Some say the statutes begin to run when the person first has knowledge. As you know, we (homeowners, investigators, law enforcement and government) are still learning how this criminal enterprise operates, and we find NEW evidence and information all the time now.
If extrinsic fraud was used to prevent you from properly asserting your rights, then you should be able to go back and reopen up that case. If a party used fraud to obtain a judgment against you, or the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties, that judgment is VOID, and any other act emanating out of that VOID judgment is equally void. Moreover, a void judgment is void even before reversal, meaning you do not need a court to rule that it is void, it already is void. In essence, a void judgment is always void and if you can later prove through new evidence that the judgment is void, you should be able to reopen your case. I want to see people take this new evidence that we are now obtaining through investigations and depositions and use it to get their judgments vacated and get their homes back. We now can prove MERS never had standing to foreclose in its name.
The problem is, ALL OF US have all been forced to act on VOID JUDGMENTS!
My opinion is supported on the following cases:
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).
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. v. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)
322 U.S. 238
HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO.
Rehearing Denied June 12, 1944
Hazel-Atlas commenced the present suit in November, 1941, by filing in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for leave to file a bill of review in the District Court to set aside a judgment entered by that Court against Hazel in 1932 pursuant to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate. Hazel contended that the Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment had been obtained by fraud and supported this charge with affidavits and exhibits.
The judgment is reversed with directions to set aside the 1932 judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, recall the 1932 mandate, dismiss Hartford's appeal, and issue mandate to the District Court directing it to set aside its judgment entered pursuant to the Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate, to reinstate its original judgment denying relief to Hartford, and to take such additional action as may be necessary and appropriate.