Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Greg Anderson, Petitioner v. Gary Herbert, et al.

Supreme Court briefOct 29, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GREG ANDERSON

Petitioner,

VS.

GARY HERBERT et. al.

Respondents.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Greg Anderson pro se

24 South 7'

Street

Tooele, Utah 84074

Phone: 385 231-5005

NOV 1 2018

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is a judgment void on its face, when a State

Court steals a paid-for home at the motion to dismiss

stage of the proceedings, under the guise that the

owner was a tenant, where plaintiff attorneys

misrepresented the law and contractual terms of the

purchase contract 30 times in a 6 page document, then

wrote the "Statement of Facts and Conclusions of

Law," with no reference to the purported record, and

the judge rubber-stamped plaintiffs claims, and the

court denied itself jurisdiction by not strictly adhering

to the statute, thereby implicating conspiracy.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Petitioner is Greg Anderson.

Respondents Are Gary Herbert in His Official

Capacity as Governor of the State of Utah, Sean Reyes

in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the

State of Utah, Clark A McClellan, in His Individual

Capacity, and in His Official Capacity for His Extrajudicial Acts, Third District Court, in its Official

Capacity, Eighth District Court in its Official

Capacity, Utah Court of Appeals in its Official

Capacity, Daniel W. Kitchen, James L. Ahistrom,

Terry Welch, Lynn Kitchen, Gary Kitchen, Mathew J.

Kitchen, Mark R. Kitchen, Sandbay LLC Sunlake

LLC, Orchid Beach LLC Roosevelt Hills LLC, John or

Jane Doe(s) 1 Through 10

Note: No John or Jane Doe's have been named, nor

have any other parties.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented

Table of Contents

......

Table of Authorities.

Citations to the Opinions below

Opinions below .........

iii

Jurisdiction ..........

Relevant Statutory Provisions

Statement of the Case ..........4

Reasons for Granting the Writ

The Court Should Review a Rule 60(b)&(d) Case

Void Judgments That Reach this Court Are

Extremely Rare

Lower Courts Need Definite Guidelines

Courts Should Not Be Used for the Theft of Property

The Tenth Circuit Did Not Follow its Own

Mandated Case Law

Crooked Lawyers Should Be Stopped from Deviating

from Constitutional Law

Pro Se Litigants Should Have Full Constitutional

Rights Regarding Void Judgments

This Court Should Once Again Remind Lower

Courts That a Void Judgment Cannot Gain

Legitimacy, Therefore Any Issue Trying to Justify the

Void Judgment Is Also Void as a Matter of Supreme

Court Law

In the Interest of Justice

This Court Should Act Here Because the Defense

Attorneys Have Constructively Thumbed the Nose at

Justice Ginsberg and Other Justices

Rule 60(b)&(d) of the Federal Rules of Federal

Procedure Should Be Addressed

When a Litigant Claims a Judgment Is Void on

its Face, All Courts Should Be Mandated to Review

That Issue in Their Decision

Void Judgments Are Part of Common Law

It Is Unfair for a District or Circuit Court to Use

non Jurisdictional Issues to Dismiss a Law Suit at the

Motion to Dismiss Stage of the Proceedings

Courts Are Afraid to Undue Another Court's

Judgment Thereby Denying Constitutional Rights. 28

No One Is above the Law

Rogue Attorneys Should Be Exposed

Petitioner Has Been Falsely Accused of Being a

Dead Beat Renter Because He was not Allowed to

speak in the Eighth District Court in violation of the

First Amendment

The Court Splits should be addressed concerning

void judgments

Wiping the Slate Clean

Conclusion .......

Appendix Table of Contents

Tenth Circuit Court Order and Judgment

Motion to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to

Declare Eight District Court Judgment Void

District Court

Recommendation

Order Adopting Report &

Magistrate Report and Recommendation

Petitioner's District Court Complaint

Motion-memo-partial Summary Judgment

Federal District Court

194

Petitioner's Verified Memorandum in Support of

Motion to Dismiss in Eighth District Court

226

Defendants Motion to Dismiss Memorandum

2008 Showing 30 Misrepresentations of Law and

Contractual Terms

239

Petitioners Motion to Declare Eight District Court

Judgment Void

246

Eighth District Court

Conclusions of law

Findings of Fact and

261

Eighth District Court Order of Restitution

265

The Second Judge's Ruing and Order in the

Eighth District Court Decision

269

Real Estate Purchase Contract Between

Petitioner and Sandbay LLC Daniel Kitchen

274

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A. K Investment Group, LLC v. City of Glendale No.

