Wanda Satterthwaite Writ of Certiorari (More Details)

 

No.___________

____________________

 

IN THE

United States Supreme Court

____________________

 

WANDA SATTERTHWAITE et al

Petitioner,

v.

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, et al

Respondent(s).

____________________

 

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit

 

 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

 

 

Wanda Satterthwaite c/o Marlene Santiago

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................... ii

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………iii

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................................. 1

 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................................... 16

 

LIST OF PARTIES............................................................................ 18

 

OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................................... 20

 

JURISDICTION ................................................................................. 22

 

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION………………………… 18

 

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… 21

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................ 21

 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ......................................... 33

 

CONCLUSION................................................................................... 38

 

 

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND CASES

CASES:

1.     Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980) ……………………………………..1

2.     Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981) ………………………………………......1

United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882] ……………………………….1

3.     Woodrick v. Jack J. Burke Real Estate,

306 NJ Super 61 (App. Div. 1997) ……………………..………………….2

4.     Perez v. Rent A Center,

892 A.2d 1255 (Sup. Ct, NJ., 2006) ………………………………...………..2

5.     Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Plymouth Gem

Industries, 1997 WL 34628991 ……………………………………..………..2

6.     Griffen v. Griffen, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S. Ct. 556, 90 L. Ed. 635 …3,28

7.     Williamson v. Berry, 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170,

1189(1850) …………………………………………..……………………...3,9

8.     Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906 ………………………………………………...3

9.              Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907) ……………………………………………………………………………...3,37

10.  Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994) …………………………6,9,10,32

11.  Haun v. Steigleder, 830 S.W.2d 833, 834 ……………….……………………37

12.  Dallas County v. Sweitzer, 971 S.W.2d 629, 630 …………………………….37

13.           Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 827 ……………………...37

14.           Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV ……………………4,5,8,34

15.           Long v. Shorebank Development Corp.,6 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999) …………………………..……………………………………….…………….33,36,38

16.           State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486 …………………….5,11,21,34,37

17.           Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394 …………….…………….21

18.           National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257, 25 S.Ct. 70, 49 L.Ed. 184 ………………………………………………………………………………….21         

19.           Adam v. Saenger, 303 U. S. 59, 62 ………………….………………………21

20.           Milliken, supra, at 462 ………………..……………………………………….21

21.           Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U. S. 222, 233 ………………………21

22.           King v. Taylor, 188 N.C. 450, 451, 124 S.E. 751, 751 ……………………19

23.           Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 …………….. 4,5,11,18,21,33,34,38

24.           Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 ……………………………………18,19

25.           Mellon Service Co. v. Touche Ross & Co., 946 S.W.2d 862, 864 …………………………………………………………………………….24,57

26.           Merck & Co. v. Biorganic Laboratories, Inc., ……………………………….9

27.           Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, Inc. 124 N.J. 398, 409 …...9

28.           Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J.498, 505 (1991) ……………………………...9

29.           Stamps v. Ford Motor Co., 650 F. Supp. 390, 404 ……..………………….8

30.           Dodrill v. Ludt, 764 F.2d 442, 444 ……………………………………………..8

31.           No East-West Highway Committee v. Chandler, 767 F.2d 21, 24 …………8

32.           Falcon v. General Tel. Co., 815 F.2d 317, 320 .……………………………..8

33.           Pontarelli Limousine, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 929 F.2d 339, 340 ……..…..8

34.           Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 970 F.2d 1138, 1146 ……………………………………..…………………………………8

35.           Accord v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 55 F.3d at 598 ……………………………….8

36.           Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368,374 ………………………………………….7,8

37.           Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, p. 569 …………………………………………7,8

38.           El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 …………………………………………..……………………………………4,5,6,21,34

39.           Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) ……………………………………….……………………………………3,6

STATUTES AND RULES:

1.    U.S. Constitution , Amend. XIV …………………………………………….18

2.    U.S. Constitution , Amend. I ………………………………………………..18

3.    Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b)(1) ……………………………………………………16

4.    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) ………………………………….…………………..16

5.    Fed. R. App. Proc. 30(f) …………………………………………………….16

6.    Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4) ……………………………..2,4,6,13,37

7.    28 U.S.C. §1254 (1) ………………………………………………..16

8.    28 U.S.C. §1332(a) …………………………………………………………..16

9.    28 U.S.C. § 1738 ………………………………………………………..9,14,34

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.    Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause permit a court to vacate voided judgment that no longer exists but previously issued by a Court, in violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process protection? A Court must declare the judgment void because the court may not address the merits. A Party affected by void judicial action need not appeal. 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 does not affect, impair, or create legal rights. 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, because a void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. And therefore, a void order cannot be litigated.

 

2.    Can a court deny a Motion to Set Aside Void Orders and then sanction parties for this valid legal request, and does such acts violate the 14th Amendment Due Process protection in relation to void judgments under Fed. R. App. Proc. §60(b)(4) which states: “that there is no statute of limitations on filings in a complaint based upon fraud or fraud upon the court”?  The Motion to Set Aside was completely ignored by the court and so we present the question.

 

3.   Can court deny Full, Faith and Credit to Valid Certify Order with a DNA attached? 28 U.S.C. § 1738, declares that these materials should receive “the same full faith and credit” in each state that they have in the state “from which they are taken.” Section 2 clause 1 reads: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” This clause ensures equal treatment to the citizens of all the states by the Congress.

 

4.    Can a Court deny a motion citing Fraud on the Court/Concealment of Evidence regarding personal jurisdiction without fair Due Process, without time for discovery or evidentiary hearing of disputed facts and fraud which would determine false judgments that continued thereafter? This extraterritorial operation which is demanded under article IV, § 1 of United States Constitution and acts of Congress are impeachable for manifest fraud.

