Gulf Coast Tribune

Website Under Construction While Being Updated

 



S.2912 - Foreclosure Mandatory Mediation Act of 2009

111th Congress 2009-2010






THE LIES IS OVER GUARANTEED!

GOD REVEALED THIS TO ME

 SEE EVIDENCE BELOW


85-352 Applies to (1985) requires a lawyers nonfrivolous basis for a lawyer to "bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein." See also ABA Model Rule 3.3.

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement 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 judgements 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).

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574: Void judgment.  One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.  One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.  Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.  Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.  See also Voidable judgment.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574.


Rule 30. Appendix to the Briefs

(c) Deferred Appendix.

(1) Deferral Until After Briefs Are Filed. The court may provide by rule for classes of cases or by order in a particular case that preparation of the appendix may be deferred until after the briefs have been filed and that the appendix may be filed 21 days after the appellee's brief is served. Even though the filing of the appendix may be deferred, Rule 30(b) applies; except that a party must designate the parts of the record it wants included in the appendix when it serves its brief, and need not include a statement of the issues presented.

(f) Appeal on the Original Record Without an Appendix. The court may, either by rule for all cases or classes of cases or by order in a particular case, dispense with the appendix and permit an appeal to proceed on the original record with any copies of the record, or relevant parts, that the court may order the parties to file.


85-352 Applies to (1985) requires a lawyers nonfrivolous basis for a lawyer to "bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein." See also ABA Model Rule 3.3.

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement 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 judgements 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).

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574: Void judgment.  One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.  One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.  Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.  Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.  See also Voidable judgment.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574.








Rule 30. Appendix to the Briefs

(c) Deferred Appendix.

(1) Deferral Until After Briefs Are Filed. The court may provide by rule for classes of cases or by order in a particular case that preparation of the appendix may be deferred until after the briefs have been filed and that the appendix may be filed 21 days after the appellee's brief is served. Even though the filing of the appendix may be deferred, Rule 30(b) applies; except that a party must designate the parts of the record it wants included in the appendix when it serves its brief, and need not include a statement of the issues presented.

(f) Appeal on the Original Record Without an Appendix. The court may, either by rule for all cases or classes of cases or by order in a particular case, dispense with the appendix and permit an appeal to proceed on the original record with any copies of the record, or relevant parts, that the court may order the parties to file.






THIS JUDGEMENT IS FRAUD MULTIPLE WAYS! THE DISMISSAL JUDGMENT WASN'T SENT THE SAME DAY AND IT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE RULE OF LAW AND MORE. 
CORLA JACKSON TIMELY FILED FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME PRIOR TO (7) DAYS REQUESTING COURT APPROVAL ON ISSUES, FACTS AND REQUESTING MORE THAN (14) DAYS TO FILE AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITH NEW UPDATES AND NEW DISCOVERY. THIS WAS RECORDED ON THE DOCKET SHEET BY THE CLERK ON (03/22/2018) GUARANTEED! IN ADDITION TO THIS CORLA JACKSON TIMELY FILED ANYWAY WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THE LAW BY (12:00) TIME STAMPED BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND SHIPPED OVERNIGHT (04/12/2018).

THE POST OFFICE SHOW THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLERK RECEIVED THE MOTIONS OVERNIGHT ON, (04/13/2018) AND THE CLERK RETURNED THE MOTIONS-APPENDIX BACK TO CORLA JACKSON ACCORDING TO THE DOCKE T SHEET ON (04/13/2018) WHICH IS UNHEARD OF, IT VIOLATED THE LAW!  THEY RETURNED THE DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO ISSUING THE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL THEY ISSUED (APRIL 16, 2018).

FRAP 25. Filing and Service (a) Filing. (1) Filing with the Clerk. A paper required or permitted to be filed in a court of appeals must be filed with the clerk. (2) Filing: Method and Timeliness. (A) In general. Filing may be accomplished by mail addressed to the clerk, but filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing. (B) A brief or appendix. A brief or appendix is timely filed, however, if on or before the last day for filing, it is: (i) mailed to the clerk by First-Class Mail, or other class of mail that is at least as expeditious, postage prepaid; or (ii) dispatched to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within 3 days.

