AFFIDAVIT FOR FACT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION IN THE STATE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION STATE OF INDIANA STATE OF INDIANA Case No.: 49D10-2110-JC-008784 Demand for Dismissal for MARION SUPERIOR COURT 10 Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing. (Juvenile Division) vs. Special Appearance: 06/29/2022 Time: 10: 00 AM Cheyou El Ex Rel: CHEVVON YOUMANS Alleged Defendant in Error. | DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL COMES NOW the Undersigned, Cheyou El, In Full Life, Sui Haredes, Sui Juris, In Solo Propria a Flesh and Blood Natural Being via special appearance without submitting or consenting to the Court’s jurisdiction now moves this court in the form of a Motion dismiss the above-listed action for lack of ‘subject matter jurisdiction, lack of due process and no legal evidence of a claim provided through tacit agreement / acquiescence to the previous affidavits introduced via I Affiant, the alleged Defendant in Error. In Honour, Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction --——--.NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS a I Affiant furnished via email an Affidavit of Fact/ Writ in the Nature of Discovery — Lawful Warning/Notice with DCS Attorney Maria Tolva Mack On 03/28/2022, compelling the Petitioners/Claimants to provide I Affiant, Alledged Defendant , including Averment of Jurisdiction and Delegation of Authority 2. 1 Affiant filed several documents on 11/16/2021, 03/16/2022,03/28/2022, 04/13/2022, 04/25/2022, 05/08/2022, 05/14/2022 Etc. including Notices from I Affiant and several affidavits. 4. No response nor rebuttal for discovery was provided by Petitioner/Claimant. 5. Petitioner/Claimant ignored / dishonored all of the several affidavits and Notices filed by the I Affiant, Alleged Defendant in Error, Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction -——~.ASSERTIONS 1. Petitioner/Claimant is in agreement that all of the statements made by affidavit via I Affiant are affirmed as truth. 2. Petitioner/Claimant has not stated a verified claim upon which request can be granted. 3. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a justiciable controversy. 5. Petitioner/Claimant has committed barratry upon I Affiant for dishonoring the affidavits. 6. ‘Magistrate Regina Tidwell and Maria Tolva Mack have violated their oath of office. 7. Petitioner/Claimant has violated I Affiant right of due process of law by not providing discovery. 8. Petitioner/Claimant and Magistrate Regina Tidwell and all relevant agents, agencies, officials, administrators, corporations per this case waive all immunities with regard to any non-belligerent tort claims brought against them. Indiana Constitution Section 13. (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial, by an impartial jury, in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. (b) Victims of crime, as defined by law, shall have the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect throughout the criminal justice process; and, as defined by law, to be informed of and present during public hearings and to confer with the prosecution, to the extent that exercising these rights does not, infringe upon the constitutional rights of the accused. (History: As Amended November 5, 1996), Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~- 30f10MEMORANDUM _OF LAW 1) All public officials must take an oath of office to defend the Indiana Constitution and the Constitution for the United States of America. They must honor this oath in the discharge of their duties. Refer to the following statutes: 5US.C. § 3331 states that all publie officers must take an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States of America IC 5-4-1-1 Oaths; officers and deputies; prosecuting attorneys and deputies Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), every officer and every deputy, before entering on the officer's or deputy's official duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and that the officer or deputy will faithfully discharge the duties of such office. (b) A prosecuting attorney and a deputy prosecuting attorney shalltake the oath required under subsection (a) before taking office. (©). This subsection applies to a deputy of a political subdivision.An individual appointed ‘as a deputy is considered an employee of the political subdivision performing ministerial functions on behalf of an officer and is not required to take the oath prescribed by subsection (a). However, if a chief deputy assumes the duties of an office during a vacancy under IC 3-13-11-12, the chief deputy must take the oath required under subsection (a) before entering on the official duties of the office (Formerly: Acts 1852, IRS, ¢.13, 8.1.) As amended by P.L.49-1989, SEC.2: SEC.119. 1176-1999, IC 5-14-3-1 Public policy; construction; burden of proof for nondisclosure Sec. 1. A fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master. Accordingly, its the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. Providing persons with the information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officials and employees, whose duty itis to provide the information. This chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy and place the burden of proof for the nondisclosure of a public record on the public agency that would deny access to the record and not on the person seeking to inspect and copy the record. As added by P.L.19- 1983, SEC.6, Amended by P.L.77-1995, SEC.1. Demand for Dismieeal for Lack of Jurisdiction 4of102) The Indiana Access to Public Records Act is very clear that all public records shall be made freely available