organization.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a private Corporation, incorporated in Delaware in 1933, and operates under international treaty. (See Public Law 94-564 Reorganization Plan #26) The IRS (the corporation) is acting as Agent under contract to “the bank” (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and “the Fund” (The International Monetary Fund) a.k.a. the Treasury.

The IRS is acting as the Agent of a Foreign Principal (Federal Reserve) under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is a Foreign Principal. It is admittedly a private corporation, privately held by 12 families (one American and 11 foreign). THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL

Those who rule the world under this umbrella are the Illuminati, the Bilderberger group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission.

IRS agents are directed and controlled by the corporate governor of “the Bank” and “the Fund” a.k.a. Secretary of the Treasury IRS, Puerto Rico (See Public Law 94-564, U.S. Government Manual 190/1991 & Treasury Delegation Order 150-10).

IRS personnel are trained under the direction of the “Division of Human Resources” of the United Nations and the Commissioner (International), by the “Office of Personnel Management” which is under the direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations (Treasury Delegation Order #92) (Executive Order 10422).

The IRS is also an Agency of the International Criminal Police Organization, and solicits and collects information for 150 Foreign Powers ( 22 U.S.C.263a).

The IRS is directly engaged in the solicitation and gathering legally protected information of a private and personal nature on everyone contained in their files of records, and does distribute that information to the other member agencies throughout the world without the knowledge or consent of the parties involved (22U.S.C.A. 611 (c) (II)).

The Internal Revenue Service (International) lacks proper authority to act  as a Foreign Agents Registration statement ( 22 U.S.C.A. 612) and ( 18 U.S.C.A.219 & 951). The IRS as a paramilitary organization may not impose military authority into civil affairs ( D.O.A. 27100-70).

The IRS acting as the Agent of a Foreign Principal, “the Bank” and “the Fund” under the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 7 prohibits the U.N. and its Administrative Agencies from “intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”.

The IRS comes before the courts only as the non- registered Agent of a Foreign Principal, acting in the person of its own corporate capacity.

Acting in its corporate capacity the IRS is engaged in commerce as a collection agency under contract. None of the money that you pay in goes to any program or compelled benefit like you think it does. Almost all of the income tax goes to pay the interest on the so-called “debt” to the Federal Reserve (for illegal fiat money conceived by our bureaucrats, and large corporations), not into the U.S. Treasury.

John F. Kennedy warned the people of this fraud and issued executive order # 11.110 on June 4, 1963, and the Treasury started to issue United States notes that looked like our familiar Federal Reserve Notes but only cost the people the cost of paper, ink and printing. Within months he was dead.

Then Lyndon Johnson inactivated the executive order, and U.S. notes were withdrawn and replaced once again with Federal Reserve notes. Look on the back of any check you have written to the IRS. It will say, “Pay to any branch of the Federal Reserve Bank”.

This is an illegal conversion of funds.

All government sponsored programs and compelled benefits come from money continuously borrowed from the Federal Reserve. This is why our paper money is now described as a ‘note’ instead of a ‘silver certificate’. It is illegally loaned in to existence, and has no value except for the faith the American people put in it.

A note for a thing is not the real thing. When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of real money (silver certificates, silver or gold), you are simply making a promise to pay, not actually paying. Since the dollar is a unit of measurement, just like a ‘pound’ of coffee or a ‘quart’ of milk, and there is nothing of hard value backing the dollar, what is it a dollar of?

Sure, you buy goods and products with Federal Reserve Notes, but that which you have of appreciable value could be taken from you without due process of law, simply because you never owned the money in the first place.

Look it up.

Every time we spend a dollar, we are re-circulating a dollar that was loaned in to existence. It is because of this debt structure that our nation has a multi trillion-dollar deficit that can never be paid. Your government has your property listed as collateral against the Federal Reserve Notes (promises to pay) they continuously borrow. The only thing that keeps homeowners from being on the street is the Federal Reserve not calling their note due. When they do call their note due, every man, woman and child will then be their slave.