The Clerk Wasn't Without Authority To File An Appellant's (Timely Filed Motion For An Extension Of Time) On An Appendix Within (14) Days by (12:00) A.M. Midnight, Shipped U.S. Postal Service Time Stamped Overnight (April 13, 2018). There were no recorded docketed deficiency orders issued  (12:00) A.M. Midnight. 

FRAP 26. Computing and Extending Time (a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time. (1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period; (B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and (C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. (2) Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours: (A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period;






 



THIS WAS NOT CORLA JACKSON FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME TO REQUEST MORE THAN (14) DAYS.  THE CLERK KNEW THIS BECUASE IT WAS RECORDED (03/22/2018) ON THE DOCKET SHEET! CORLA JACKSON WAS WAITING ON THE JUDGES ORDER GRANTING HER MORE THAN (14) DAYS AS NEEDED, IF NEEDED PRIOR TO (7) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DEADLINE (04/12/2018). 
SERVICE OF THE ORDER TOOK A WEEK TO GET TO CORLA JACKSON FROM ATLANTA GA., TO ALABAMA, THAT WAS (7) DAYS ALREADY GONE! THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER TAKES DAYS TO GET TO CITIZENS VIA U.S. STANDARD MAIL FROM THE COURTS, BY THE TIME THE CITIZENS GET THE ORDERS THEY LOSS HALF THE TIME NEEDED TO BEAT DEADLINES. 

ALL JUDGES KNOW WHEN YOU SEND ANYTHING U.S. POSTAL MAIL TIME STAMPED ITS TIMILY FILED.  THE CLERK COULD NOT USE (C) TO DISMISS A NON-FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT INVOLING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES-DUE PROCESS AND MORE, THIS IS WORSE! 

THIS IS AN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AS WELL BECAUSE CORLA JACKSON TIMELY FILED AND WAS NOT GIVEN A SERVICE NOTICE FROM THE CLERK OR COURT PRIOR TO DISMISSAL OF A TIMELY FILED NON-FREVIOLOUS COMPLAINT. THIS WASN'T CORLA JACKSON FIRST TIME FILING AN EXTENSION OF TIME THAT REQUIRED (7) DAYS IN ADVANCE NOTICE BY MOTION.  THE CLERK FILED THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME (03/22/2018) WHICH PREVENTED THEM FROM USING (C) TO DISMISS CORLA JACKSON COMPLAINT. 
 









FRAP 25. Filing and Service (a) Filing. (1) Filing with the Clerk. A paper required or permitted to be filed in a court of appeals must be filed with the clerk. (2) Filing: Method and Timeliness. (A) In general. Filing may be accomplished by mail addressed to the clerk, but filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing. (B) A brief or appendix. A brief or appendix is timely filed, however, if on or before the last day for filing, it is: (i) mailed to the clerk by First-Class Mail, or other class of mail that is at least as expeditious, postage prepaid; or (ii) dispatched to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within 3 days.



The Clerk Wasn't Without Authority To File An Appellant's (Timely Filed Motion For An Extension Of Time) On An Appendix Within (14) Days by (12:00) A.M. Midnight, Shipped U.S. Postal Service Time Stamped Overnight (April 13, 2018). There were no recorded docketed deficiency orders issued  (12:00) A.M. Midnight. 


FRAP 26. Computing and Extending Time (a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time. (1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period; (B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and (C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. (2) Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours: (A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period;



Since the trial court's dismissal "with prejudice" was void, it may be attacked either by direct appeal or collateral attack Ex parte Williams, No. 73,845 (Tex.Crim.App. 04/11/2001). A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring). Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 - Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). 

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.


A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. H.).




FRAUD UPON THE COURT:  In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known asfraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.  Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.


A “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by).  No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58). 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.


Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted


A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.


A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. H.).
 


Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574: Void judgment.  One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.  One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.  Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.  Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.  See also Voidable judgment.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574.



CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

 

U.S. Const. amend. XIV: The 14th amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone a right to due process of law, which includes judgments that comply with the rules and case law. Most due process exceptions deal with the issue of notification. If, for example, someone gets a judgement against you in another state without your having been notified, you can attack the judgement for lack of due process of law. In Griffen v. Griffen, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S. Ct. 556, 90 L. Ed. 635 a pro se litigant won his case in the Supreme Court who stated

 

This court has jurisdiction on a void judgment and constitutional issues. 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1).  There is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. The district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).  The Appellant’s Fourth Amendment claim is plainly ripe. The Appellant’s alleged injury is complete. The district court erroneously dismissed the Appellants’ Fourth Amendment claim.




court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.  void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).


Sending the Appellant’s case back to state court while a due process claim still remains an constitutional issue would needlessly.  The Plaintiff has a ripe Section 1983 due process claim. See: Toloczko, 728 F.3d at 398-99.  Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const.


Section 6-5-100: Fraud – Right of action generally. Fraud by one, accompanied with damage to the party defrauded, in all cases gives a right of action. (Code 1907, §2468; Code 1923, §5676; Code 1940, T. 7, §107.).

Section 6-5-255: Failure or refusal of purchaser to reconvey title. If the purchaser or his or her vendee or transferee fails or refuses to reconvey to such party entitled and desiring to redeem such title as the party acquired by the sale and purchase, such party so paying or tendering payment shall thereupon have the right to file in the circuit court having jurisdiction thereof a complaint to enforce his or her rights of redemption.

Since the trial court's dismissal "with prejudice" was void, it may be attacked either by direct appeal or collateral attack Ex parte Williams, No. 73,845 (Tex.Crim.App. 04/11/2001). A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring). Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 - Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).  

Section 6-9-147: Setting aside of sales by courts. Courts have full power over their officers making execution or judicial sales, and whenever satisfied that a sale made under any legal process is infected with fraud, oppression, irregularity, or error to the injury of either party, the sale will be set aside. (Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.).




FRCP RULE 60(b) FRCP Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment and sets forth the following six categories of  reasons for which such relief may be granted: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly-discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; (4) circumstances under which a judgment is void; (5) circumstances under which a judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(1)-(b)(6).  To be entitled to relief, the moving party must establish facts within one of the reasons enumerated in Rule 60(b).



















FRAUD UPON THE COURT:  In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.  Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.



Fraud Committed By Court Means Fraud Upon Court!

THIS DISMISSAL WAS NOT SIGNED BY LAW!







Corla Jackson Did Timely Filed Her Documents To Set Aside A Void Judgment, Which Included An Extension Of Time If Needed To Correct A Deficiency If Needed.  This ORDER On A First Extension Of Time For An Appendix Requesting More Than (14) Days.  Thank God Corla Jackson Filed An Additional Extension Of Time When She Sent In Her Motion-Appendix-Exhibit (A) Requesting Additional Time For More Than (14) Days If Needed-As Needed Within (14) Days, Prior To (12:00) A.M. Midnight Shipped United States Postal Service Overnight Within The Law Giving Her An Additnal (3) Days For The Courts To Receive Her Documnts and Requests By LawSee Receipts via United States Postal Service Time Stamped   


Shipped Timed Stamped United States Postal Service Prior To 12:00 A.M. (04/12/2018)

The clerk shall not dismiss an appeal during the pendency of a timely filed motion for an
extension of time to file appellant’s brief or appendix, but if the court denies such leave after the
expiration of the due date for filing the brief or appendix, the clerk shall dismiss the appeal 
forthwith. The clerk shall not dismiss an appeal during the pendency of a timely filed motion to file documents out of time or otherwise remedy the default which is accompanied by the brief or other required papers, but if the court denies such leave the clerk shall dismiss the appeal forthwith.