16-1492 (May 14, 2018)

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545

12, 20, 31, 38

Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S. 394

Batty v. Batty 153 P.3d 827 Utah App. 2006)

Bequet v. MacCarthy, 2B. & Ad. 951,959

Buchheit, 705 F.3dat 1159

Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings. v. Hill,

281 U. S. 673, (1930)

21,35

......17

Carey v. Piphus 435 U. S. 247,254-257(1978)

Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 11, 17 (1883)

Dennis v. Sparks 449 U. S. 23 (1985)

6, 13, 17, 23

Douglas v. Forrest, 4 Bing. 686, 700,701

Exxon Mobile Corp., v. Saudi Basic Industries

544U. S. 280 (2005)

Firemans Insurance Co. v. Brown, 529 P. 2d. 419 10

First Sec. Bank of Utah, N A. v. Maxwell

659 P.2d 1078, 1081 (Utah 1983)

vii

Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co. 322 U. S. 238 (1943)

fn 5, 13 , 15, 16, 23, 25, 38

Herring v. United States ofAmerica 424 F.3d 384,386

(3rd

Cir. 2005)

In re Edwards 962 F.2d 641,644(71h Cir. 1992)

Jefferson v. Upton 560 U. S. 284 (2010)

fn5,17,23

Keene v. Bonser 107 P.3d 693 (Utah App. 2005)

Lincoln Financial Corp. v. Ferrier, 567 P.2d 1102

(Utah 1977)

Luger v. Edmondson Oil Company 457 U. S. 922. 11

Maubourquet v. Wyse (1867), 1 Jr. Rep. C. L. 471,481

McDonald vMabee 243 U.S. 905 91 (1917)

Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 (1961)

Nelson v. Adams 529 U. S. 460 (2000)

fn 5, 10, 13, 22, 23 33, 34, 35

Pacific Development Co. v. Stewart,

195 P. 2d 748 (1948 Utah)

Parkside Salt Lake City Corp., v. Insure-Rite,

37P.3d. 1202

Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless 287

P.3d 1157, 1166 (Utah 2012)

Viii

Pennoyerv. Neff, 95U. S. 714 (1878)

21,35

Pernell v. SouthhallRealty416 U.S. 363 (1974)

Sh elley v. Kra em er 334 U.S.1

United Student AidFunds, Inc. V. Espinosa, 130 S. Ct.

1367

13,23

(10th

V. T A., mv., v. Airco, Inc. 597 F. 2d 220

Cir.

1979)

7,16

White v. District Court,

232 P.2d785

Wyatt v. Cole et. a].

504 U. S. 158

11,32

Zyverden v. Farrar 393 P.2d468 (Utah 1964) fn5, 8

STATUTES

42U.S.C.1983

AMENDMENTS

First Amendment

RULES

Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12

Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12

10,35

11, 12

OTHER

When the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Yield to

Finality by Stephen Ludovici

Moore's Federal Practice 3D 60-159 §60.44

CITATIONS TO THE OPINIONS BELOW

The Tenth Circuit Order and Judgment is No.

17-4200, and was filed on August 2, 2018. (App. p 3)

The federal District Court Order and

Memorandum Decision is case No. 2:17-cv-00083, Dkt.

111,was dated November 29, 2017, and is listed in

(App. p 41)

The Magistrate Report and Recommendation is

No. 2:17-cv-00083, Dkt 97 in the (App. p. 55)

Utah's Eighth District Court Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law December 3, 2008 (Case no.

080800143, App. p. 253)

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U. S. C. 1254 (1). The Tenth Circuit Court of

Appeals entered judgment on August 2, 2018.

OPINIONS BELOW

This case began in Utah's Eighth District Court

where the court ruled Anderson was a tenant, in spite

of the fact his home was paid for. Petitioner contends

that judgment is void as a matter of law on its face.