 

5.    Can a Court Grant a Motion predicate on Illegitimate Ex-Post Facto, hearsay, and speculation in 2016 as the Rule of Law when hearsay is not permissible in court and no seal order existed for litigation in question dated November 17, 2014?  By the use of illegal Ex Pos Facto, and hearsay, Court sanctioned parties such as Wanda for attorney fees, and requisite judgment bond as an equitable lien on Coley’s residential property. Doing so when no money is owed to the court. Did the Court used criminal statutes in non-criminal case as Rule of Law?  Then, subsequently, did not serve or notice the party of judgment as required under FRAP 25(a)(2)(b)?

 

6.    Can the court deny a Motion to Obtain Records on Appeal to Select Parties while giving records to others in a manner that violates or is in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment Due Process protection? Insomuch doing so by the Court then proceeded to apply sanctions on the party for seeking the true abstract of the court records on appeal.

 

7.    Can an Appeal Support a VOID JUDGMENT? When appeal is made taken from a void judgment, the Appellate Court  must declare the judgment void, because the appellate court  may not address the merits. “This appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal from a void judgment.” Mellon Service Co. v. Touche Ross & Co., 946 S.W.2d 862, 864 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). The also laments justly, because jurisdiction is fundamental, an appellate court must determine, *847 even sua sponte, whether it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal” id.

8.    Can an Appeal support one party, a female, being subject to laws of the state, in this case personal jurisdiction through property ownership, and contrary to the rule of law, the other party, a male, not subject to these same laws when he undeniably has property and thus personal jurisdiction as well, minimum contacts? He [Carter] has residential property in the governing state. Male party seeks to avoid the demands of the complaint which caused damages to the female party and all ruling thereafter were all based on the fraud upon the court which was discriminatory in nature. Here, the Court abandons good sense with respect to the equal protections in that, the female and less monetarily situated person is held to a higher standard of jurisdiction as compared to the male who is held to a lessor standard of jurisdiction, which amounted to no personal jurisdiction being attached.

 

9.    Can a Court deny an Appellant’s review of an appeal that was timely filed by appeals clerk office with filing fees paid? See Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a) (4) Certain timely post-judgment motions render a notice of appeal ineffective. An amended notice must be filed if review of the post-judgment motion’s disposition is desired. Id.

 

10. Can an appeal support denial of records on appeal to one party and allow a tainted record? As such, procedure described in Fed. R. App. Proc. 30(f) control for hearing appeals on the original record without requiring an accurate appendix be authorized.  Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b)(1) states in part:   “The parties must not engage in unnecessary designation of parts of the record, because the entire record is available to the court.” 

11. Can an Appeal support freedom of speech to select parties such as Wanda, when no current GAG Order in doing so, subject certain parties to a GAG order that was not issued by the Court in claims of a high-profile case? The bar of a high-profile case does not in itself award an automatic gag order unless so issued by the Court. (locate proper caselaw and cite to statements) While opposing party in which the high-profile pertains to is allowed speak freely in public and to media and posted their response online. Allotment of such act is disparate in manner in disparate treatment of a certain class over another and a violation therein.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioners asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that she is without counsel, is not apt in the laws and legal procedures, and is not an attorney licensed to practice law. Therefore, her pleadings must be read and construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981). Further Coley believes that this court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect any and all of Coley’s constitutional and statutory rights. See, United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882]

 

A.       The Court granted Full Faith and Credit to a vacated/voided judgment that no longer exist of Robert Graves dated July 16, 2010.  A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. Vacated Orders cannot be used as a final Order by any party as a defense. 

 The Appellate Division erred in giving preclusive effect to July 16, 2010, Paternity Order that was later vacated by a Pennsylvania State Court on December 9, 2011. Moreover, the Appellate Division ignored the April 18, 2011 disestablishment, dispositive of Robert Graves's paternity and failed to grant Full Faith and Credit to the Pennsylvania Order vacating the July 16, 2010 Order. Contrary to the Appellate Court’s Opinion the issue of paternity is still in doubt in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

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. 

In considering the factors required for Collateral Estoppel, a Court must inquire whether the nature and status of the prior action can be afforded preclusive effect. A vacated judgment has no preclusive effect and therefore, collateral estoppel does not apply. See Woodrick v. Jack J. Burke Real Estate, 306 NJ Super 61 (App. Div. 1997); Perez v. rent A Center, 892 A.2d 1255 (Sup. Ct, NJ., 2006); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Plymouth Gem Industries, 1997 WL 34628991 (NJ Super Law Div., 1997.

For purposes of issue preclusion, “final judgment” includes any prior adjudication of an issue in another action that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect. However, a vacated judgment bears no conclusive effect on the underlying action; therefore, it cannot be a final judgment in other actions.

 

B.       The Court deny a Motion to Set Aside PA Orders void/vacated judgments denying relief under FRAP 60(b)(4).   It was denied in order to cover up the fraud on court which begun in August 2012  regarding personal jurisdiction and concealment of evidence of hiding residential property holdings and VOID orders.  The court then sanction parties for making this valid legal request.  As Wanda  Motion to Set Aside was completely ignored by the Trial court. She signed the same complaint as the other parties.  This was done in order to continue false claims against Wanda and the complaint is still pending on the docket in New Jersey.  Not allowing for Foreign Orders to be attacked is a denial of due process.

The 14th amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone a right to due process of law, which includes judgments that comply with the rules and case law. Most due process exceptions deal with the issue of notification. If, for example, someone gets a judgment against you in another state without your having been notified, you can attack the judgment for lack of due process of law. In Griffen v. Griffen, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S. Ct. 556, 90 L. Ed. 635 a pro se litigant won his case in the Supreme Court who stated:

Williamson v. Berry, 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850). “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.).  “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", Valley 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." 