Thomas Jefferson said, “ If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”.

The IRS acts on the presumption that assigned foundational agreement/instrument exists between the United States and the citizen/franchisee knowing that very few citizens/non citizens have the knowledge or the courage to resist their extortion.

The IRS leadership has departmentalized the functions of tax collection to purposely limit and discourage the exchange of information and/or the lack of authority, between the departments to prevent low level employees from discovering the true nature of their assignments and thus prevent disclosure and whistle blowing.

IRS references made to any authority for collection proceedings under Title 26 CFR, Subtitle A, are made under color of law as there is no collection authority authorized within Title 26, only penalties for failure to perform a given function.

All Collection authority is found in Title 27 CFR, Part 70 and pertains only to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (Stamp taxes or duties).

Many IRS agents often use alias names and are paid commissions, written to their real name, on what ever they steal from you.

The IRS is unable to provide documented proof of the authorization that enables the IRS to operate outside the District of Columbia, and insular possessions of the United States, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Philippines, and American Samoa, as required by Title 4, U.S.C., Section 72.

The IRS uses false documents and presentments that have no legal authority behind them, i.e. 1040 form, Notice of Levy, etc., to solicit and extort money from you using the United States Postal Service. They also falsely represent themselves on the outside of their envelopes, to be an agency of the United States department of Treasury. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Service is guilty of the crime of Mail Fraud and False Representation.

The IRS agents have no legal authority to demand anything from you, if there are no 3rd party informational documents sent to them with your name on it.

They unlawfully and unconstitutionally misapply the revenue laws in an effort to compel you to supply them with confidential information when in fact, their own IRC, 6103, Section (h) and (j) says that they could use this information against you in a criminal proceeding. This is a gross violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights, which are legally protected by the U.S. Constitution. This is pure extortion. You have the lawful right to correct informational documents, such as W2’s, and 1099’s, and demand that they recognize you as one “who does not enjoy the privilege of federally connected employment”.

When are the American people going to wake up and realize that our so-called leaders are co-conspirators with the most evil organization ever contrived?

This is the vilest fraud ever perpetuated on a free people. People in this country need to ask themselves if they were created for the purposes of the IRS and those who conspire with them, or were they created for the Glory of God. Are we going to continue giving to these ungodly, corrupt, and spiritually wicked people the power that belongs to God?

In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve gave us the first example of the consequences of ‘obedience without question’ to someone other than Almighty God. The result was separation from God, and His fellowship. If it is not of God, it is of the devil.

This is a very simple truth that will never change.


Simple Facts

Fact 1: “The income tax is both legal and constitutional.”

Fact 2. The income tax is an indirect excise tax.

Fact 3: “Income” has the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress. Fact 4: “The income tax utilizes words of art.”

Fact 5: The only lawful objects of the “income” tax are for activities for which you are paid by the federal government or a federal agency that are connected with the performance of the functions of a public office, a federal instrumentality, federally chartered state worker, or paid officer of a federal corporation…whew!

Fact 6: Filling out a Form W-4 or W-9 does not make you liable to any tax on income, but it can help to create prima facie evidence that is PRESUMED correct by the IRS until you rebut it.

Please note: While the IRS does provide legal means to correct erroneous information returns, they will resist your corrections, in many cases, for as long as possible simply because they believe they can get away with it. Once you introduce credible evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof shifts to the IRS. A signed affidavit of your truth is credible evidence until the Secretary can provide his own, first-hand knowledge of your participation in a taxable activity.

Fact 7: “…the general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code…” ~US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Ballard (1976) (why would the IRS try to hide something from you?)