FRAP 26. Computing and Extending Time (a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time. (1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period; (B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and (C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. (2) Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours: (A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period;


Whoever Dismissed The Case Covered This Up A Crime By Manipulated The Docket Sheet, With The Intent To Illegally Dismissed Corla Jackson Case Without A Court Order Around The Judges, Using Deceptive Practices. Notice The Dismissal Wasn't Signed By The Judge, Which Made The Order Null and Void!

Corla Jackson Busted The Clerks Because She Knew How The Law Firms Had Clerks Manipulate Docket Sheets To Make Things Appear One Way, When The Issues Were Totally The Opposite Way.  Law Firms Conspire With Clerks To Do Things Like This Using Deceptive Practices With The Intent To Have Cases Illegally Dismissed Based Upon Fraud Upon The Courts.  This Is What You Call Fraud Upon The Court, Which Cannot Be Ignored, Its Recorded Facts!  Read More 


11th Cir. R. 31-2 Briefs and Appendices - Motion to Extend Time.


(a) First Request for an Extension of Time. A party’s first request for an extension of time to file its brief or appendix or to correct a deficiency in the brief or appendix must set forth good cause. A first request for an extension of 14 days or less may be made by telephone or in writing, is not subject to 11th Cir. R. 26-1, and may be granted by the clerk. A first request for an extension of
more than 14 days must be made by written motion setting forth with particularity the facts demonstrating good cause, and will only be acted upon by the court.
When a briefing schedule has been established by court order, a first request for an extension must be made by written motion andwill only be acted upon by the court. Any motion for extension of time by the court shall be subject to 11th Cir. R. 26-1.


Regardless What Anyone Says, Corla Jackson Requested By Motion For An Appendix-Exhibit A Details and A Extension Of Time For More Than (14) Days Prior To Any Order Being Issued By The Clerk, This Was Covered Up And Ignored, This Is Recorded. The Initial Request Was Shipped via United States Postal Mail (03/13/2018) and Was Filed (03/22/2018).

Corla Jackson Requested An Extention Of Time To Detail Her Appendix More Than (14) Days Because This Was A Big Case And GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Was Closed and They Recorded Corla Jackson Complaint Without The (ET, AL.) Knowing Corla Jackson Filed Her Original Complaints As (Corla Jackson vs. GMAC Mortgage Corporation ET, AL.) and There Were Others Invovled!  Corla Jackson Was Waiting On An Court Order Referencing The Extension Of Time To Allow Exhibit (A) and More, Shipped United States Postal Mail (03/13/2018) and Was Filed (03/22/2018). 

 









Shipped Timed Stamped United States Postal Service Prior To 12:00 A.M. (04/12/2018)

The clerk shall not dismiss an appeal during the pendency of a timely filed motion for an
extension of time to file appellant’s brief or appendix, but if the court denies such leave after the
expiration of the due date for filing the brief or appendix, the clerk shall dismiss the appeal 
forthwith. The clerk shall not dismiss an appeal during the pendency of a timely filed motion to file documents out of time or otherwise remedy the default which is accompanied by the brief or other required papers, but if the court denies such leave the clerk shall dismiss the appeal forthwith.


FRAP 26. Computing and Extending Time (a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time. (1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period; (B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and (C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. (2) Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours: (A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period;



HOW DID THE CLERK CLOSED CLOSE THIS CASE PERIOD?





GMAC MORTGAGE LAW FIRM AND ATTORNEY, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND MORE.  THE LAW FIRM DIDN'T DISCLOSE (ALLY-OCWEN-DEUTSCHE BANK) AND MORE, TO THIS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE WHICH IS FRAUD!

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AKA GMAC MORTGAGE LLC WAS CLOSED AND MORE WHEN THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED, THIS IS RECORDED GUARANTEED!