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, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. The law firms and corrupted Judges went back with illegal orders to cover up no due process and fraud upon the court  which continue from 2012 to 2020.  

Additionally, 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.). Court’s Motion on Denying the Set Aside does not change the fact the Order in question is VOID and it is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring). 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, because a void judgment is a nullity from  the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences  of a valid  judgment.  (Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.). When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary  matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994). This cannot be ignored its fact recorded! 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, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 -Klugh  v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

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.]

 

Petitioners timely filed in the New Jersey Appellant Division regarding a Void Judgment and No Due Process along Civil Rights issues.  In addition to this, she presented her receipts to prevent this case­ complaint on a void judgment from being illegally dismissed-denied regarding a Fraud Upon the Court and Constitutional Issues on No Due Process.

 

Find here the grounds for which the Rule applies: RULE 60(b) (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) 60(d) (1) (2) (3) and FRAP 25(a)(2)(B) and RULE 17(a)(l)  and 9(b). 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 Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL.” State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring). 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, because a void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended  by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.

Also, Section 6-9-180: Jury trial on issues of fact. If the motion or application is to enter satisfaction of a judgment under the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure or to set aside the entry of satisfaction of a judgment, on request of either party, the issue of fact must be tried by a jury. (Code 1886, §2870; Code 1896, §3340; Code 1907, §4146; Code 1923, §7861; Code 1940, T. 7, §573.). 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 in favor of appellant.  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.).m. The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", Valley 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." Williamson v. Berry, 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).

 When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.

1994). 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, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A..

 

 The Court  Has A Responsibility  to Correct  a Void Judgment:

The statute of limitations does not apply to a suit in equity to vacate a void judgment. (Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, p. 569; Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368,374 [181 P. 648].) This rule holds as to all void judgments. In the other  two cases cited, People v. Massengale and In Re Sandel, the courts  confirmed  the judicial power and responsibility to correct  void judgments.

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). When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994). 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.

 

The Court Has A Responsibility to Correct a Void Judgment:

The statute of limitations does not apply to a suit in equity to vacate a void  judgment. (Cadenasso v. Bank  of Italy, p. 569; Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368, 374 [181P. 648].) This rule holds as to all void judgments. In the other two cases cited, People  v. Massengale and  In Re Sandel, the courts confirmed the judicial power  and  responsibility to correct void judgments.

Collateral Estoppel, a Court must inquire whether the nature and status of the prior action can be afforded preclusive effect. A vacated judgment has no preclusive effect and therefore, collateral estoppel does not apply.  Accord v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 55 F.3d at 598; Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 970 F.2d 1138, 1146 (2d. Cir 1992)aff'd510 U.S. 86 (1993); Pontarelli Limousine, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 929 F.2d 339, 340 (7th 1991) (en banc); Falcon v. General Tel. Co., 815 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1987); No East-West Highway Committee v. Chandler, 767 F.2d 21, 24 (1st. Cir. 1985); Dodrill v. Ludt, 764 F.2d 442, 444 (6th Cir. 1985); Stamps v. Ford Motor Co., 650 F. Supp. 390, 404 (N.D.Ga. 1986). However, a vacated judgment bears no conclusive effect on the underlying action; therefore, it cannot be a final judgment in other actions.

C.      Not given Full Faith and Credit for sister state PA Order dated April 18, 2011 and December 9, 2011, other parties were given full faith and credit for two other sister state PA Orders which no longer had legal value as these orders no longer have legal value because they depended upon an Order that was VACATED.  28 U.S.C. § 1738, declares that these materials should receive “the same full faith and credit” in each state that they have in the state “from which they are taken.” By not granting Full, faith and Credit allowed fiction over facts to litigate the case allowing more Fraud Upon the court and denying parties of their Human Rights under the 14th Amendment. RYMIR' paternity which has not been adjudicated. Vacated Orders cannot be used as a final Order by any party as a defense. “The term 'res judicata' refers broadly to the. . . doctrine barring relitigation of claims or issues that have already been adjudicated." Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J.498, 505 (1991). Specifically, the doctrine "provides that a cause of action between parties that has been finally determined on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction cannot be relitigated by those parties. . . in a new proceeding." Id. Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, Inc., 124 N.J. 398, 409 (1991).

 

D.      Concealment of evidence – Court allowed fraudulently misrepresentation  in the very first litigation August 13, 2012 pertaining to and about his property holdings and contacts with the forum state to avoid personal jurisdiction. The Appellant Division made Coley submit to residency laws in regard to personal jurisdiction, due to property ownership, but South Carolina did not despite having New Jersey properties. This is gender discrimination and South Carolina's part by false actions causing denials with fraud on the court thereafter. In Merck & Co. v. Biorganic Laboratories, Inc., the Appellate Division stated defendants who engaged in a "deliberate course of conduct" that "frustrate[d] plaintiff's discovery of facts” should not be award sanction for attorney fees.

As stated the law firms and corrupted Judges went back with illegal orders to cover up no due process and fraud upon the court with continuous violations of a denial of Due Process, with the intent to cover the illegal rulings thereafter. In Hopes no one would find out the truth on what really occurred here. There was Fraud on the Court on  August 13, 2012 (FD-04-2874-12) to 2019- and thereafter the judges and court knew this.  With more litigation also came more fraud upon the Court, without lack of standing on a Void Judgment, petitioner believes is illegal which the Court sought to enforce a VOID order that had NO legally standing whatsoever. Avoiding the No Due Process of discovery and fact finding is unlawful and alienates the Petitioner from the due process sought. After the crime was committed  based upon premise of Fraud Upon the Court which begun in 2012 regarding false statements of property ownership then it continues, and the fraud increased in July 2015 with denial of Motion to Set Aside Void orders see above.  Along with a host of other acts of Fraud Upon the Court see below. Constitutional and Civil Laws were violated here, that was covered up illegally with illegal orders based upon fraud and fraud upon the courts.  A void judgment procured by fraud, can be attacked  at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally and should be vacated along with all proceeding order under that docket number FD-04-2874-14 and related.