within a specific time frame for copies of records to be prepared for public inspection: ‘Access to Public Records Act ( APRA) + Key definitions: Access to Public Records Act (APRA) © “Public Record” means any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine-readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics.” Indiana Court of Appeals has added to this definition materials created Jor or on behalf of a public agency. © “Inspect” includes the right to make notes, abstracts and memoranda, and in the case of aural public records, to listen and manually transcribe or make notes. © Copy” includes photocopying, transcribing by hand, and duplicating electronic data onto disk, and reproducing by any other means, including by digital camera or handheld scanner. APRA: General Rule * Any person may inspect and copy the public records of any public agency during the regular business hours of the agency, except as provided in section 4. * Arequest must (1) identify the record with reasonable particularity; (2) be, at the discretion of the agency, in writing or on agency form. + The agency shall either make the requested copy (if the agency has reasonable access to a copy machine) or allow the person to make a copy on the agency's equipment or on the person's own equipment. * Electronic data storage systems~agency shall make reasonable efforts to provide copy of data to a person if medium requested is compatible with agency's system. 50f10 Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdictionunder APRA: + Respond to requests in person or over telephone within 24 hours of receipt; + Respond to mailed, faxed, or e-mailed requests within 7 calendar days of receipt; + Best practice is to respond in writing to all requests; must respond in writing to deny written requests for records. + Ifdenying records, state reason for denial with citation to authority and give name and title or position of person responsible for denial + Produce records in reasonable time; communication with person requesting is key n will be lengthy, provide groups of records in the interim as Public agency's responsibil + Iftime for produ they are available. Exemptions to Disclosure: I.C.§ 5-14-3-4 + 4(a) Confidential categori © Declared confidential by state statute o Required to be kept confidential by federal law o Declared confidential by rule | © Patient medical records created by a provider o A social security number contained in an agency's records + 4(b) Discretionary categories: (© Investigatory Records of Law Enforcement o Attorney work product Inter or intra-agency deliberative material (© Expressions of opinion or speculative in nature and communicated for purpose of decisionmaking ‘© Personnel file information may be withheld, but some portions must be disclosed: Name, compensation, job title, business address, business telephone number, job description, education and training, previous work experience, or dates of first and last ‘employment; Information relating to status of formal charges against employee; and ° The factual basis for a disciplinary action in which final action has been taken and that resulted in the employee being suspended, demoted, or discharged. *Personnel file must always be made available to the affected ‘employee or applicant. 6 of 10 Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~Denial of Access + Ifdenying records, state reason for denial with citation to authority, and give name and title or position of person responsible for denial, * Agency bears the burden of proving the records are excepted from disclosure under the APRA or other applicable authority. Copying Fees + State agencies may charge $.10 per page. + Other political subdivisions may enact an ordinance charging actual cost + Some of APRA’s general provisions regarding fees are superseded by a specific statute allowing other fees. For example, $5 fee for motor vehicle accident report. 1c. §9-29-41-1 + Agencies may require advance payment Remedies for Violations: 1.C. § 5-14-3-9 + Aperson may file lawsuit to compel the agency to permit inspection and copying. + Court shall expedite hearing. + Attorney fees, court costs, and reasonable expenses of litigation to prevailing plaintiff but must seek and receive PAC advisory or informal inquiry response. ‘Common Problems in APRA + Improperly requiring a subpoena from the requester. The law does not require that, {person obtain a subpoena in order to get disclosable records. + When records contain partially disclosable and partially nondisclosable information, denying access to entire record; the agency must separate and disclose the pul portion of the record. * Not responding within prescribed time + Denying access to records but not indicating the statutory authority + Not regularly communicating with requester when the request is voluminous and agency is taking time to review and compile records + Requiring requester to indicate why he/she wants the records + Assuming certain records are confidential or proprietary absent legal authority Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~ 7of 10Complaint Procedure + Ind, Code 5-14-5 + Complaint must be timely filed + Complaint must allege denial of access + PAC must send complaint to agency + No statutory requirement to invite or consider response, but itis our practice to do so + PAC must issue advisory opinion within 30 days, or 7 days if priority (62 IAC 1) Enforcement Authority + Opinions are advisory only + Apublic agency is required to cooperate with counselor in any investigation or proceeding (1.C. § 5-14-5-5) + Attorney fees, costs, and reasonable expenses of litigation are preserved for prevailing plaintiffs in a lawsuit (LLC. § 5-14-1.5-7; LC. § 5-14-3-9) “A judge is not the court.” People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App. 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626 (1980). ii. ‘The judicial code of conduct of Indiana (A.K.A. judicial canon) contains the following: Canon Rule 1.1: Compliance with the Law A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon Rule 1.2: Promoting confidence in the Judiciary ‘Ajudge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity, and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety Canon Rule 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.* A judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of al litigants, including selfrepresented litigants, to be fairly heard. Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction 8 of 10Canon Rule 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard @ A Judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.” (B)A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement. Canon Rule 2.15: Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct “ ‘A judge having knowledge* that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority." (B)A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. (OA judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action, @ ‘A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action, “U.S. Supreme Court held that state officials acting by ‘color of law" may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign immunity may not be asserted.” “Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US. 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) “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.” -Warnock y. Pecos County, Texas, 116 F.3d 776 No. 96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997. Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction - 9of101) Anestablished maxim of law states that “an unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce”; therefore, any affidavit submitted for the Defendant must be rebutted point-for-point in the form of an affidavit and under the penalty of perjury. If there is no timely rebuttal, then the affidavit submitted must be honored as the judgment and affirmative defense per Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following case law supports this assertion: i “Indeed, no more than [an affidavit] is necessary to make the prima facie case.” —United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. Salkin v. United States, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S. Ct. 1712, 72 L. Bd. 2d 135 (1982). ii, “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated, and if this is routine, it should be corrected immediately.” —United States v. Tweel, 5950 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. 2) An injury in fact (corpus delicti) due to the alleged conduct of the undersigned Attorney in Fact for the Defendant in Error has not been introduced into the record; therefore, there is no claim upon which relief can be granted, and the court is without subject matter jurisdiction in order to properly adjudicate a justiciable controversy. i, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (F.R.CP.), Rule 2: “There is one form of action — the civil action.” ii, “Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum standing contains three elements. First, the Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be “fairly... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not... the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, it must be likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” -Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al., 504 U.S. 555 (1992) Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~ ------ 100f10iii, corpus delicti (noun) — the body of a crime; the body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e.g. the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down. People v. Dick, 37 Cal. 251; White v. State, 49 Ala. 347; Goldman v. Com., 100 Va, 805, 42 S. E. 923; State v. Hand, 1 Marv. (Del.) 545, 41 Atl. 192; State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 441 (Black's Law, 2nd ed.) 3) As contract makes the law, there is no lawful contract known or revealed tome, the Attomey in Fact for the alleged Defendant, that compels me to perform or to accept liability as trustee for this constructive commercial trust brought forth with color under 27 C.F.R. § 72.11 (see “commercial crimes”). i. In order to be a legally binding agreement, contract law provides that there must be (1) an offer, (2) valuable consideration, (3) two or more parties capable of contracting or entering into an agreement, (4) an ‘unambiguous acceptance of the offer, and (5) mutual consideration (“a meeting of the minds”). In some cases, a written agreement may be required with the signatures by all parties on the contract according to the statute of frauds. Full disclosure of the terms of the contract is imperative, and any fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation makes a contract void and unenforceable [see Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948); Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 112 F.3d 787 (1998); Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 433 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)] When I was ia baby, I could not lawfully consent to be the trustee for the United States Citizen / Cestui Que Vie Trust / Maritime Vessel with the name of Ex Rel: CHEVVON YOUMANS. Further, by not responding to any of the several affidavits submitted by the I Affiant the Alleged Defendant in Error, Petitioner/Claimant