Petitioner then went to Utah's Third District Court,

but the Third District refused to mention "void

judgment" or "due process." the Federal District Court

in Salt Lake City Utah dismissed evoking the RookerFeldman Doctrine and other non jurisdictional issues.

The Tenth Circuit reversed on the Rooker-Feidman

because the Federal case was filed prior to the State

cases becoming final, but allowed defendants to prevail

on non-jurisdictional issues.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS

The Fourteenth Amendment states in part:

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 law.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure

in their persons, houses, papers and

effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures shall not be violated, and no

warrants shall issue, but upon probable

cause supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to

be searched, and the persons or things to

be seized.

The First Amendment in relevant part states,

Congress shall make no law.

the freedom of speech, or the press.

Abridging

42 U.S.C. 1983 states:

Every person who, under color of

any statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom or usage, of any State or

Territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other

person within the jurisdiction thereof to

the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to

the party injured in an action at law, suit

in equity, or other property proceedings

for redress, except that in any action

brought against a judicial officer for an

act or omission taken in such officer's

judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall

not be granted unless a declaratory

decree was violated or declaratory relief

was unavailable.

Rule 12)(a)(1) of the Utah Rule of Civil

Procedure mirrors the Federal Rule 12, and states:

(a)(1) if the court denies the motion

or postpones its disposition until the trial

on the merits, the responsive pleading

shall be served within ten days after

notice of the trials action.

Rule 60(b) & (d) in relevant part states,

(b) Grounds for relief from a final

judgment Order of proceeding. On

motion and just terms, the court may

relieve a party or its legal representative

from a final judgment, order or

proceeding for the following reasons: (3)

fraud (whether previously called intrinsic

or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or

misconduct by an opposing party. (4) the

judgment is void.

(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This

rule does not limit a court's power to (1)

entertain an independent to relieve a

party from a judgment, order or

proceeding. (3) set aside a judgment for

fraud upon the Court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The question presented to this court is restated

in order to apply the relevant law stated in the

footnotes to the question.

Is a judgment void on its face,

when a State Court steals a paid-for

home at the motion to dismiss stage of

the proceedings,' under the guise that

the owner was a tenant, where plaintiff

attorneys misrepresented the law and

contractual terms of the purchase

contract 30 times in a 6 page document,'

Nelson v. Adams 529 U. S 460, 462-63, a unanimous decision

where Justice Ginsberg writing for the court made it clear that a

defendant has a constitutional right to answer a complaint. Utah

case law agrees Hernandez v. Baker 104 P.3d 665, 668, 669

(2004).

Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co. 322 U. S. 238 (1943), The

Supreme Court reversed a 12 year old judgment for fraud upon the

court, because of a fraudulent article written to deceive the Patent

Office and also the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See App. Pp

109 -134 for in depth analysis. Complaint showing 30

then wrote the "Statement of Facts and

Conclusions of Law," with no reference to

the purported record, and the judge

rubber-stamped plaintiffs' claims,3 and

the court denied itself jurisdiction by not

strictly adhering to the statute,4 thereby

implicating conspiracy?

In Dennis v. Sparks 449 U. S. 24 (1985), the

Fifth Circuit reversed itself in an en bane decision

concerning a conspiracy with a judge and this Court

affirmed, explaining coconspirators with immune

judge are liable. Because of the issues in the question

with this court together with the fact that judge

Anderson knew that the Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of law must refer to the record as a matter

of law, inasmuch as he was overturned twice on that

very issue, See Keene v. Bonser 107 P.3d 693 (Utah

App. 2005), and Batty v. Batty153 P. 3d 827 Utah App.

2006).

Also, in addition to the footnote issues, when

judge Anderson was an attorney he won a judgement

in the Utah Supreme Court, stating that provisions in

a Uniform Real Estate Contract are not self-executing.

misrepresentations.

Jefferson v. Upton 560 U. S. 284 (2010), The Supreme Court;

reversed on grounds that courts must go by Rule 52 of the Rules

of Civil Procedure.

Utah's Unlawful Detainer Statute mandates the Rules must

be strictly complied with or it is failure to state a claim Utah

Code 78B-6-802-810, Zyverden v. Farrar 393 P.2d468 (Utah

1964). Obviously if a court goes forward with a claim that does

not exist, the court has no jurisdiction to proceed.