Again, under Federal laws, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. “They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” A party affected by void judicial action need not appeal. State ex rei. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring). 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.

E.       A Court cannot grant a motion based on hearsay and speculation as the Rule of Law, since hearsay is inadmissible not permitted in court. The Court subsequently used that illegal hearsay to provide cover for sanctioning parties for attorney fees, filings of a Judgment Bond as equitable liens on Petitioner’s residential property as no money was owed to the court by Petitioner. In addition, the Court used criminal statutes for non-criminal case as controlling rule of law. And lastly, the Court never served the party under FRAP 25(a)(2)(b) making this Judgment unlawful as notice must be given and due process was abridged.

In Rule 4.4  Service  of process:  If any of the parties set out in Section 4-4, whose names are known, reside in the State of New Jersey, a copy of the order must  be served  upon  them, in the same manner that process is served on defendants in civil actions. (Acts 1923, No. 526, p. 699; Code 1923, §9914; Code 1940, T. 7, §1118; Acts 1951, No.882,  p. 1521, §3.)

F. Some Parties were were denied Court audio and documents on appeal which obstructing their ability to defend their appeal.  A high-profile male performer was able to obtain documents; see, Rule 1:4-4 Records on Appeal, and Rule 5:3-2(b). This was discriminatory and as such, those, not being a high-profile, female was denied Due Process. Also see, In A-1916-16 Wanda; Wanda was denied freedom of speech, and court services when seeking to fix court errors. Appellant cites 18 USC § 1512 and 18 USC § 1341 for concealment of records in official proceedings, evading the legal process by withholding court records required to defend the case, and retaliation in relation to the Motion to Reconstruct Audio when Appellant was denied Certified Audio from Court and physical records while other male party was given these same records. The Court also cannot sanction party for seeking the truth in asking for records on appeal as right.

Other Acts of Allege Fraud on Court the Came About Due to Initial Fraud

 On August 13, 2012 to 2020 to Hide ALL litigation thereafter 2012 the Judges and Court knew to Avoid Due Process of Discovery of Facts, such allegations include: Bribery when Judge asked party on record for money, Denied Court Records on Appeal, Court Audios Altered leading to Tainted Record, Altered Court Orders, Denied the Right to Appeal and Illegal equitable Bonds filed as lien on party’s property when no money is due to the court for illegal attorney fees sanctions that was never served on party, denied freedom of speech, etc.     See History for more details.

List of Parties

 

All Parties appeal in the caption of the case on the cover page.

 

 

Rymir Satterhwaite

Wanda Satterthwaite

Lillie M. Coley, PhD

 

Vs.

 

NEW JERSEY Supreme Court

NEW JERSEY Appellant Division

NEW JERSEY Family Court

NEW JERSEY Civil Court

Robert G.

 

 

 

OPINIONS BELOW

 

 

A-1817-14 

 

A-1185-14 –

Appeals Opinion Illegally Combined:  A-099-15, A-227-15, A-228-14, A-229-15(Civil Law),  A-1916-16 & A-2491-16(Civil Law) - See Appendix

 

JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction on a void judgments, fraudulent orders, and constitutional issues. 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1).  There is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $100,000. The district court had jurisdiction in cases and controversy under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

 

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone a right  to due process of law, which includes judgments that comply with the rules and case law. Most due process, exceptions deal with the issue of notification. If. for example, someone gets a judgment against you in another state without your having been notified, you can attack the judgment for lack of due process of law. In Griffen v. Griffen, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S. Ct. 556, 90 L. Ed. 635 pro se litigant won his case in the Supreme Court. 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), Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring).

Finally, “A writ of certiorari is a discretionary, extraordinary writ—and is therefore never granted as a matter of right.” See, e.g., King v. Taylor, 188 N.C. 450, 451, 124 S.E. 751, 751 (1924) (explaining that the writ “is allowed only on a reasonable show of merits and that the ends of justice will be thereby promoted”). Petitioner relies on the merits and duties of the father to provide for the family, barring that, for the Court to step in and provide a fair legal means to adjudicate his absence.

 

Full, Faith and Credit

Well settled caselaw declares that these materials should receive “the same full faith and credit” in each state that they have in the state “from which they are taken.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Noting the United States Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in 577 U. S. ____ (2016), (US Supreme Court granting), stated, “with respect to judgments, “the full faith and credit obligation is exacting.”” Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U. S. 222, 233 (1998). “A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.” Ibid. “Consequently, before a court is bound by [a] judgment rendered in another State, it may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of the foreign court’s decree.” Ibid. That jurisdictional inquiry, however, is a limited one. “[I]f the judgment on its face appears to be a ‘record of a court of general jurisdiction, such jurisdiction over the cause and the parties is to be presumed unless disproved by extrinsic evidence, or by the record itself.’” Milliken, supra, at 462 (quoting Adam v. Saenger, 303 U. S. 59, 62 (1938)). Here in this case, the Court rendered no hearing and placed no weight on the Judgment, instead focusing on other matters that in hindsight should not have been heard in light of the sister states prior Judgment or until such time as the question of law is settled. Justice Holmes lamented in his decision, “The Georgia judgment appears on its face to have been issued by a court with jurisdiction, and there is no established Georgia law to the contrary.” Id.

Civil Rights Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,1983

42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et sec, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, when parties were denied due process subjected to gender discrimination, retaliation, disability, and race. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of the individual's membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, political affiliation and in some instance’s sexual orientation.

