Clerk Backdated A Deficiency Notice Dated (March 23, 2018) Time Stamping and Recording It On (March 22, 2018) Prior To Being Created. It Was Impossible and Illegal For The Clerk To Time Stamp and Record A Deficiency Notice (March 22, 2018) Through The Court, Prior To Being Created.

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.

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.).

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 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.  We multiple violations for a Void Judgment in this particular case.

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).   

Clerk Committed Fraud Upon The Court

Exhibit (A-1): USCA11 Case: 17-12563   Date Filed: 03/22/2018   Page: 1 of 1

Judge Hull Original Order: Corla Jackson Presented A (Non-Frivolous) Issue On Appeal

Exhibit (A-2): USCA11 Case: 17-12563   Date Filed: 02/01/2018   Page: 1 of 2

Judge Marcus, Wilson, and Martin Never Signed The Order For The Clerk.  We All See Why Now 

Exhibit (A-3): USCA11 Case: 16-10132   Date Filed: 05/06/2016   Page: