You can file MOtion to vacate judgment for lack of proper notice, lack subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant..
File Motion to Dismiss judgment is void.
A void judgment comes into being when there is not sufficency of pleading to fully establish the court having subject matter jurisdiction. In other words, neither party has firmly set that the court has juridiction in the matter.
What this means to you is that practically all "debt judgments" handed down by the courts are in fact void judgments. They can be vacated (made to disappear).
It's not that hard, a little research, a little typing, paying a nominal court filing fee, and sit back and wait. Not much to it, is there?
The results you can produce are unbelievable, and you just didn't know you had the power to shake up this predatory industry, did you?
The debt collection industry collects billions of dollars from those who are unable to protect themselves and do it using void judgments. What a racket that is!
Now's the time to step up to the plate and get that void judgment vacated, disappeared. It's not hard, there's no pain, and almost never a court appearance. Neat, huh?
It's up to you, keep paying, or make them pay. Your choice!
Oh, and a vacated judgment must, again must, be removed from your credit record.
Even if a court (judge) has or appears to have subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction can be lost. Major reason why subject matter jurisdiction is lost:
(1) fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.3d 393 (1962)
(2) a judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921),
(3) unlawful activity of a judge or undisclosed conflict of interest. Code of Judicial Conduct,
(4) violation of due process, Johnson v Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938); Pure Oil Co. v City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E.2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros. 363 Ill 25 (1936),
(5) if the court exceeded its statutory authority, Rosenstiel v Rosenstiel, 278 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967),
(6) any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a), (the bankruptcy stay) In re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D. Illinois, 1989),
(7) where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v Williams, 264 Ill.App.3d 701, 637 N.E.2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994),
(8) where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v Gore, 248 Ill.App.3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st Dist 1993),
(9) where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction,
(10) when the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997),
(11) where a summons was not properly issued,
(12) where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v Bacon, 6 Ill.2d 245, 249, 218 N.E.2d 706, 708 (1955),
(13) where the statute is vague, People v Williams, 638 N.E.2d 207 (1st Dist. 1994),
(14) when proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 301 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1973),
(15) where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962); English v English, 72 Ill.App.3d 736, 393 N.E.2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979), or
(16) where public policy is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).
SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF VOIDS
Before a court (judge) can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys - although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only the parties can testify and until the plaintiff testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially), and the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction = the statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory of indemnity) and the testimony of a competent fact witness regarding the injury (the cause of action). If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred. A question which naturally occurs: "If I vacate avoid judgment, can they just come back and try the case again?" Answer: A new suit must be filed and that can only be done if within the statute of limitations. "Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to rewrite history." E.g. Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization Int'l, Inc. 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer's Pension and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999). The number of void judgments on the books in America's courthouses is so great, there is no practical way to estimate how there are. IF EVERY VOID JUDGMENT WAS VACATED WITH DAMAGES, IT WOULD REPRESENT THE GREATEST SHIFT IN MATERIAL WEALTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMATION ON ATTACKING A VOID JUDGMENT.
You can do a Google search on VOid Judgment for more information.
|