 

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The case before the Court involves a void judgment which is well-settled caselaw that “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.]. A judgment obtained in violation of procedural due process is not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon in another jurisdiction. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257, 25 S.Ct. 70, 49 L.Ed. 184; Old Wayne Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 23, 27 S.Ct. 236, 241, 51 L.Ed. 345; Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 401, 37 S.Ct. 152, 154, 61 L.Ed. 386. Moreover, due process requires that no other jurisdiction shall give effect, even as a matter of comity, to a judgment elsewhere acquired without due process. Restatement of Judgments, § 11, Comment (c). See 328 U.S. 876, 66 S.Ct. 975 (Rehearing Denied April 29, 1946). A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Factual background

The Appellate Division erred in giving preclusive effect to July 16, 2010, Paternity Order that was later vacated by a Pennsylvania State Court on December 9, 2011. Moreover, the Appellate Division ignored the April 18, 2011 disestablishment, dispositive of Robert Graves's paternity and failed to grant Full Faith and Credit to the Pennsylvania Order vacating the July 16, 2010 Order. Contrary to the Appellate Court’s Opinion the issue of paternity is still in doubt in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

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. 

2. Procedural History

The  Court granted Full Faith and Credit to a vacated/voided judgment that no longer exist of Robert Graves dated July 16, 2010.  A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. Vacated Orders cannot be used as a final Order by any party as a defense. 

The Appellate Division erred in giving preclusive effect to July 16, 2010, Paternity Order that was later vacated by a Pennsylvania State Court on December 9, 2011. Moreover, the Appellate Division ignored the April 18, 2011 disestablishment, dispositive of Robert Graves's paternity and failed to grant Full Faith and Credit to the Pennsylvania Order vacating the July 16, 2010 Order. Contrary to the Appellate Court’s Opinion the issue of paternity is still in doubt in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 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.

3. Statement of Case

This case arises out of two jurisdictions in New Jersey and it begun in  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Case of Wanda Satterthwaite vs Shawn Carter (a.k.a. Jay Z).

Beginning on April 18, 2011 not to exclude prior pleadings, Graves is Disestablished, Support Order Vacated and dispositive per Pennsylvania Court Order on paternity of Rymir.

On May 2011 Attorney Ned Hark illegally uses his sister-in-law a Family Court Supervisor in Philadelphia to help get the May 19, 2011 [of] Pennsylvania “Res Judicata Advisory Order” entered in by Judge Peckhrow by sending her fraudulent information about Graves which caused the PA Court to make an error. Wanda became sick and never appealed and Petitioners was not a part of any Pennsylvania actions at this time and unaware of this Pennsylvania Advisory Order. [Recusal of supervisor should have been made in light of relations.]

In New Jersey on June 14, 2011 Coley becomes Rymir’s legal guardian per a NJ per court order. New Jersey then becomes controlling state under Federal Law.

 In Pennsylvania on December 9, 2011 Graves paternity Order of July 16, 2010 was Vacated by Coley in PA; Graves is forever gone, as if he never existed as Rymir’s father;

Coley attempts to Vacate SHAWN CARTER’s May 19, 2011 Advisory PA Order that depended upon Graves which no longer existed as of December 9, 2011 as stated above which was New Information. However, Coley was colluded on by her then attorney James Rocco and Defense Attorney for CARTER, Ned Hark ultimately Coley was MOOT in PA based on Fraud and has no legal standing.

In New Jersey on August 2012 Coley uses Judge Doris Peckrow, in  Pennsylvania on June 14, 2012 Order of Relinquished Jurisdiction to pursue paternity matters in New Jersey. Attorney Ned Hark sends his wife Attorney Fisher to New Jersey to defend SHAWN CARTER’s case by stalling for time while Hark appeal’s in-part the PA Order of Judge Peckhrow regarding the vacate of orders. CARTER does NOT appeal the Relinquished Jurisdiction. Fisher and CARTER allegedly lied on Record stating CARTER does not have any contacts with the State of New Jersey regarding properties but he in fact has properties.

In New Jersey 2012 Attorney Lise Fisher's actions involving both FD-04-002874-12, Lillie Coley v. SHAWN CARTER & Wanda Satterthwaite and FD-04-00186-14, Rymir Satterthwaite v. SHAWN CARTER & Wanda Satterthwaite violated several Codes/ Rules of Professional Conduct as described below. An attorney should uphold the highest standards of conduct in the court and in their legal practice. However, Fisher did not uphold these standards and the court allowed it.

Fisher and CARTER continuously made false statements on record and in her filings. These lies prohibited the discovery of facts, an evidentiary hearing and caused continuous violations to occur.

Fisher gave false statements about her client, CARTER’s, minimum contacts with the State of New Jersey on at least two cases: NEW JERSEY # FD-04-002874-12 & FD-04-0000186-14 and over numerous litigation such as hearings August 13, 2012, December 12, 2012, and November 17, 2014. However, these false statements continued until now(2019). The record has never been corrected.

Robert Graves’s paternity was disestablished, support order vacated and dispositive on paternity of Rymir in PA on April 18, 2011. His name was removed from birth certificate in May 2011. New Jersey had exclusive and continuous jurisdiction of Rymir effective June 14, 2011, while he was still a minor, and NEW JERSEY then became the controlling State. Fisher made false statements regarding the subject jurisdiction at the August 13, 2012 hearing. Fisher stated that a child support order was still in effect in Philadelphia during this time and placed a closed/false child support number on her application and then gave that false information to Coley’s attorney and the NEW JERSEY court that relied upon it. However, thel previous child support order was voided when Graves’ was disestablishment and dispositive on paternity in April 18, 2011 PA Order which Fisher was fully aware of.

On June 14, 2012, Pennsylvania courts relinquished jurisdiction over this matter and this relinquished was never disputed or reverse. Therefore, no conflicts preclude New Jersey Courts to have jurisdiction. Not only does CARTER reside in New Jersey, but due to maintaining his properties and business CARTER assumed contacts with New Jersey. The Orders in June 14, 2012 depended upon Graves and have no legal value thus cannot be used a legal defense by anyone.