FRAP 26.1. Corporate Disclosure Statement
(a) Who Must File. Any nongovernmental corporate party to a proceeding in a court of
appeals must file a statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held
corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation.
(b) Time for Filing; Supplemental Filing. A party must file the Rule 26.1(a) statement with the
principal brief or upon filing a motion, response, petition, or answer in the court of
appeals, whichever occurs first, unless a local rule requires earlier filing. Even if the
statement has already been filed, the party’s principal brief must include the statement
before the table of contents. A party must supplement its statement whenever the
information that must be disclosed under Rule 26.1(a) changes.
(c) Number of Copies. If the Rule 26.1(a) statement is filed before the principal brief, or if a
supplemental statement is filed, the party must file an original and 3 copies unless the court
requires a different number by local rule or by order in a particular case. 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (CIP):


Filing Requirements.
(a) Paper or E-Filed CIPs.
(1) Every party and amicus curiae (“filers”) must include a certificate of interested persons
and corporate disclosure statement (“CIP”) within every motion, petition, brief, answer,
response, and reply filed.
(2) In addition, appellants and petitioners must file a CIP within 14 days after the date the
case or appeal is docketed in this court.
(3) Also, all appellees, intervenors, respondents, and all other parties to the case or appeal
must file a CIP within 28 days after the date the case or appeal is docketed in this court,
regardless of whether appellants and petitioners have filed a CIP. If appellants and
petitioners have already filed a CIP, appellees, intervenors, respondents, and all other
parties may file a notice either indicating that the CIP is correct and complete, or
adding any interested persons or entities omitted from the CIP.
(b) Web-based CIP. On the same day any filer represented by counsel first files its paper or
e-filed CIP, that filer must also complete the court’s web-based CIP at www.ca11.uscourts.gov. At
the website, counsel for filers will log into the web-based CIP where they will enter stock (“ticker”)
symbol information for publicly traded corporations to be used by the court in electronically checking for recusals. If there is no publicly traded corporation involved, and thus no stock ticker
symbol to enter, the filer still must complete the web-based CIP by entering “nothing to declare.”
Failure to complete the web-based CIP will delay processing of the motion, case, or appeal, and may result in other sanctions under 11th Cir. R. 26.1-5(c).


The e-filing of a CIP by an attorney registered to use the ECF system does not relieve that
attorney of the requirement to complete and keep updated the web-based CIP. Pro se filers (except
attorneys appearing in particular cases as pro se parties) are not required or authorized to complete
the web-based CIP.

11th Cir. R. 26.1-2 CIP: Contents.

(a) General. A CIP must contain a complete list of all trial judges, attorneys, persons,
associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have an interest in the outcome of
the particular case or appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations,
any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of the party’s stock, and other identifiable legal
entities related to a party.


In criminal and criminal-related appeals, the CIP must also disclose the identity of any victims.
In bankruptcy appeals, the CIP must also identify the debtor, the members of the creditor’s
committee, any entity which is an active participant in the proceedings, and other entities whose
stock or equity value may be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

(b) CIPs in Briefs. The CIP contained in the first brief filed must include a complete list of all
persons and entities known to that filer to have an interest in the outcome of the particular case or
appeal. The CIP contained in the second and all subsequent briefs filed may include only persons
and entities omitted from the CIP contained in the first brief filed and in any other brief that has been
filed. Filers who believe that the CIP contained in the first brief filed and in any other brief that has
been filed is complete must certify to that effect.


(c) CIPs in Motions or Petitions. The CIP contained in each motion or petition filed must include
a complete list of all persons and entities known to that filer to have an interest in the outcome of
the particular case or appeal. The CIP contained in a response or answer to a motion or petition, or
a reply to a response, may include only persons and entities that were omitted from the CIP contained
in the motion or petition. Filers who believe that the CIP contained in the motion or petition is
complete must certify to that effect.


(d) CIPs in Petitions for En Banc Consideration. In a petition for en banc consideration, the
petitioner’s CIP must also compile and include a complete list of all persons and entities listed on
all CIPs previously filed in the case or appeal prior to the date of filing of the petition for en banc
consideration. Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-2(b) applies to all en banc briefs.
11th Cir. R. 26.1-3 CIP: Form.


