Invalid Or Void Orders From Judges

 
 

If you are denied due process in any way the judge's order is
VOID!

Most times you need do nothing, though the police and others
will still act like the order is valid, it is unenforceable in a real
court of law with a real jury!

This mean if you are denied the ability to question witnesses,

offer evidence, testify on your own behalf and many other
technical things the resulting order is void. You should file a
simple notice of appeal letter within 30 days to be safe and
show you do not believe the order is valid, but in any
enforcement action against that order it will be reveled to be
void. I would also get the audio tape and/or a transcript
BEFORE it is needed. Some courts have been accused of editing
tapes. You MUST ask for these rights and should object to not
having them.

I would like to explain that James was Arrested: Special Judge Cantrell
is NOT an elected JUDGE!  Sen. James Williamson (Bar #9698). is in
fact, the County of Tulsa  Attorney and a Senator a conflict of
Emolument, and wholly unconstitutional. Guardian Ad Litem Rick
Clarke is trumping up evaluations to delay decisions. 

It is a fact that James is Sui Juris not Pro Se

It is also a fact that Ex-parte (one-sided) communication with one or

some, but not all parties or attorneys.  Including refusing to listen to a
Sui Juris, Pro Se or Pro Per party.  

It is a fact that the PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER was NOT present! 

Contempt of court the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful

of a court of law. Which in fact James did as he was told.  Which was a
direct violation of Constitutional rights. 

Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the

United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting
 as a judge under the law. He/She is acting as a private person, and
not in the capacity of being a judge (and, therefore, has no
jurisdiction).

The state Supreme Courts have held that those who aid, abet, advise,
act upon and execute the order of a judge who acts without
jurisdiction are equally guilty. They are equally guilty of a crime
against the U.S. Government.  

A voidable order is an order that must be declared void by a judge to

be void; a void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge
and is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge
to be void. Only an inspection of the record of the case showing that
the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a person's due process
rights, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of
jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v.
Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In
instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio
and not voidable because they are already void.

Void Orders
(... with considerable thanks to Guy Taylor, and his copy of Archbold)

This is all largely nothing more than Common Sense, of course .. except for the
constant and consistent gross assumption that "Courts" and "the Judiciary"
have 'power' over the situation (i.e. as if they could make any Law). Law only
comes from sworn Statements of Truth and Juries ... not Judges of any kind, high
or low.

("Law", coming from a Judge, is indistinguishable from "tyranny" ... unless it

completely matches Common Sense ... which everything below actually does ... in
which case ... since it's nothing more than Common Sense ... why did it need a
Judge to say it? We all have as much Common Sense as anyone else).

It is, therefore, only the Common Sense expressed below, that has any LAWFUL
validity, and "deference + forelock-tugging to Courts/Judiciaries" is nothing
more than "legal bollox".
 

Pritchard (deceased) [1963] Upjohn LJ confirmed that:

(i) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;

(ii) a nullity cannot be waived;

(iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and

(iv) a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae ("as of
Right" ... i.e. a litigant is entitled to it merely upon the asking for it - as opposed to
something which may be a matter of judicial discretion or determination.) – to have it
set aside.

A 'voidable' Order is one that could be voided if brought to the attention of a Higher
Court.

1978: Although a void order has no legal effect from the outset, it may sometimes be
necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no brand
of invalidity on its forehead”.

In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] the House of Lords confirmed that:

(i) a void act is void from the outset; and

(ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction
to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because
doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because
such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and
apply the law not reform it(*).

[* Not true, of course: Only a Jury (in a Court de jure), or sworn Statements of
Truth, have the power to make Law. No? OK ... then what's the point of a Jury,
then?]

A ‘void’ order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and
therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be
necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.
[1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978]), whereas a ‘voidable’ order or claim has legal
effect unless and until it is set aside.
Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed, and can be ignored
and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London
Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461), a voidable order or claim has to be
obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside.

A ‘void’ order can be set aside by the Court which made the order, because the Court
has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v
Kanssen [1943]), whereas a ‘voidable’ order can only be set aside by appeal to an
appellate Court.

A void order is incurably void, and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void
act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal
and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void
act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v
United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).

It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity, and a person can ignore the void order
or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough
Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C.
494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v
United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).

Some of the case precedents relating to Void Orders:-

Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921]: If an order is void ab initio (from

the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.

In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd. [1961] Lord Denning confirmed that:

(i) a void order is automatically void without more ado;

(ii) a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void - although
for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order
aside;

(iii) a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid
claim are also void.

What is VOID?
Null; Ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to
support the purpose for which it was intended. “Void” does not always imply entire
nullity; but it is, in a legal sense, subject to large qualifications iu view of all
the circumstances calling for its application, and the rights and interests to be affected
in a given case. Brown v. Brown, 50 N. II. 53S, 552. “Void,” as used in statutes and by
the courts, does not usually mean that the act or proceeding is in absolute nullity.
Kearney v. Vaugliau, 50 Mo. 2S4. There is this difference between the two words “void”
and “voidable;” void means that an instrument or transaction is so nugatory and
ineffectual that nothing can cure it; voidable, when an imperfection or defect can be
cured by the act or confirmation of him who could take advantage of it Thus, while
acceptance of rent will make good a voidable lease, it will not alter in a void lease.
Wharton. The true distinction between void and voidable acts, orders, and judgments is
that the former can always be assailed in any proceeding, and the latter only in a direct
proceeding. Alexander v. Nelson. 42 Ala. 462. The term “void.” as applicable to
conveyances or other agreements, has not at all times been used with technical
precision, nor restricted to its peculiar and limited sense, as contradistinguished from
“voidable;” it being frequently introduced, even by legal writers and jurists, when the
purpose is nothing further than to indicate that a contract was invalid, and not binding
in law. But the distinction between the terms “void” and “voidable,” in
their application to contracts, is often one of great practical importance; and, whenever
entire technical accuracy is required, the term “void” can only be properly applied to
those contracts that are of no effect whatsoever, such as are a mere nullity, and
incapable of confirmation or ratification. Allis v. Billings, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 415, 30 Am.
Dec. 744. Void in part, void in toto. Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 90. Void things are as no
things. People v. Shall, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 778, 7S4.

Law Dictionary: What is VOID? definition of VOID (Black's Law Dictionary)