Fact 8: earnings from an occupation of common right are not the subject of an excise tax. “An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax…The legislature may declare as ‘privileged’ and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right.”[Simms v. Ahrens,
271 SW 720 ]

Fact 10: “The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. . . “United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

Fact 11 We are PRIVATE-SECTOR CITIZENS NOT EMPLOYEES as noted in Sec. 3401, 3121 and others. We do not receive “WAGES” but do receive “Earnings” for our Labor.

Fact 13: “.. the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.

The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401. Definitions Paraphrased: for income tax purposes, the term “employee” means someone working for the United States.

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)“

Fact 14: The Supreme Court has declared the meaning of “income” to be fixed and confined to objects proper to an excise. Objects proper to an “income” excise are privileges– which is to say, activities not of common right– and even then only to the extent that such activities are profitable and properly fall under the taxing authority’s jurisdiction.

Fact 15: The only lawful objects of the “income” tax are activities for which one is paid by the federal government or a federal agency or instrumentality; activities effectively connected with the performance of the functions of a public office; activities as a federal, federal instrumentality, or a federally chartered “State” worker’ or activities as a paid officer of a federal corporation.

Fact 16: Sec. 7701. – Definitions: (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof – (26)Trade or business – The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

Fact 17: Section 6041A(d) Applications to governmental units (1) Treated as persons – The term “person” includes any governmental unit (and any agency or instrumentality thereof).

Fact 18: The statutory definition of a term excludes unstated meanings of that term. (in other words, a term created by Congress has a custom statutory meaning and its regular, common meaning is stripped away). That’s right from Meese v. Keene. See also the doctrines of: Noscitur a sociis (a word is known by its associates, or a word is known by the company it keeps); ejusdem generis (the specific governs the general); Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one thing is the implied exclusion
of the alternative)

Fact 19: Not every receipt is “income” within the meaning of the term “gross income.” As such, not all payments are ‘reportable payments

Fact 20: Payers who issue invalid information returns are subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Fact 21: Title 26 is not positive law. It is only prima facia evidence of law.

Fact 22: The 16th Amendment did not eliminate the requirement of “apportionment” for direct taxes in the Constitution.

Article 1, sec. 2, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this union, according to their respective Numbers…” and also in Article 1, sec. 9, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration
herein before directed to be taken.”

Fact 23: “withholding” (advance payments to the government) is done to both taxpayers as well as non-taxpayers. And humans can make mistakes/misinterpret law.

Fact #24: Withholdings are in fact “Employment taxes” imposed upon “employees” [as such term is defined at IRC 3401(c) embracing an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, or an officer of a corporation]. To wit:

Fact #25: The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable, New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U. S. 308, 300 U. S. 313-314; Hale v. State Board, 302 U. S. 95, 302 U. S. 108; Helvering

Fact # 26 The IRS LIES… A READER – in his own words.. said this ( these questions make sense )

Call your Sec of State and ask if the IRS is licensed, bonded, & insured to do any type of business within your State- also THEY need to BE licensed to carry fire arms, also why are search warrants issued to a private corp ?

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance."
U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187


Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)

Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.  This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.  A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance.  It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.  Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence.  No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644

"Constitutional  'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied."

Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)

Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it.  All else is withheld."

Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1

"All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)

" our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)

Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.


Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 26 S. Ct. 688 50 L.Ed 1057

United States Senator convicted of, among other things, bribery.

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)

"No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.  All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."

*Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694

Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.

*Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286

Society's commitment to institutional justice requires that judges be solicitous of the rights of persons who come before the court.

*Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374

Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.

Olmstad v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438

"Crime is contagious.  If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

Owen v. City of Independence

"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury."

Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358

"I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..."  "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

*Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533

Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.  Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it."

"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)

Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.


Note:  [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.]  It can be argued that to dismiss a civil rights action or other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a cause of action has been made would itself be violating of procedural due process as it would deprive a pro se litigant of equal protection of the law vis a vis a party who is represented by counsel.

Also, see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 - Relief from Judgment or Order (a) Clerical Mistakes and (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc.

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)

Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery, 382 U.S. 172 (1965)

... in a "motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted".  From this vantage point, courts are reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief (see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).


Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U.S. 255, 257-258 (1942)

"However inept Cochran's choice of words, he has set out allegations supported by affidavits, and nowhere denied, that Kansas refused him privileges of appeal which it afforded to others. ***  The State properly concedes that if the alleged facts pertaining to the suppression of Cochran's appeal were disclosed as being true, ... there would be no question but that there was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)

Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government."

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted

"Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights... It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class.  ...And due process of law within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth] amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government."

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885)

"The rule of equality... requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances".

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332

"Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application fo the law.  'All men are equal before the law,' "This is a government of laws and not of men,' 'No man is above the law,' are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws.  But the framers and adopters of the (Fourtheenth) Amendment were not content to depend... upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion.  They therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty."


Duncan v. Bradley, No. 01-55290 (9th Circ., 12-24-02)

A state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on an entrapment defense, in a second trial on drug sale charges, amounted to prejudicial constitutional error where evidence presented at a first trial warranted such an instruct.  To read entire text of the opinion, see


See Judicial Immunity page for more citations (links) and news articles regarding the topic.

See also, 42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.

Note:  [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.]  Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions.  Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's constitutional rights.  When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act.

Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and "No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility."  Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges.

Article III, Sec. 1, "The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior."

Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal tort law:  judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters.

Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)

"No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."

Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100

Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted."  Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note:  Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land.  The judge is engaged in acts of treason.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133

There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.

Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.

Forrester  v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987); Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987); United States v. Lanier (March 1997)

Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights.

A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

Gregory v. Thompson, F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)

Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417

"The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)

"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

"In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank".

"All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID".

Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ...  or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction."

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985

In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief.

"Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule of judicial immunity.  We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity.  At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..."

"Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the laws.  Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal judges..."

"We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity."

Mireles v. Waco, 112 S. Ct. 286 at 288 (1991)

A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity; however, even in a case involving a particular attorney not assigned to him, he may reach out into the hallway, having his deputy use "excessive force" to haul the attorney into the courtroom for chastisement or even incarceration.  A Superior Court Judge is broadly vested with "general jurisdiction."  Provided the judge is not divested of all jurisdiction, he may have his actions excused as per this poor finding. 

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

Note:  By law, a judge is a state officer.  The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).  When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.  The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349

Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity.  But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.

A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive.  But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction.

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (State use of), 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."

"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326

When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.


NOTE:  It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.

Albrecht v. U.S.

Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)

"The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed.  It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.  The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."

Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d 906

Brook v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633

Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.  They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them.  They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers."

Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528

Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.

Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149

Mack v. United States, 07-27-97, Justice Antonin Scalia

"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.  It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

Mack v. United States, 07-27-97, Justice Antonin Scalia

"Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete and enumerated ones."

Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1

Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)

"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance.  It describes the constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution.  Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States.  We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'.

"Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."

McNutt v. General Motors, 298 U.S. 178

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

"We have held, however, that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction."

Owens v. The City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 (1980)

Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442


United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. I at 16 (1976)

"It is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal argument."


Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347; 6 S. Ct. 2673; 49 L. Ed. 2d (1976)

"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."

Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105

"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262

"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

United States Constitution, First Amendment

Right to Petition; Freedom of Association.


Brinegar v. U.S., 388 US 160 (1949)

Probable Cause to Arrest - Provides details on how to determine if a crime has been or is being committed.

Carroll v. U.S., 267 US 132 (1925)

Probable Cause to Search - Provides details on the belief that seizable property exists in a particular place or on a particular person.

Draper v. U.S. (1959)

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed.  Reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from this case.


Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425

Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)

"Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits."  The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.

Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905

"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend"

A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)

"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox,  456 2nd 233

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)

"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants.  They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end.  Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969)

Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals

The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept".  Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."

Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)

It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)

"Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.  "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
"The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

See ND Constn, art 1, Sec 21, there  SHALL be NO immunity nor special privileges allowed

Cases on Void Judgments

(whether a correction deed may convey two properties when an unambiguous deed mistakenly conveyed only one, correction deed found void, court renders judgment and orders rescission of the mistaken deed)MYRAD PROPERTIES, INC. v. LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGESECURITES, INC., COMMERICIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1997-C1, ROBIN GREEN, AND MELISSA COBB; from Bell County; 3rd district (03-07-00240-CV, 252 SW3d 605, 03-28-08) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. void adj. referring to a statute, contract, ruling or anything which is null and of no effect. A law or judgment found by an appeals court to be unconstitutional is void, a rescinded (mutually cancelled) contract is void, and a marriage which has been annulled by court judgment is void.
Diamond v. Diamond a void divorce
Latimer v. Latimer, a void divorce,
Process and Service--acceptance of service--back...
Phyllis C. Hudson v. SC Dept. of Highways - judgment finding a void judgment itself found void - Rule 54(c) does not result in a void judgment unless the judgment by default was different in kind from or exceeded in amount than that prayed for in the demand for judgment.  Case Site
State of Illinois Court Opinion: People of Illinois v. Harvey.
I read section 2-1401, similar to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60), as replacing traditional collateral proceedings as the proper vehicle for attacking void judgments. See Malone v. Cosentino, 99 Ill. 2d 29, 33 (1983) (final judgments can only be attacked on direct appeal, or in one of the traditional collateral proceedings now defined by statute). ... In light of these concerns, I believe the better course of action is simply to recognize that a motion for relief from a void judgment may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure Title 2-§ 1401 (see link below). This clarifies the basis of jurisdiction and provides the procedural mechanism for exercising the principle of law with which every member of this court agrees, i.e., that a motion attacking a void judgment may be brought at any time.
Title 2 > Chapter 24 > Subchapter IV > § 1401. Procedure for consideration of alleged violations.
Medina v. American Family Mutual - A judgment against an alleged tortfeasor that is void due to lack of personal service cannot be successfully used to collect under the injured party's underinsured motorist coverage when the insurance company has not otherwise submitted to jurisdiction in the case.
"a void act cannot be ratified." In re Garcia, 105 B.R. 335 (N.D.Ill. 1989).
A party may attack a void judgment at any time in a motion separate and apart from a section 2-1401 petition. R.W. Sawant, 111 Ill. 2d at 310; City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Comm'n, 65 Ill. 2d 108, 112 (1976); Barnard v. Michael, 392 Ill. 130, 135 (1945); see State Bank v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294, 308-09 (1986); Cavanaugh v. Lansing Municipal Airport, 288 Ill. App. 3d 239, 246 (1997); In re Marriage of Parks, 122 Ill. App. 3d 905, 909 (1984); First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brown, 74 Ill. App. 3d 901, 905 (1979).
A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.
A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972)
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
"Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. Mcdonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
"The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Also: "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(4).Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).
Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (8th Cir. 1997) (as long as there is an "arguable basis" for subject matter jurisdiction, a judgment is not void).
Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972) ("A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect.").
Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171- 72, 59 S.Ct. 134 (1938) ("Every court in rendering a judgment tacitly, if not expressly, determines its jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.");
Geico v. Jackson, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16814, *1 (1995) ("[A] default judgment constitutes an implicit ruling on subject matter jurisdiction and an erroneous determination does not make the judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4)").
"Either a judgment is valid or it is void, and the court must act accordingly once the issue is resolved." In re Marriage of Hampshire, 261 Kan. 854, 862, 934 P.2d 58 (1997).
"A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.
"A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970).
A void judgment is one of the grounds for relief under Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. See Rule 60.02(3).
When the law prescribes a place of imprisonment to which a convicted defendant can be sentenced, the court cannot direct a different place of incarceration, and, if it does, the sentence is void and the defendant is entitled to resentencing. State v. Bouck, 2001 ND 153, 633 N.W.2d 163
There is no time limit for attacking a void judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv). Eggl v. Fleetguard, Inc., 1998 ND 166, 583 N.W.2d 812
Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to attack a void judgment or sentence. See Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 224, 225 at n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d at 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (opinion on original submission); Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
A void conviction may be challenged in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181; Heath, 817 S.W.2d at 336; Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851; Burns, 441 S.W.2d 532; Jenkins, 433 S.W.2d 701; Higginbotham, 382 S.W.2d 927; Strother, 395 S.W.2d 629; Rawlins, 255 S.W.2d 877.
If such an action by the trial court in Seidel rendered the dismissal void, then an even stronger case can be made that the violation of Article 1.13(c) in the instant case rendered the resulting conviction void. By Article 1.13(c), the Legislature has specifically prohibited a trial court from accepting a defendant's waiver of a jury trial until the court has appointed an attorney to represent him. Here, not only was "[t]he trial judge's action ... not authorized by law ...," Seidel, 39 S.W.2d at 225, the action was specifically prohibited by statute. Requiring an objection at trial in these circumstances would lead to a Catch-22 situation: a defendant must object to not having an attorney appointed to advise him as to waiver of jury trial, without having been advised by an attorney that he was entitled to such representation and advice. Given the absurdity of such a situation, we chose in the past to characterize the resulting conviction as "void" and allow the defendant to raise the issue in a habeas corpus proceeding. Otherwise, defendants, such as appellant, are left without a remedy even though there has been a clear violation of a mandatory statute.
Thus, in a long line of cases, most notably Heath and Seidel, we have held that some defects, even though they are "just" statutory defects, are so egregious that they are cognizable on habeas corpus. See Heath, 817 S.W.2d at 336; Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221 at 225; Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). In Heath, we characterized these defects as rendering the conviction "void." 817 S.W.2d at 336. However, we could have properly characterized as "fundamental" errors those "unauthorized sentences" and "statutory defects" which render a sentence void. No matter what we choose to call these "errors," the underlying purpose is the same: to balance a convicted person's interest in the vindication of his legal rights and the State's interest in the finality of convictions.
In Texas, a defendant has a statutory right to have counsel appointed before he can waive his right to a jury trial. The Legislature has decided that the right to a jury trial is so important that before a defendant can waive that right, he should have the opportunity to consult with counsel. If a trial court denies a defendant that right by refusing to appoint counsel, equity demands that the balance be struck in favor of the defendant. Therefore, a defendant should be allowed to contest, in a habeas corpus proceeding, a violation of Article 1.13(c).
The court then concluded that, in the case before it, the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter because it was a circuit court which has jurisdiction of all felonies and that any objection King had to jurisdiction over his person was waived by his personal appearance. (State v. King, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982)
Conviction of a nonexistent crime results in a void judgment not subject to waiver. People v. McCarty 94 Ill. 2d 28, 37 (1983).
A recent discussion of the Rule 60(b)(4) grounds for attack on a void judgment may be found in Fisher v. Amaraneni, 565 So. 2d 84 (Ala. 1990). The judgment was set aside for lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service by publication. The court defined a judgment as void "only if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Id. at 86 (citingWonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1173 (Ala. 1978)). It should be noted here that a Rule 60(b)(4) motion involves a different standard of review than the other Rule 60(b) subsections since the court held "[w]hen the grant or denial turns on the validity of the judgment, discretion has no place for operation. If the judgment is void it must be set aside ...."Fisher, 565 So. 2d at 87.
"The consequences of an act beyond the court's jurisdiction in the fundamental sense differ from the consequences of an act in excess of jurisdiction. An act beyond a court's jurisdiction in the fundamental sense is void; it may be set aside at any time and no valid rights can accrue thereunder. In contrast, an act in excess of jurisdiction is valid until set aside, and parties may be precluded from setting it aside by such things as waiver, estoppel, or the passage of time." People v. Ruiz (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 574, 265 Cal. Rptr. 886