So, he knew before a person could be evicted, he had to

be a tenant. An Owner of Real Property cannot be

evicted, (App. 232) So something had to be done to

place petitioner as a tenant prior to and eviction, First

Sec. Bank of Utah, N A. v. Maxwell 659 P.2d 1078,

1081 (Utah 1983). The judge's actions also tend to

show conspiracy with the attorneys. Of course in a

jury trial Petitioner could have proven his home was

paid-for, and that an additional $500,000 to

$1,000,000 was owed to him pursuant to the KitchenAnderson partnership, and that Petitioner was never

a tenant, as a matter of law.

The issues in the question before this court are

self evident by examining the Eighth District Court

record, (App. 253, 258,) The six page document

entitled "Objection to Motion to Dismiss," facially

shows the hearing was held at the motion to dismiss

stage of the proceedings, and has 30

misrepresentations of law and contractual terms, (App.

107-134). Even though the hearing was held at the

Motion to Dismiss stage of the proceedings, there was

no indication that the court was not going to allow

Petitioner to answer and counterclaim. The issue only

became evident after the hearing was over.

Petitioner separated each the various

statements to show the 30 misrepresentations by

defendants, many of which are issues of law, See (App.

Pp. 107-134). Petitioner has included the Real Estate

Purchase Contract so the contractual

misrepresentations can be verified, (App. p. 281). The

Statement of facts and conclusions of law are written

by defendant attorneys and appear in the App. at p.

253. The judge had no jurisdiction to go forward with

an eviction because Petitioner was never a tenant, as

a matter of law.

No Statute of limitations applies to void

judgments, SeeHazel-Atlas Co. Id., showing no statute

of limitations applies to void judgments, because the

case was voided 12 years after the original judgment.

See also V. T. A., Inv., v. Airco, Inc. 597 F. 2d 220 (10th

Cir. 1979). If a judgment is void, the slate must be

wiped clean, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552

(1962).

On or about July 13, 2005, Anderson signed a

purchase contract to acquire a 3500 square foot house

from Daniel Kitchen through Sand Bay LLC for

$105,000, which included in the purchase price, a

$55,000 loan to help with materials and labor to

remodel the home, (App. p. 281) Petitioner, Anderson

forwarded the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC)

to United Title Services to close the transaction. The

Title Company found a cloud on the title and would not

issue title insurance with the cloud on the title. The

REPC required sellers to remove the cloud on the title,

which they did not do. However, because of past

dealings, Anderson trusted the Kitchen Family and

remodeled the home making the home worth more

than $300,000. No money was required from Anderson

to close on the home, other than closing costs, because

Kitchen agreed to carry the mortgage until the home

was remodeled. The remodeling included rewiring the

house, new plumbing pipes, a new furnace and ductwork, four new bathrooms, two new kitchens, seven

bedrooms redone, a new roof, a new front porch and

numerous other items. The house was completely

gutted and then completely remodeled. (App. p. 94-96)

On or about September 2005 Anderson entered

into a separate 50/50 partnership agreement with the

Kitchen family to purchase and develop various real

properties. Anderson worked for the partnership for

nearly three years receiving no compensation, which in

turn paid the $105,000 owed on his home many times

over, (App. Pp. 238-241).

On or about September, 2008 Anderson was

served with an eviction law suit on the subject home.

Under Utah law, before a person can be evicted, his

status must be reduced to that of a tenant, which

Respondents did not do. Van Zyverden v. Farrar, 393

P. 2d 486, (Ut. 1964), Further, the Occupying Claimant

Statute, U. C. 57-6-(1-7), provides that a person who

has made substantial improvements on a property has

the right to live on the property until all the issues are

settled. (See Appendix 98, 112-113, 125, 129-131)

On or about September 9, 2008 Anderson filed

a Motion to Dismiss the eviction complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6), of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure

(URCP), with an accompanying, Notarized Verified

Memorandum, (Appendix), which constitutes an

affidavit in the State of Utah. (App. p.68 Rec. doc 16-2)

Anderson also filed a copy of a Verified Complaint that

had been filed in Eighth District Court, in Vernal

Utah, to explain the facts of the case, that the home

was paid for. The Occupying Claimant Statute, and

the need to put Anderson in position of a tenant prior

to any eviction were never addressed by the Eighth

District Court in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law. (Compare Anderson's Verified Complaint,

(App. 232 with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, App. Pp 253)

On or about October 31, 2008, a purported

hearing was held on Petitioners Motion to dismiss. At

the hearing the judge denied Petitioner Anderson's

Motion to Dismiss, his right to testify, and ruled from

the bench evicting Petitioner from his paid-for home,

and to add insult to injury, stated in open court that he

did not know the law concerning evictions.