(a) The CIP must list persons (last name first) and entities in alphabetical order, have only one
column, and be double-spaced. (b) A corporate entity must be identified by its full corporate name as registered with a secretary of state’s office and, if its stock is publicly listed, its stock (“ticker”) symbol must be provided after the corporate name. If no publicly traded company or corporation has an interest in the outcome of the case or appeal, a statement certifying to that effect must be included at the end of the CIP and must be entered into the web-based CIP.


(c) At the top of each page, the court of appeals docket number and short style must be noted
(name of first-listed plaintiff or petitioner v. name of first-listed defendant or respondent). Each page
of the CIP must be separately sequentially numbered to indicate the total number of pages
comprising the CIP (e.g., C-1 of 3, C-2 of 3, C-3 of 3). These pages do not count against any length
limitations imposed on the papers filed.


(d) When being included in a document, the CIP must immediately follow the cover page within
a brief, and must precede the text in a petition, answer, motion, response, or reply.
11th Cir. R. 26.1-4 CIP: Amendments. Every filer is required to notify the court immediately of any
additions, deletions, corrections, or other changes that should be made to its CIP. A filer must do
so by filing an amended CIP with the court and by including an amended CIP with all subsequent
filings. A filer:


C must prominently indicate on the amended CIP the fact that the CIP has been amended;
C must clearly identify the person or entity that has been added, deleted, corrected, or otherwise
changed; and
C if represented by counsel, must update the web-based CIP to reflect the amendments on the
same day the amended CIP is filed.

If an amended CIP that deletes a person or entity is filed, every other party must, within 10 days
after the filing of the amended CIP, file a notice indicating whether or not it agrees that the deletion
is proper.



THE CLERKS DIDN'T MENTION THIS GUARANTEED!

HOW DID THE CLERK CLOSED CLOSE THIS CASE PERIOD?


GMAC MORTGAGE LAW FIRM AND ATTORNEY, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND MORE.  THE LAW FIRM DIDN'T DISCLOSE (ALLY-OCWEN-DEUTSCHE BANK) AND MORE, TO THIS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE WHICH IS FRAUD!

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AKA GMAC MORTGAGE LLC WAS CLOSED AND MORE WHEN THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED, THIS IS RECORDED GUARANTEED!

FRAP 26.1. Corporate Disclosure Statement



11th Cir. R. 26.1-5 Failure to Submit a CIP or Complete the Web-based CIP.

(a) The court will not act upon any papers requiring a CIP, including emergency filings, until the
CIP is filed and the web-based CIP is completed, except to prevent manifest injustice.

(b) The clerk is not authorized to submit to the court any brief, petition, answer, motion,
response, or reply that does not contain the CIP, or any of those papers in a case or appeal where the
web-based CIP has not been completed, but may receive and retain the papers pending
supplementation of the papers with the required CIP and pending completion of the web-based CIP.

(c) The failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of
the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both.





When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. H.).

11th Cir. R. 46-5 Entry of Appearance. Every attorney, except one appointed by the court for a specific case, must file an Appearance of Counsel Form in order to participate in a case before the court. The form must be filed within 14 days after the date on the notice from the clerk that the Appearance of Counsel Form must be filed. 85-352 Applies to (1985) requires a lawyers nonfrivolous basis for a lawyer to "bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein." See also ABA Model Rule 3.3. 


When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court's judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.--Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. h.).  Since the trial court's dismissal "with prejudice" was void, it may be attacked either by direct appeal or collateral attack Ex parte Williams, No. 73,845 (Tex.Crim.App. 04/11/2001). 

 

A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring). Section 6-9-147: Setting aside of sales by courts. Courts have full power over their officers making execution or judicial sales, and whenever satisfied that a sale made under any legal process is infected with fraud, oppression, irregularity, or error to the injury of either party, the sale will be set aside. (Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.)


Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.  A “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by).  

