The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. Vallely 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 judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply VOID, AND THIS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL." [Emphasis added]; Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808).
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE LAW THAT ALL PRIOR JUDGMENTS ARE VOID AB INITIO AND MUST BE VACATED FORTHWITH
1. "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). The judgment being a mere nullity and open to collateral attack, any attempt, by process based upon it, to reach the property of the person against whom it is rendered, is an unlawful invasion of his rights of property, against which, in the absence of other adequate remedy, he is entitled to injunction. An attempt to enforce by process such a nullity is as devoid of lawful authority as would be a seizure without process.” (with emphasis) August Kern Barber Supply Co. v. Freeze, 96 Tex. 513, 516, 74 S.W. 303, 304 (1903). The homeowner’s ejectment from their property was devoid of lawful or legal authority; was a seizure without due process and an unlawful invasion of the homeowner's rights of property. (See Kern)
2. Plaintiff requests this Court take judicial notice of Exhibit-B, certified as fraudulent, as it presents the Court with prima facia evidence that the Banksters were never the owner or holder of the Note or Deed of Trust at the times they filed the foreclosure action, and obtained judgment, and therefore lacked legal standing or legal authority to obtain judgment in the action. The documents support the Court was patently devoid of jurisdiction to grant judgment; and any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is not voidable – but void.
3. A judgment is void if it is shown that the court lacked jurisdiction 1) over a party or the property; 2) over the subject matter; 3) to enter a particular judgment; or 4) to act as a court. Jurisdiction could not be conferred by waiver or retroactively. Elna Pfeffer et al v. Alvin Meissner et al (11/23/55) 286 S.W.2d 241. A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. - Waco 1951).
4. A void judgment is a nullity, a brutum fulmen and is subject to collateral attack and may be stricken at any time. The passage of time cannot make valid that which has always been void. Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt Oil Corporation, Tex. Civ. Appl, 179 S.W.2d 346, 348. (Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum, “Judgments” §§ 499, 512 546, 549.)
5. The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. Vallely 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 judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply VOID, AND THIS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL." [Emphasis added]; Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808).
6. The Court did act beyond its authority, and certainly in contravention of it, and the homeowner seeks a declaration that the Court’s judgments and orders are a nullity, and any judgments, orders, or acts borne out of a breeder void judgment would not be any less repugnant and would, consequentially, be equally VOID. A judgment not merely erroneous, but an absolute nullity, can have no binding force, either in the tribunal in which it was rendered or in any other in which it may be brought in question. 25 Tex. Jur. 551, Sec. 156.
7. "The court has not only the power but the duty to vacate the inadvertent entry of a void judgment at any time… with or without a motion therefor.” Bridgman v. Moore 143 Tex. 250, 183 S.W. 2d 705, 707. The following authorities are in accord with the rule announced in the Bridgman case: Mosier v. Meek Tex Civ. App., 235 S.W. 2s 686; Barton v. Montex Corporation, Tex. Civ. App., 295 S.W. 950.
8. A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been said to be in law - no judgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). Also, a void judgment has been defined as "one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at anytime and at any place directly or collaterally." Black's Law Dictionary; Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1087, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1935, writ ref.); Gentry v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 379 S.W.2d 114, 119, (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1964, writ ref., n.r.e., 386 S.W.2d 758).
9. It has also been held that "It is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside. It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral.' Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.)