In the case at bar, there is no government

interest at stake. The State Court judge in his official

capacity, at the request of Respondents created and

imposed the procedures that denied Petitioner his

constitutional right to due process. The case at bar

mirrors the unconstitutional procedure used by the

District Court in Nelson v. Adams Id., where the

District Court amended the judgment without allowing

Nelson to defend against personal liability prior to

judgment.

Under Utah law if a person's Motion to Dismiss

is denied, then he has ten days to answer the

complaint, and request a trial or jury trial, Utah Rules

of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a)(1). Utah and Federal

case law mandate a trial. See Lincoln Financial Corp.

v. Ferrier, 567 P.2d 1102 (Utah 1977), District Court

is directed to reinstate Counterclaim, White v. District

Court 232 P.2d 785, under Real Estate Contract,

vender was entitled to notice of default and demand for

performance, Firemans Insurance Co. v. Brown 529 P.

2d. 419, Purchaser should be given a reasonable time

of "intent to forfeit contract," Pacific Development Co.

v. Stewart, 195 P. 2d 748 (1948 Utah). "The unlawful

detainer statute is a summary proceeding and in

derogation of common law and it provides a severe

remedy that must be strictly complied with before the

cause of action may be maintained." Parkside Salt

Lake City Corp., v. Insure-Rite 37 P. 3d. 1202.

Defendant had a right to a jury trial, Pernell v.

Southhall Realty, 416 U.S. 363(1974), "Parties whose

rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and

in order that they may enjoy that right they must be

notified. It is equally fundamental that the right to

notice and an opportunity to be heard must be granted

at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."

This court succinctly defined Luger v.

Edmondson Oil Company457 U. S. 922, a similar case

to the case at bar, stating:

The Court found potential § 1983

liability in Lugarbecause the attachment

scheme was created by the State and

because the private defendants, in

invoking the aid of state officials to

attach the disputed property, were

"willful participant[s] in joint activity

with the state or its agents." Id at 941

Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U. S. 158, at 162.

That is exactly what happened in the case at

bar, except it is an "abuse of authority" case, (as

opposed to a unconstitutional statute case), where the

judge abused his authority, as mentioned in Lugar, Id.,

and defined in Monroe v. Pape 365 U. S. 167 (1961).

Case

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. The Court Should Review a Rule 60(b)&(d)

This court gives final approval of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, prior to an amendment to the

Rules, therefore it makes sense to review a case that

brings into focus many of the parameters that Rule

60(b) and (d) speak of for relief from judgment.

The case at bar covers void judgment, fraud

upon the court, due process and whether or not a court

must refer to the record in writing the Statement of

Facts and Conclusions of law, and by not doing so

could it affect jurisdiction or due process rights.

Inasmuch as this covers nearly all aspects of Rule 60

(b) and (d), such a case may not come up for 50 or a

100 years.

The only issues are the issues in the question to

this court, because if the judgment in this case is void

on its face, then there is nothing that happened after

the void judgment was issued to give it legitimacy,

Armstrong, 380 U. S. 545 (1965) Although the statute

of limitations does not apply to void judgments, the

statute has not ran if the judgment is not void as a

matter of law, which is addressed below.

This case has been going on for more than 10

years. If courts know their duties in regard to void

judgments, then it will cut down on the time courts

must spend on a void judgment case. This Court's

review is needed to ensure the continued availability

of relief from such frauds, due process requirements

and void judgments explained in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Rule 60. In this case attorneys

calculated and orchestrated a plan to steal Anderson's

paid for home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The random mathematical odds of continual

misrepresentations of the law and written contractual

facts 30 times in a row in a six-page document as

defendants did are one in 1,073,741,824. Of course

when the misrepresentations are calculated to deceive

the odds are off of the charts.