Fisher gave false information about both the Subject and Personal Jurisdiction to the Court. CARTER owned at least 3 residential properties in New Jersey and was a resident. CARTER was even served at one of his New Jersey properties. At the August 13, 2012, October 17, 2012 and December 14, 2012 hearings Fisher continued to lie about CARTER owning property in New Jersey even after seeing the Certified Deeds. Fisher kept these false statements going for years in order to prohibit the Court’s establishment of personal jurisdiction over CARTER

Attorney Fisher made Discriminatory [remarks] towards Wanda Satterthwaite on August 13, 2012 stating she did not want Wanda sitting next to her. Although it was clear Wanda was defendant in the case also, but Fisher believe she had authority in government facility. Judge Mc Bride told her “to knock it off”.

Attorney Fisher made false statements to Judge McBride at the August 13, 2012 hearing regarding the personal jurisdiction of CARTER She later said she misspoke at the December 14, 2012 hearing with Judge Mc Bride which was not true because she knew truth before court hearing based on Coley’s application, and she continued to repeat the false information at every [step of] litigation.

Support Orders under the UFISA Act require subject jurisdiction only and paternity under this act require personal jurisdiction only. Only personal jurisdiction is necessary in New Jersey to request paternity testing of CARTER since he owns properties in New Jersey and the Support Order after the testing would be guided under the New Jersey laws since Rymir lived in New Jersey. A person can request paternity while never seeking support and New Jersey absolutely had personal jurisdiction over CARTER, therefore genetic testing could have been ordered by the Court had they been able to establish jurisdiction.

Coley should have received her request for paternity and discovery in 2012 due to SHAWN CARTER's property ownership. Judge McBride agreed, stating on August 13, 2012, "So the issue then is whether there are enough contacts here for there to be general personal jurisdiction meaning the contacts are unrelated to what the subject matter of the lawsuit is. But if the contacts are sufficient enough, under the law and under the Constitution, it can be a case; it just depends on the facts, where a SHAWN CARTER can be required to answer in court to something that is unrelated to those contacts. And I think that's what we have here." August 13, 2012 Transcript Page 37 lines 6-13.

Coley and the New Jersey Court did rely on Fisher's false statements regarding SHAWN CARTER’s New Jersey properties. Again, the New Jersey Court relied upon false statements regarding subject matter when Fisher stated that a Pennsylvania Support Order of Graves was still active in Philadelphia which was false. She also placed this closed Graves’ Support Order on her application and gave it to Coley’s attorney who relied upon and placed it on his documents for Coley. “Be advised that Coley filed her initial application Pro Se then she obtained counsel and Coley did not have any information about Graves Closed Support Order on her application. On August 13, 2012 a ruling on subject and personal jurisdiction was made based on these false statements of Fisher. Coley at the minimum should have obtained personal jurisdiction and discovery due to CARTER’s New Jersey properties. This ruling prohibited the "evidentiary hearing to take place" as described by Judge McBride.

The May 15, 2012 Pennsylvania transcript shows the concealment of evidence by Attorney Fisher to the New Jersey Courts of the false statements made on record regarding Wanda requesting genetic testing from CARTER on April 27, 2012 in Pennsylvania and her knowledge that Coley had no legal standing at this hearing. [See] Pennsylvania hearing on May 15, 2012. Fisher conceal this information from New Jersey Courts from August 2012 to present.

Coley was unaware that she no longer had legal standing on Pennsylvania, [insomuch on] May 15, 2012 until fall of 2015, but Fisher was aware. Fisher concealed evidence of the Pennsylvania transcript and made statements on court records to the contrary of the transcript knowing the statements made were false. Statements made were such as: Coley having legal standing; and Mother requesting a genetic testing on April 27, 2012. Under New Jersey law, concealment of evidence and disrupting a plaintiff's civil action gives rise to liability for proximately caused damages. See, e.g., Hewitt v. Allen Canning, 321 New Jersey Super. 178 (App. Div. 199Ql; Fox v. Mercedes Benz, 281 New Jersey Super 476 (App. Div. 1999). New Jersey law in N.J.S.A. 2C:21-3.

Even during the 2012 Pennsylvania action Rymir was able to exercise the laws of paternity in New Jersey, but Fisher and her husband Attorney Ned Hark sought to try and keep the paternity matter in Philadelphia to hinder Rymir’s rights in New Jersey. 

In 2013 at Rymir’s Inheritance Act litigation Fisher now join with Attorney Kenneth L. Winers again gave false statements about Rymir’s paternity was still in PA and had been adjudicated to Judge Nan Famular. Fisher “Objected” and told the Court after Rymir stated Graves was no longer in the picture that, she stated “Rymir Don’t have any firsthand knowledge about this”, but Fisher had firsthand knowledge. Fisher again concealed another PA Order and in this case the Order of Graves being Vacated on December 9, 2011 demonstrating that Graves was “forever gone” from the PA system as Rymir’s father.

Coley’s November 17, 2014 Request for Hearing was due to this fraud, perjury, and mischaracterization of the documents and omitted attachments given to the Camden Court on August 13, 2012 and December 14, 2012 by Fisher as stated above. Fisher gave false statements in the 2015 brief to the Appellant Court such as stating that Judge Peckhrow vacated the Orders of June 14, 2012 but denied genetic. (PA May 15, 2012 Transcript Page 24 Lines 18-19;) demonstrates the truth of what the Judge Peckhrow stated that Mother did not request a genetic test. Judge Polanksy relied upon Fisher’s false statements and stated that mother had made a request for genetic testing and therefore could not request again. Therefore, the continuous lies of Fisher caused multiple violations against Coley and Rymir and prevented them from receiving a fair litigation. Judge Polansky also believed that Graves became Rymir’s father again based on PA opinion in 2013, but this also was false and caused by Fisher.