agrees that there is no lawful initial contract that can be introduced into the record with the wet ink signature of the Undersigned. Therefore, without a contract, there is no case [see Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] 11 of 10 Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Juriediction -:CONCLUSION | THEREFORE, this Demand shall be lawfully honored due to the facts made known herein before the court that Magistrate Regina Tidwell is operating from the bench under Color-of-Authority, that Discovery was not sufficiently provided per the Affidavit of Fact/Writ In the Nature of Discovery — Lawful Warning/Notice introduced for I Affiant, Alleged Defendant, that the impartiality of the judge is in doubt, that Petitioner/Claimant is in agreement with all of the affidavits for Alleged Defendant, that Petitioner/Claimant has not properly submitted a claim upon which request can be granted, and that there is no initial contract between the parties in this matter. For the above-listed reasons, the Undersigned declares that this court is, without subject matter jurisdiction and that this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and in the interest of justice as Petitioner/Claimant has been allotted the appropriate time to respond to cure their fault and dishonor. I do not claim any benefit of said guarantees and are included solely ag a reference to the law and conduct of named and unnamed Respondents and are used due to the oaths being sworn upon it and no adherence or non-adherence to any organized religious group including but not limited to registered corporate organizations on the I Affiant may be assumed. Ce Secretary of State: Holli Sullivan Attorney General: Todd Rokita Prosecutor: Ryan Wilson Mears Superior Court Magistrate: Regina Tidwell DCS Attomey: Maria Mack CPS Case Manager: Eric MeDonald EtAl Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction 12of 10Beneficiary Authorized Representative Ex Relatione: CHEVVON YOUMANS Appellation Cheyou El “All Rights Reserved” "Without Recourse” U.C.C. 1-207/ 1-308; U.C.C. 1-103.6 Domicile: Exempt (301 North Shortridge Road Indianapolis IN, 46219} Non-Domestic: Non-Assumpsit In Honour, Iam, Cheyou Persona A Free and Soverei r/soor American Nene Ames Notes ie / Ne Anca Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ——~ALS AFFIDAVIT FOR FACT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION INTHE STATE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION STATE OF INDIANA STATE OF INDIANA Case No.: 49D10-2110-JC-008785 Demand for Dismissal for MARION SUPERIOR COURT 10 Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing. (Juvenile Division) vs. Special Appearance: 06/29/2022 Time: 10:00 AM Cheyou El Ex Rel: CHEVVON YOUMANS Alleged Defendant in Error. JEMAND FOR DISMISSAL COMES NOW the Undersigned, Cheyou El, in Full Life, Sui Haredes, Sui Juris, In Solo Propria a Flesh and Blood Natural Being via special appearance without submitting or consenting to the Court’s jurisdiction now moves this court in the form of a Motion dismiss the above-listed action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of due process and no legal evidence of a claim provided through tacit agreement / acquiescence to the previous affidavits introduced via I Affiant, the alleged Defendant in Error. In Honour, 2, lam, a In Broptia Persona EA Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT MEMORANDUM _OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 1 1 Affiant furnished via email an Affidavit of Fact/ Writ in the Nature of Discovery — Lawful Warning/Notice with DCS Attorney Maria Tolva Mack On 03/28/2022, compelling the Petitioners/Claimants to provide I Affiant, Alledged Defendant , including Averment of Jurisdiction and Delegation of Authority 2: I Affiant filed several documents on 11/16/2021, 03/16/2022,03/28/2022, 04/13/2022, 04/25/2022, 05/08/2022, 05/14/2022 Etc. including Notices from I Affiant and several affidavits. 4 No response nor rebuttal for discovery was provided by Petitioner/Claimant. ce Petitioner/Claimant ignored / dishonored all of the several affidavits and Notices filed by the I Affiant, Alleged Defendant in Error. Demand for Dismissal for Lack of JurisdictionASSERTIONS L Petitioner/Claimant is in agreement that all of the statements made by affidavit via I Affiant are affirmed as truth. 2. Petitioner/Claimant has not stated a verified claim upon which request can be granted. 3 This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a justiciable controversy. 5. Petitioner/Claimant has committed barratry upon I Affiant for dishonoring the affidavits, 6. Magistrate Regina Tidwell and Maria Tolva Mack have violated their oath of office. 7. Petitioner/Claimant has violated | Affiant right of due process of law by not providing discovery. 8B Petitioner/Claimant and Magistrate Regina Tidwell and all relevant agents, agencies, officials, administrators, corporations per this case waive all immunities with regard to any non-belligerent tort claims brought against them. Indiana Constitution Section 13. (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial, by an impartial jury, in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. (b) Victims of crime, as defined by law, shall hrave the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect throughout the criminal Justice process; and, as defined by law, to be informed of and present during public hearings and to confer with the prosecution, to the extent that exercising these rights does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the accused. (History: As Amended November 5, 1996). Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~ 30f10MEMORANDUM _ OF LAW 1) Alll public officials must take an oath of office to defend the Indiana Constitution and the Constitution for the United States of America. They must honor this oath in the discharge of their duties. Refer to the following statutes: 5.U.S.C. § 3331 states that all public officers must take an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States of America, IC 5-4-1-1 Oaths; officers and deputies; prosecuting attorneys and deputies Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), every officer and every deputy, before entering on the officer's or deputy's official duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and that the officer or deputy will faithfully discharge the duties of such office. (©) A prosecuting attorney and a deputy prosecuting attorney shalltake the oath required under subsection (a) before taking office. (©) This subsection applies to a deputy of a political subdivision.An individual appointed as a deputy is considered an employee of the political subdivision performing ministerial functions on behalf of an officer and is not required to take the oath prescribed by subsection (a). However, if a chief deputy assumes the duties of an office during a vacancy under IC 3-13-11-12, the chief deputy must take the oath required under subsection (a) before entering on the official duties of the office. (Formerly: Acts 1852, IRS, ¢.13, 5.1.) As amended by P.L.49-1989, SEC.2: SEC.I19. 1176-1999, IC 5-14-3-1 Public policy; construction; burden of proof for nondisclosure Sec. 1. A fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master. Accordingly, its the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. Providing persons with the information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officials and employees, whose duty itis to provide the information. This chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy and place the burden of proof for the nondisclosure of a public record on the public agency that would deny access to the record and not on the person seeking to inspect and copy the record. As added by P.L.19- 1983, SEC.6, Amended by P.L.77-1995, SEC.1. Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction2) The Indiana Access to Public Records Act is very clear that all public records shall be made freely available within a specific time frame for copies of records to be prepared for public inspection: ‘Access to Public Records Act ( APRA) + Key definitions: Access to Public Records Act (APRA) © “Public Record” means any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine-readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics.” Indiana Court of Appeals has added to this definition materials created ‘for or on behalf of a public agency. © “Inspect” includes the right to make notes, abstracts and memoranda, and in the case of aural public records, to listen and manually transcribe or make notes, © Copy” includes photocopying, transcribing by hand, and duplicating electronic data onto disk, and reproducing by any other means, including by digital camera or handheld scanner. APRA: General Rule * Any person may inspect and copy the public records of any public agency during the regular business hours of the agency, except as provided in section 4. * Arequest must (1) identify the record with reasonable particularity; (2) be, at the discretion of the agency, in writing or on agency form. + The agency shall either make the requested copy (if the agency has reasonable access to a copy machine) or allow the person to make a copy on the agency's equipment or on the person's own equipment. * Electronic data storage systems~agency shall make reasonable efforts to provide copy of data to a person if medium requested is compatible with agency's system. Demand for Dismissal for Lack of JurisdictionPublic agency's res under APRA: + Respond to requests in person or over telephone within 24 hours of receipt; + Respond to mailed, faxed, or e-mailed requests within 7 calendar days of receipt; * Best practice is to respond in writing to all requests; must respond in writing to deny written requests for records. + Ifdenying records, state reason for denial with citation to authority and give name and title or position of person responsible for denial. + Produce records in reasonable time; communication with person requesting is key + Iftime for production will be lengthy, provide groups of records in the interim as, they are available. Exemptions to Disclosure: .C.§ 5-14-3-4 + Ala) Confidential categories: © Declared confidential by state statute o Required to be kept confidential by federal law o Declared confidential by rule © Patient medical records created by a provider o A social security number contained in an agency's records + Alb) Discretionary categories: © Investigatory Records of Law Enforcement o Attorney work product Inter or intra-agency deliberative material Expressions of opinion or speculative In nature and communicated for purpose of decisionmaking © Personne file information may be withheld, but some portions must be disclosed: Name, compensation, job title, business address, business telephone number, job description, education and training, previous work experience, or dates of first and last employment; Information relating to status of formal charges against employee; and ‘The factual basis for a disciplinary action in which final action has been taken and that resulted in the employee being suspended, demoted, or discharged. *Personnel file must always be made a employee or applicant. lable to the affected 6 of 10 Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~Denial of Access + Ifdenying records, state reason for denial with citation to authority, and give name and title or position of person responsible for denial. * Agency bears the burden of proving the records are excepted from disclosure under the APRA or other applicable authority. Copying Fees + State agencies may charge $.10 per page. + Other political subdivisions may enact an ordinance charging actual cost + Some of APRA’s general provisions regarding fees are superseded by a specific statute allowing other fees. For example, $5 fee for motor vehicle accident report. LC. § 9-29-11. : ‘Agencies may require advance payment Remedies for Violations: 1.C. § 5-14-3-9 + Aperson may file lawsuit to compel the agency to permit inspection and copying. + Court shall expedite hearing. + Attorney fees, court costs, and reasonable expenses of litigation to prevailing plaintiff but must seek and receive PAC advisory or informal inquiry response. ‘Common Problems in APRA Improperly requiring a subpoena from the requester. The law does not require that 2 person obtain a subpoena in order to get disclosable records. * When records contain partially disclosable and partially nondisclosable information, denying access to entire record; the agency must separate and portion of the record. isclose the public : Not responding within prescribed time . Denying access to records but not indicating the statutory authority : Not regularly communicating with requester when the request is voluminous and agency is taking time to review and compile records . Requiring requester to indicate why he/she wants the records . ‘Assuming certain records are confidential or proprietary absent legal authority Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~ 7 of 10Complaint Procedure + Ind, Code 5-14-5 + Complaint must be timely filed + Complaint must allege denial of access + PAC must send complaint to agency + No statutory requirement to invite or consider response, but itis our practice to do so * PAC must issue advisory opinion within 30 days, or 7 days if priority (62 IAC 1) Enforcement Authority + Opinions are advisory only * ‘A public agency is required to cooperate with counselor in any investigation or proceeding (I.C. § 5-14-5-5) * Attorney fees, costs, and reasonable expenses of litigation are preserved for prevailing plaintiffs in a lawsuit (1.C. § 5-14-1.5-7; LC. § 5-14-3-9) “A judge is not the court.” -People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App. 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626 (1980). ii, The judicial code of conduct of Indiana (A.K.A. judicial canon) contains the following: Canon Rule 1.1: Compliance with the Law A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon Rule 1.2: Promoting confidence in the Judiciary ‘Ajudge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity, and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and. the appearance of impropriety Canon Rule 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness ‘A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.* A judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court, rules, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including selfrepresented litigants, to be fairly heard. Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction 8 of 10Canon Rule 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard @ A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a Proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.* (B)A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement. Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct a) ‘A judge having knowledge* that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.* (B)A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. (COA judge who receives credible information indicating @ substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action. (a) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action. “U.S. Supreme Court held that state officials acting by ‘color of law’ may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign immunity may not be asserted.” “Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) “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.” -Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 116 F.3d.776 No. 96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997. Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction 9of101) Anestablished maxim of law states that “an unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce”; therefore, any affidavit submitted for the Defendant must be rebutted point-for-point in the form of an affidavit and under the penalty of perjury. If there is no timely rebuttal, then the affidavit submitted must be honored as the judgment and affirmative defense per Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following case law supports this assertion: i, “Indeed, no more than {an affidavit] is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (Tth Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom, Salkin v. United States, 455 US. 1018, 102 S Ct. 1712, 72 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1982). ii, “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated, and if this is routine, it should be corrected immediately.” —United States v. Tweel, 590 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. 2) An injury in fact (corpus delicti) due to the alleged conduct of the undersigned Attorney in Fact for the Defendant in Error has not been introduced into the record; therefore, there is no claim upon which relief can be granted, and the court is without subject matter jurisdiction in order to properly adjudicate a justiciable controversy. i, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (FR.CP.), Rule 2: “There is one form of action — the civil action.” ii, “Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum standing contains three elements. First, the Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of | — the injury has to be “fairly... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not... the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.’ Third, it must be likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” -Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~iii, corpus delicti (noun) ~ the body of a crime; the body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e.g. the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down. People v. Dick, 37 Cal. 281; White v. State, 49 Ala. 347; Goldman v. Com., 100 Va, 805, 42S. E. 923; State v. Hand, 1 Marv. (Del.) 545, 41 Ad. 192; State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 441 (Black’s Law, 2nd ed.) 3) As contract makes the law, there is no lawful contract known or revealed to me, the Attomey in Fact for the alleged Defendant, that compels me to perform or to accept liability as trustee for this constructive commercial trust brought forth with color under 27 C.F.R. § 72.11 (see “commercial crimes”). i, Inorder to be a legally binding agreement, contract law provides that there must be (1) an offer, (2) valuable consideration, (3) two or more parties capable of contracting or entering into an agreement, (4) an ‘unambiguous acceptance of the offer, and (5) mutual consideration (“a meeting of the minds”). In some cases, a written agreement may be required with the signatures by all parties on the contract according to the statute of frauds. Full disclosure of the terms of the contract is imperative, and any fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation makes a contract void and unenforceable . [sce Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948); Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 112 F.3d 781 (1998); Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 433 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)] ‘When I was a baby, I could not lawfully consent to be the trustee for the United States Citizen / Cestui Que Vie Trust / Maritime Vessel with the name of Ex Rel: CHEVVON YOUMANS. Farther, by not responding to any of the several affidavits submitted by the I Affiant the Alleged Defendant in Error, Petitioner/Claimant agrees that there is no lawful initial contract that can be introduced into the record with the wet ink signature of the Undersigned, ‘Therefore, without a contract, there is no ease [see Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction -—~ 11 of 10CONCLUSION THEREFORE, this Demand shall be lawfully honored due to the facts made known herein before the court that Magistrate Regina Tidwell is operating from the bench under Color-of-Authority, that Discovery was not sufficiently provided per the Affidavit of Fact/Writ In the Nature of Discovery — Lawful Warning/Notice introduced for I Affiant, Alleged Defendant, that the impartiality of the judge is in doubt, that Petitioner/Claimant is in agreement with all of the affidavits for Alleged Defendant, that Petitioner/Claimant has not properly submitted a claim upon which request can be granted, and that there is no initial contract between the parties in this matter. For the above-listed reasons, the Undersigned declares that this court is without subject matter jurisdiction and that this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and in the interest of justice as Petitioner/Claimant has been allotted the appropriate time to respond to cure their fault and dishonor. I do not claim any benefit of said guarantees and are included solely as a reference to the law and conduct of named and unnamed Respondents and are used due to the oaths being sworn upon it and no adherence or non-adherence to any organized religious group including but not limited to registered corporate organizations on the I Affiant may be assumed. Ce: Secretary of State: Holli Sullivan Attorney General: Todd Rokita Prosecutor: Ryan Wilson Mears Superior Court Magistrate: Regina Tidwell DCS Attorney: Maria Mack CPS Case Manager: Eric MeDonald Et AL Denand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~:Beneficiary Authorized Representative Ex Relatione: CHEVVON YOUMANS Appellation Cheyou El “All Rights Reserved” “Without Recourse” U.C.C. 1-207/ 1-308; U.C.C. 1-103.6 Domicile: Exempt [301 North Shortridge Road Indianapolis IN, 46219} Non-Domestic: Non-Assumpsit In Honour, Tam, réyou El, in Propria Persona A Free and Sovereign Muur/Moor American Nox Aten Note Abia / oth Amn Demand for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction ~~:ABOUT DEFECTIVE WRITS AND VOIDS “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.