Void Judgments That Reach this Court Are

Extremely Rare

It may be decades before this court has another

chance to explain the law concerning void judgments

because of the Constitutional issue of case of

controversy.

Hazel-Atlas, Id., was 76 years ago,

Dennis v. Sparks Id., was 33 years ago and Nelson v.

Adams Id., was 19 years ago. United Student Aid

Funds Inc v. Espinosa 130 S. Ct. 1367, case was nine

years ago, but just restated general principles of some

types of void judgments. In the case at bar,

conspiracy, fraud upon the court, denial of due process,

and subject matter jurisdiction are the front and

center constitutional issues.

The six page

memorandum by defendants show that judgment is

void on its face as a matter or law.

Because it may be 50 or 100 years before

another case like the case at bar comes along it makes

sense for the court to address the issues. If the justices

of the present court want to affirm past judgments or

establish precedent for void judgments, this the

opportunity to do so. From petitioners point of view,

the judgment is void on its face because of the Eighth

District court holding an evidentiary hearing at the

motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings, and for not

allowing any testimony. The judgment is also void on

its face because there was no reference to the record in

the "Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law." The

reason there is there was no record, if there was just

argument by attorneys making the same

misrepresentations, as in their memorandum, thereby

making the judgement void.

Lower Courts Need Definite Guidelines

Lower federal courts and State courts need

guidelines as what the constitutional law is, and not

having guidelines can cause extensive litigation as in

the case at bar. A good example is the RookerFeldman doctrine where this court reigned in Courts

of Appeals in the Exxon Mobile Corp., v. Saudi Basic

Industries 544U. S. 280 (2005). In the case at bar the

unbridled reigns stopped petitioners void judgment

horse. Corruption takes the place of justice when

procedural Rules are allowed to be disregarded.

Definite guidelines speed up the efficiently of the

courts, thereby cutting back on frivolous appeals

where parties claim a judgment is void, when in

reality it is not, or it may simply be a voidable

judgment. This case shows that courts would rather

side with large firms by dismissing on a non

jurisdictional grounds than siding with a pro se

litigant's constitutional rights that have been

mandated by this court many times.

It makes sense for this court to reaffirm its past

cases every so often, otherwise lower courts can

assume that the court has changed its mind or the

issue is not important if an issue has not been

reaffirmed in decades.

Judge Posner stated that void "lacks a settled or

precise meaning, and [t]he standard formulas are not

helpful, See In re Edwards 962 F.2d 641, 644 (7th Cir.

1992).

In the 1946 amendment to Rule 60 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the advisory note

stated, "It should be noted that Rule 60(b) does not

assume to define the substantive law as to the grounds

for vacating judgments, but merely prescribes the

practice in proceedings to obtain relief."

The issue of void judgments is clearly an issue

that needs guidance.

4. Courts Should Not Be Used for the Theft of

Property

When the Hazel-Atlas Id, patent was stolen this

court was extremely critical of that theft. The same

thing happened in Dennis Id., involving the theft of oil

land where the Fifth Circuit reversed its self in a en

bane decision, which this court upheld.

In the case at bar the State courts legalized

theft by their failure to follow State law and

Constitutional law. The Eighth District Court

judgment had more holes in it than a block of Swiss

cheese. All subsequent judgments and orders were

based on the Eighth District Court judgment. They

were nothing more than piggyback judgments.

Even though the Tenth Circuit has stated that

they review void judgments de novo, they did not

follow their own rules. Courts camouflage the issues

of void judgments by skipping them or in the case at

bar, making a gesturing remark rather than going by

their own purported mandatory rule

When lower courts don't address the issues in

a logical and pragmatic way, it causes confusion for

subsequent courts relying on that case as a precedent.

This court could expand on its federal bad faith

test and mandate more teeth in it. For instance in

Hazel-Atlas Id., the court mandated that the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals take various steps to insure

the voidness of the judgment. If this was mandated in

all instances where a judgment was void and bad faith

existed that the infringing party would as a matter of

law lose any right to counterclaim. This would not

only be a deterrent to potential bad actors but would

also expedite proceedings if bad actors forfeited any

right to counterclaim.