Also, at November 17, 2014, before Judge Stephen Polansky, Fisher made additional false statements regarding Rymir’s paternity. Fisher stated that Rymir requested genetic testing of SHAWN CARTER 2011 which is also false, so that it would appear Rymir was barred from requesting any relief in 2013 in New Jersey.

In December 2014, Coley became aware of Fisher filing one version of documents with the courts on November 17, 2014, but serving her with a different version, and requested discovery from Judge Polansky. Fisher stated Judge Dortch was “in her pocket” since SHAWN CARTER was rich client. This is improper conduct of an attorney. Also, per her inappropriate conduct, at the July 17, 2015 hearing see below, Fisher also made multiple offensive and insulting comments to Coley and Rymir to the extent that the court’s Clerk intervened in order for Fisher to discontinue the conduct.

On May 2016 Coley did not make any statements to, conduct any interviews with, or release any information to the media. Therefore, there is no evidence that she has [defied sealed order or the others of the same]. However, Fisher filed a Litigants Aid II Motion against Coley. In response, Coley filed a motion regarding CARTER’s frivolous claims. Coley requested an evidentiary hearing regarding the Litigants Aid II motion, which was granted. In response to the granting of the evidentiary hearing from Coley’s request Fisher withdrew the motion on July 21, 2016. So, there is no Order for this frivolous filing which wasted Coley’s time and money.

On May 1, 2015 the Litigant Aid I Relief filed by Fisher was unfounded and erroneous. This motion named Coley and Rymir although Rymir was not even party to the case. There is no proof in record or otherwise that actions of Coley lead to damages to CARTER since no records left the court. The Civil Law Court refused to seal the record per an emergent request from Fisher, and they also would not sanction Coley, because no violation occurred. So, Fisher then requested sanctions of attorney fees from the Family Court against Coley and received it from Judge Dortch, without any evidence other than statements made by Fisher, and a newspaper article. However, in 2012 Fisher had given the documents of concern to Coley’s attorney, and they became part of the public docket in Philadelphia. In addition, in 2013 a NEW JERSEY Civil Law Court Supervisor released the same documents to the public by way of giving them to an interested Rutgers University student. Attorney Leish, for the Daily News stated that the documents used by the National Enquirer were available and accessed from the online Philadelphia docket. (July 17, 2015 Transcript Page 38 lines 6-11 & Transcript Page 57 lines 24-25). And Fisher admits that the information was obtained from the docket website yet filed the following multiple motions for sanctions. (July 17, 2015 Transcript Page 42 lines 5-10)

On May 13, 2016 litigation changing the May 1, 2015 Order to a Judgment for illegal attorney fees. Fisher’s Motions demonstrate that Rymir was not a party to the action resulting in the May 1, 2015 Sanctions Order. Fisher submitted false documents to the court on May 13, 2016 under this docket no. FD-04-000186-14 asking court to join these cases which was illegal since this FD-14 docket had no underlying case.

Concluding May 28, 2016 & June 28, 2016 Fisher files a Motion to Show Cause which was delayed by the court for several weeks. The Motion was about a two(2) minute video Wanda did to support her son Rymir. All parties were required to respond which was waste of time and money since no Gag Order existed prohibiting anyone from talking about the case as was in the public since 2010. Coley and Rymir were not a part of Wanda’s video. However, Fisher essentially filed another frivolous Motion for money stating Wanda’s Video violated Judge Mc Bride Seal Order on August 13, 2012 at which it does not. After Wanda attorney’s argument on June 28, 2016 in this regard Judge Dortch created a new Order on June 28, 2016 saying no files to public and parties cannot talk about instant. However, the language in the Order was ambiguous and unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Judge Dortch still illegally sanction Wanda for attorney fees since Fisher kept begging him as she wanted to get paid. But, more importantly the new order dated June 28, 2016 proves that Judge Mc Bride Seal Order had no restrictions on parties regarding neither files nor free speech which is why a new one was created by Judge Dortch. This June 28, 2016 Order is on appeal since its unconstitutional and has ambiguous language. The Appellant Division already stated in July 2015 per court order that parties were NOT prohibited to Freedom of Speech since “these cases were already discussed, and files have been disseminated in public”. So, as stated Wanda did not violate any order and Fisher knew her filing was inappropriate.

In December 2016 - Fisher filed yet another Litigants Aid III Motion. After many months of requesting transcript audio of the November 17, 2014 hearing, it was finally received by Wanda. The CD was sent to Mr. Patel, an expert, for review. Patel also owns a UPS store in NEW JERSEY. Patel did not listen to the audio on the CD, he used his software to review the file. Fisher stated in this Litigants Aid III Motion that Patel “published” his analysis and information from the CD. However, Patel sent his analysis of the file directly to the court. He did not send his analysis directly to any parties. And again, Fisher named Rymir in this Motion although he was not involved with case after the CD was sent blank. Coley filed a Response to this Motion, however Fisher erroneously stated that they did not receive the Response. However, the filing was confirmed by the court clerk, and Coley has mail receipts of her service to Fisher.

In January 2017 - Amidst filing the multiple Litigants’ Aid Motions, Fisher advised CARTER to speak with the media. CARTER responded to the media that he “did not rape Wanda,” and that their sexual intercourse in 1992 was “consensual”. However, the other parties did not engage with the media, and Fisher filed multiple Litigants Aid Motions against them.

In June 2017 - An issue listed in the Litigants Aid III Motion regarded embedded links that allegedly lead to the August 13, 2012 hearing transcript on Rymir’s professional Facebook page. However, Fisher stated in court that she did not know where the links came from. And again, Rymir was not a party to this action regarding the transcript. No fact finding, discovery or evidence was ever provided for any of these Motions. This Motion, like the rest, was frivolous and filed to abuse the other parties.