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 A writ may be void because it is defective in language, because the court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ; Big Torts 122 nixon v. Reeves, 65 Minn. 159, 67 n.W. 989, 33 L.R.A. 506. see Bouviers Law Encyclopedia Rawles 3" revision Pg. 1182. ‘The Clerk of the court who issues a defective writ, or one not authorized by the Court, is liable: and so is a judge who orders a writ which he had no right to issue or where he had no jurisdiction Big torts 128 see Bouviers Law Encyclopedia Rawles 3 revision Pg. 1182. WHEREAS, “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US. 436 WHEREAS, A Self-Executing Constitutional Provision. is defined as immediately effective without the necessity of ancillary legislation. Cleary v. Kincaid, 23 Idaho, 789, 131 P. 1117, 1118; Stange v. City of Cleveland, 94 Ohio St. 377, 114 N.E. 261, 262. full Faith and Credit via Article 4 section 1. THEREFORE, with respect to the Facts and Laws herein, and Self Executing Provisions mentioned and directed to the Court herein, it is obligatory upon the Officers of the MARION SUPERIOR COURT 10 (Juvenile Division), DCS / CPS / CHINS to terminate this matter and return and release my offspring Meme El & Crisalis El, any finances that were submitted under threat, duress and coercion as was stated by me as a matter of record, Ab Inifio, upon receipt of this Notice. and All officers, administrators agents, administrative agencies, and parties involved be sanctioned for their violations against the law and the rights of the people, of which they have an oath bound and fiduciary duty to uphold, protect and preserve.ABOUT DEFECTIVE WRITS AND VOIDS “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.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 A writ may be void because it is defective in language, because the court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ; Big Torts 122 nixon v. Reeves, 65 Minn. 159, 67 n.W, 989, 33 LIR.A. 506. see Bouviers Law Encyclopedia Rawles 3" revision Pg. 1182. ‘The Clerk of the court who issues a defective writ, or one not authorized by the Court, is liable; and so is a judge who orders a writ which he had no right to issue or where he had no jurisdiction Big torts 128 see Bouviers Law Encyclopedia Rawles 3” revision Pg. 1182. WHEREAS, “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 WHEREAS, A Self-Executing Constitutional Provision. is defined as immediately effective without the necessity of ancillary legislation. Cleary v. Kincaid, 23 Idaho, 789, 131 P. 1117, 1118; Stange v. City of Cleveland, 94 Ohio St. 377, 114 N.E. 261, 262. full Faith and Credit via Article 4 section 1. THEREFORE, with respect to the Facts and Laws herein, and Self Executing Provisions mentioned and directed to the Court herein, it is obligatory upon the Officers of the MARION SUPERIOR COURT 10 (Juvenile Division), DCS / CPS / CHINS to terminate this matter and return and release my offspring Meme El & Crisalis El, any finances that were submitted under threat, duress and coercion as was stated by me as a matter of record, Ab Inifio, upon receipt of this Notice. and All officers, administrators agents, administrative agencies, and parties involved be sanctioned for their violations against the law and the rights of the people, of which they have an oath bound and fiduciary duty to uphold, protect and preserve.The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b). Prather vLoyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228. A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments " 44, 45. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. No Opportunity to Be Heard A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. "A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861: "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, Which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) An illegal order is forever void.The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b). Prather vLoyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228. A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... Itis not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments " 44, 45. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. No Opportunity to Be Heard A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. "A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861: “A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial treo, Which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) An illegal order is forever void.Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 1 ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. “If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370. Federal judges issued orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in federal courts. After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen corruptly seized and started to liquidate Stich’s assets, Judge Jones issued an unconstitutional order barring Stich from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation. Void Orders Can Be Attacked At Any Time An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 211 ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (8th Cir. 1985) (‘Portion of judgment directing defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining approval ... was not appropriately limited in duration and, thus, district court abused its discretion by not vacating it as being prospectively inequitable." Id at 722.Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 1 ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. “If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A Void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370. Federal judges issued orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in federal courts. After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen corruptly seized and started to liquidate Stich’s assets, Judge Jones issued an unconstitutional order barring Stich from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation. Void Orders Can Be Attacked At Any Time An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 1 ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) (‘Portion of judgment directing defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining approval ... was not appropriately limited in duration and, thus, district court abused its discretion by not vacating it as being prospectively inequitable." Id at 722.