5. The Tenth Circuit Did Not Follow its Own

Mandated Case Law

Some Circuits mandate de novo review of

purported void judgments, and the Tenth Circuit is one

of those circuits. If a court determines that relief

under Rule 60(b)(4) is appropriate, relief must be

granted. V T A., Inc., v. Airco, Inc., 597 F. 2d 220,

224 n. 8 (10th Cir. 1979).

The Tenth Circuit Claimed That Finding a

Judgment Void Is Retrospective Relief

The Tenth Circuit stated at p. 13

See Opening Br. at 44 ("As to [the

requirement of seeking prospective

relief], Anderson asks the court for

declaratory relief, and to declare the

Eighth District Court judgment void.");

Reply Br. at 20 ("Anderson sought

prospective relief by requesting the court

to find the judgments of the Eighth and

Third District Courts void"). This is a

request for retrospective, not prospective,

relief. See Buchheit, 705 F.3d at 1159.

In other words, "a federal court can't review a

void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)&(d), of the

Federal Rules of Federal Procedure." It is also a

constructive thumbing of their nose at the Supreme

Court precedent in numerous decisions such as

Dennis, Id. Hazel-Atlas, Id. Jefferson v. Upton Id.

6. Crooked Lawyers Should Be Stopped from

Deviating from Constitutional Law

Crooked Lawyers give the legal profession a bad

name. Crooked Lawyers have always been a problem

and might be the second oldest profession in a

democratic society. Their corruption creates severe

consequences because they can have huge impacts on

a citizens life and constitutional rights and take up

valuable time of the courts, see "The First Statute of

Westminister" in the year 1275, putting crooked

lawyers in prison for a year and a day.

Lower courts state what they think the law is,

concerning void judgments but when it comes down to

making a decision, many times they allow corruption

to prevail when large law firms are involved. As an

example, examine the statement by the federal

District Court judge in the case at bar, in stead of

tackling the void judgment issue head on he dismissed

Petitioners motion for summary judgment in a footnote

because he dismissed the case. However, the case was

dismissed after Petitioner filed the motion.

It is unfair to allow a court of appeals to dismiss

a case on issues that are not jurisdictional when the

case is void because the plaintiffs only option is to

request a writ of certiorari, because if the plaintiff goes

back to district court, the district court will simply

quote the appellant court. This in turn places a

petitioners chances of prevailing at about 100 to one,

the amount of petitions for certiorari divided by the

number of cases actually heard by the Supreme Court.

If the district court does it job in the first place, of

looking at each of plaintiffs cause of action separately,

the courts of appeals is not faced with issue of void

judgments. It is easy for the court of appeals to

assume the judgment was correct, especially when the

plaintiff is pro Se.

Of course federal courts have inherent power to

sanction unscrupulous parties, but because there have

been so few Supreme Court cases, courts may be

hesitant to sanction bad actors from large influential

law firms without guidance.

High-powered attorneys should not be allowed

to change the procedure established by the Supreme

Court and Tenth Circuit that District Courts must

analyze each constitutional cause of action separately.

In the case at bar no court analyzed the claims

separately, but instead dismissed on non jurisdictional

issues. When attorneys are allowed to bend the rules

because their client is a judge or other high ranking

purported civil servants, citizens lose faith in

government.

Pro Se Litigants Should Have Full

Constitutional Rights Regarding Void Judgments

Pro se litigants should have the same

constitutional protections as litigants who hire large

big law firms. Petitioner's rights were trampled on in

every court, both state and federal. Pro se litigants

need to be reassured that their rights will not be

trampled on because they don't have an attorney. In

the case at bar, Defendants stole Anderson's paid-for

home and $50,000 belonging to Anderson that he

invested in the partnership and three years of hard

work for the partnership. Therefore Petitioner had no

choice except to proceed pro Se.

This Court Should Once Again Remind

Lower Courts That a Void Judgment Cannot Gain

Legitimacy, Therefore Any Issue Trying to Justify the

Void Judgment Is Also Void as a Matter of Supreme

Court Law

The definition of void ab initio by that definition

mandates that a void judgment can never gain

legitimacy because it is void from the inception.