 

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion. The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  12 U.S. Code § 2605: Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In reJacobson , 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr.W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).
 

The Appellate Division, Second Department (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]), held that a "foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity." Citing Kluge v Fugazy, the Court (Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243 [1st Dept 1998], held that "[p]laintiff's attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact. Violation of 18 U.S.A. § 1962(b) which prohibits “any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.


The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement 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 judgements 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).


A “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by).  No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58). 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.



Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.  A “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by).  

 






FRAUD UPON THE COURT:  In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.  Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.


FRCP RULE 60(b) FRCP Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment and sets forth the following six categories of  reasons for which such relief may be granted: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly-discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; (4) circumstances under which a judgment is void; (5) circumstances under which a judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(1)-(b)(6).  To be entitled to relief, the moving party must establish facts within one of the reasons enumerated in Rule 60(b).

Conveyances required to be recorded in office of probate judge.  Conveyances of property, required by law to be recorded, must be recorded in the office of the judge of probate.  (Code 1852, §1268; Code 1867, §1537; Code 1876, §2147; Code 1886, §1791; Code 1896, §985; Code 1907, §3367; Code 1923, §6853; Code 1940, T. 47, §94.).

 

Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d _ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”),  initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC. Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void. All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary. (Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.).



Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion. The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  12 U.S. Code § 2605: Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In reJacobson , 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr.W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).



Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA. See: Governed Laws and Security Laws under Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13-using deceptive practices and more.

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.
 

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574: Void judgment.  One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.  One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.  Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.  Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.  See also Voidable judgment.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574.


A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case.A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278. 

 



Rule 30. Appendix to the Briefs

(c) Deferred Appendix.

(1) Deferral Until After Briefs Are Filed. The court may provide by rule for classes of cases or by order in a particular case that preparation of the appendix may be deferred until after the briefs have been filed and that the appendix may be filed 21 days after the appellee's brief is served. Even though the filing of the appendix may be deferred, Rule 30(b) applies; except that a party must designate the parts of the record it wants included in the appendix when it serves its brief, and need not include a statement of the issues presented.

(f) Appeal on the Original Record Without an Appendix. The court may, either by rule for all cases or classes of cases or by order in a particular case, dispense with the appendix and permit an appeal to proceed on the original record with any copies of the record, or relevant parts, that the court may order the parties to file.




Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion. The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  12 U.S. Code § 2605: Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In reJacobson , 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr.W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).


Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA. See: Governed Laws and Security Laws under Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13-using deceptive practices and more.

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.



28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

 



SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE VICTIMS!


This Is The Law Firms Sirote & Permutt P.C. and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings  Involved In Robbing Corla Jackson, the United States Government and More...


H.R.5579 - Emergency Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008


Dodd-Frank: Title XIV



S.325 - Permanently Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2017


H.R.10 - Financial CHOICE Act of 2017






1    2    3    4    5



 


This Is The Law Firms Sirote & Permutt P.C. and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings  Involved In Robbing Corla Jackson, the United States Government and More...


OCWEN



The Stolen Homes Filtered To Law Firms and Deutsche Bank




Corla Reeves Jackson Wasn't Behind In Payments When She Was Robbed



Burden Of Proof Evidence And More Guaranteed!




(A)    (B)    (C)    (D)    (E)    (F)    (G)    (H)    (I)    (J)    (K)



Dodd-Frank: Title XIV


H.R.5579 - Emergency Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008


S.325 - Permanently Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2017


H.R.10 - Financial CHOICE Act of 2017



OCWEN FILED FRIVOLOUS RESPONSES TO CFPB


THE SEC AND MORE GUARANTEED!



1   2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11 





This Area Is Under Construction While Being Updated

Corla Jackson Should Have Won Her Case

She Did File Timely See Receipts

Evidence and More Guaranteed! 


OCWEN






CDC Halt Evictions Covid-19 Pandemic H.R.7301 Emergency Housing Protection CDC and Relief Act of 2020




All Rights Reserved
© Corla Reeves Jackson