Held: Petitioner was not accorded a fair and impartial trial, to which he was entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; his conviction is void; the judgment denying habeas corpus is vacated; and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings affording the State a reasonable time to retry petitioner. 366 U.S. 717
See American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 166-67 (1932) (applying res judicata to action seeking to set aside judgment for lack of jurisdiction);"Browning v. Navarro, 887 F.2d 553, 558-59 (5th Cir. 1989) (res judicata applies to actions to void judgment for fraud).
Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that clause Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.
In a long and venerable line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that, without proper jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all, but can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit. See, e.g., Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126; Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43. Bell v. Hood, supra; National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 465, n. 13; Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 531; Secretary of Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676 , 678 (per curiam); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 ; Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 721; and Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 86—88, distinguished. For a court to pronounce upon a law’s meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, an ultra vires act. Pp. 8—17.
Recent Decisions
…And there is no indication in the statute that! such relief cannot be granted because the judgment also involve a judicial error which may have caused the surprise.
In the instant case did not the court have statutory jurisdiction over its judgment although it may have committed a judicial error in its rendition? That is dependent upon whether or not a judgment given in excess of a stipu­lation, and when the party interested is not present, is one taken against him through his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or inexcusable neglect" Under a statute precisely like our own in the Oregon court held, that, "a judgment rendered against a party contrary to an understanding or argument with his ad­versary is taken against him by 'surprise' within the meaning of this section" (Durham v. Commercial Nat, Bank (1904) 45 Ore, 385, 387, 77 Pac, 902; Bellinger and Cotton Comp.. Stats., § 103 (Ore,).) A Kentucky case reached the same result. (Sebree v. Sebree (1907) 30 Ky Law Rep. 709, 9 S. W. 282.) On the other hand, the court in the case under consideration arrived at a contrary result. However, the cases cited in support of this decision, with one exception, do not come within the statutory jurisdiction conferred by the code, because the applications for relief had not been made within six, months after judgment, The only exception was in a case where the facts precluded any possibility of surprise, as all parties were present when the order in question, granting relief in excess of a stipulation, was rendered. (Dyerville Mfg. Co. v, Helles (1894) 102 Cal. 615, 36 Pac 928; Egan v. Egan (1891) 90 Cal 15, 27 Pac, 22; the exception is Mann v. Mann (1907) 6 Cal. App, 610, 92 Pac. 740.) In all the other cases the court had to rely upon its general jurisdiction over judgments, but has already shown, it has no authority to correct judicial errors therein, and as the error in these cases came within that category the court naturally could give the applicant no relief, There­fore, if the appellate court was basing its negative answer, to the question above propounded, upon these cases it would seem that its conclusion was unjustifiable.
The question then may be asked, what difference does it make whether this relief be granted or not; the party has his remedy by motion for a new trial or an appeal, If the judgment were vacated, in all probability, another trial would be necessary to get a proper judgment. But suppose a mistake like this, in the judgment, is not discovered until after sixty days from the entry thereof. The time for moving for a new trial, or appealing would have expired. Then the only remedy would be under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there the injured party is given six months in which to ask for relief. So, although the practical result of this case, at first glance may not seem to be harsh, still there are situations where this decision would deprive a litigant of a right to which, apparently, he is entitled, and which other jurisdictions would give him.
Pleading: Motion to Vacate Judgment by default: Mistake by Attorney — "The policy of the law is it have every litigated cause tried on its merits". Barri v. Rigero (1914) 168 Cal, 736, 740, 145 Pac. 95. An indi­cation of how far the courts are willing to go in order to bring a case to trial before them on its merits is given by the decision of Toon v, Pickwick Stages (April 7, 1924) 43 Cal. App. Dec 808 Pac. 628, reversing an order deny...
egregious, adjective: Conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible.
cog·ni·za·ble Knowable or perceivable. Law. Able to be tried before a particular court.


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service