Fisher continuously failed to conduct herself to the standards of Rules of Professional Conduct. Fisher made multiple and continuous false statements in order to obstruct justice, deny the other parties right to due process, intimidate the other parties and prohibit Rymir's right to learn his paternity. As stated Attorney Fisher also made Discriminatory towards Wanda Satterthwaite on August 13, 2012. Her conduct in these matters were unprofessional and some cases inhumane.

Around December or Fall 2018 Attorney Fisher and other attorneys Altered Documents and New Jersey Court Orders located in their client’s, CARTER’s Appendix in Response to Appeal A-229-15 see below.  This behavior was allowed by the Appellant Division Judges in their Fall 2019 opinion.  

The Courts are faced with the type of improper conduct by litigants and lawyers that tarnishes the justice system and makes for a dark day for all involved: the apparent forgery of documents presented to the Court. Previously on appeal, CARTER, the Respondent in Rymir Satterthwaite vs SHAWN CARTER & Wanda Satterthwaite, has added to Volume 2 of his Rymir Brief Appendix three official documents which formed the lower court record, and which now have information “whited out.” Respondent’s Appendix Volume 2 contains substantially-altered materials which contradict the Official Transcript and Official Court Orders in three specific instances – Transcript of a Motion Hearing, Order to Close the Courtroom and Seal the Record, and Order Setting Aside Pennsylvania Orders. In summation, three (3) critical documents which have been entered into the record by the Respondent are altered versions of the original documents filed with the Superior Court. Such conduct warrants the harshest of penalties, including striking the altered submissions from the Court’s record and imposing sanctions on the Respondent’s and his attorneys. However, none of this occur which allowed attorneys to continue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

“Avoid 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 Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring). A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. 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 particular 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). “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.” Under Federal law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rei. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring).

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994). 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.). 28 U.S.C. § 1738, declares that these materials should receive “the same full faith and credit” in each state that they have in the state “from which they are taken.” This legal right was not for sister state Pennsylvania Order dated April 18, 2011 and December 9, 2011, which were valid Orders.  Another party was given full faith and credit for two different sister state Pennsylvania Orders which no longer had legal value as these depended upon the Order in question that was VACATED on December 9, 2011. 

Concealment of evidence caused Fraud Upon the Court on the offset when party did not have to submit to the State of New Jersey via personal jurisdiction which could have brought about a paternity closure.  This concealment caused damages for parties and all litigations thereafter was built upon this one act of fraud and party continue to give court false information regarding its residential holdings in the state of New Jersey.  Coley continually requested a Discovery which was Denied, and she also provided the court with New Jersey Deed’s demonstrating CARTER’s residents and the disputed facts, and in turn she was denied due process and inability to perform discovery of facts and reach adjudication on the merits.

Some fraud led to illegal equitable Bonds illegally recorded as lien on Coley’s residential properties at which she was never served to recording under. There was no due process, process of service from Court, Coley found out from seeing a document filed by parties on appeal. A court cannot enter order based on hearsay then use this hearsay orders to file a judgment Bond as equitable liens on persons residential property when no money is owed to the court. In view of this Court should invalidate the judgment. Additionally, the Court used criminal statutes for non-criminal case as rule of law, which is abusive in its power, then, this Judgment enter was never served on Coley under FRAP 25(a)(2)(b) regarding her residential property. Coley became aware of this allege transaction in reviewing documents from adversary appendix on appeal. 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 particular 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, 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).

As stated, The Appellant Division did not give Coley. full, faith and credit for the PA Orders dated April 18, 2011, and December 9, 2011 regarding RYMIR' paternity which has not been adjudicated. CARTER did get credit for PA Orders of May 19, 2011, and July 16, 2010, which both depend upon the PA Order that no longer exist because it has been vacated. Vacated Orders cannot be used as a final Order and CARTER cannot use a vacated Order as a defense. A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). Citing from Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. Martinez, 18 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App. 2000).  “This appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal from a void judgment.” Mellon Service Co. v. Touche Ross & Co., 946 S.W.2d 862, 864 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). “A judgment is void only when it is clear that the court rendering judgment had no jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, no jurisdiction to render judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.” State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.1995). “When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void” Id. at 486 (citing Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 827 (1961)); Dallas County v. Sweitzer, 971 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no writ); Haun v. Steigleder, 830 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992, no writ).

CONCLUSION

 

It has often been said a fact is a fact is a fact, and insomuch these are the facts, and they are not avoidable. 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, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 -Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C.1985). 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. First, A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. 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 particular 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). Secondly, conferring no created legal rights to a would provide for hearing, “It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring). Additionally, A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. 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 particular 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). And Finally, the equitable bonds illegally recorded by Court Order, must have lien recorded. There was never a recorded lien or any conveyance to Lillie Coley concerning her residential properties by the Court who created the Judgment, and by doing so never gave notice or due process to Petitioner. Also, Court lacking standing to rule is void judgment upon which void is nullity in the eyes of the law. However, it is in contravention of the Governed Laws and Security Laws under Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13-using deceptive practices and more. Furthermore, Section 35-4-50: Conveyances required to be recorded in office of probate judge: Conveyances of property, required by law to be recorded, must be recorded in the office of the judge of probate. (Code 1852, §1268; Code 1867, §1537; Code 1876, §2147; Code 1886, §1791; Code 1896, §985; Code 1907, §3367; Code 1923, §6853; Code 1940, T. 47, §94.).

The petitioner hereby asks this Honorable Court to award the relief requested in this Petition for Writ of Certiorari and all other legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem necessary.

Wanda Satttherwaite

 

Marlene Santiago for