Therefore this case is simple, if the judgment is void,

then all subsequent orders and judgments are void as

a matter of law. The fact is that each and every

decision in each and every court was based on the

Eighth District Court void judgment. The decisions

were all piggyback decisions. No court delved into the

void judgment issue in spite of the fact it is void on its

face. Inasmuch as the judgment is void on its face,

this is a very simple case. The volume of exhibits is

needed by this court's rules. However, only small

parts of the exhibits need be examined as is shown

below.

Because a void judgment cannot gain

legitimacy, any subsequent claim or argument is also

void and without merit. The Tenth Circuit dismissed

the complaint on various grounds, which are issues for

a jury, and should not be issues for dismissal at the

motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings. These

issues would and should not be reasons for dismissal

pursuant to case law, prior to Defendants answering

the complaint. The Tenth Circuit got the buggy in

front of the horse. The point is, if the judgment is void

all other orders and issues are irrelevant and also void.

Every issue that happened subsequently to a void

judgment is without merit because a void judgment

can never gain legitimacy, any argument is also

therefore without merit and also void. See Armstrong

v. Manzo 380 U. S. 5451 551 552, the slate must be

wiped clean when the right to be heard has been

denied. With this in mind, the only issue in front of

the court is whether or not the judgment is void. Even

though the issues are void, because the judgment is

void, they will be addressed briefly below to show they

were not proper issues before any Court for other

reasons.

In the Civil Rights Cases 109 U. S. 3, 11, 17

(1883), this Court pointed out that the Amendment

makes void "State action of every kind" which is

inconsistent with the guaranties therein contained,

and extends to manifestations of "State authority in

the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive

proceedings. Shelley v. Kraemer 334 U. S. 1, at 14.

In Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings. v. Hill, 281 U.

S. 673, 680 (1930), this Court, through Mr. Justice

Brandeis stated:

The federal guaranteed right of

due process extends to state action

through its judicial as well as through its

legislative executive or administrative

branch of government.

The action of state courts in

imposing penalties of depriving parties of

other substantive rights without

providing adequate notice and

opportunity to defend, has, of course, long

been regarded as a denial of the due

process of law guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment

opportunity to defend was put off for

another day and another court.

Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings. v.

Hill, supra. Cf. Pennoyer v. Neff,95 U.

S. 714 (1878).

The case at bar has been going on for 10 years.

If courts were mandated to address void judgments, it

would help cut down on court time on void judgment

cases. The reason the case has continues to go on is

Defendants have tried to put lipstick on the void

judgment by using red-herring arguments.

If the court addressed void judgments in

contrast with voidable judgments, it would help lower

courts address the void judgment issue.

In the Interest of Justice

What about "in the interest of justice," when

cases are extremely flagrant like the case at bar where

the attorneys and judge broke nearly every rule

mandated under the constitution? Under Utah law

there is law concerning stealing real property. Of

course the only way to steal real property is through

fraud, because it can't be moved. In this case the

defendants used the courts to steal Anderson's paid for

home.

Litigants need to feel like they got a fair shake

and that does not happen when courts say one thing

but do another as in the case at bar.

This Court Should Act Here Because the

Defense Attorneys Have Constructively Thumbed the

Nose at Justice Ginsberg and Other Justices

In the various courts Petitioner Anderson has

been in front of, the defense attorneys have

constructively thumbed their noses at Justice Ginsberg

and the eight other members of the Nelson Id.,court

because it was a unanimous decision.

Justices

Thomas and Breyer who were part of the Nelson

decision are still members of the Supreme Court.

It is not just the Nelson Id., case written by

justice Ginsberg that is at issue here, there are four

other cases involved in Anderson's question to this

court, that could have enormous implications if the

judgment is allowed to stand. Courts could surmise

there is not such a thing as a void judgment because

the issue was not addressed here.

Dennis v. Sparks Id., was decided in 1980, so it

appears defendants disregard the Dennis ruling in

regards to the case at bar as non stare decisis. They

must think the precedent does not apply when the

justices that were part of the decision are no longer on

the court. However, Nelson v. Adams Id, a unanimous

decision was written by Justice Ginsberg. Justice

Thomas was also involved in that decision. You would

think that lower courts would wait until justices are no

longer on the court before they try to throw aside stare

decisis. Of course Hazel-Atlas, Id., was decided in

1942, but the other side of the coin is that Jefferson v.

Upton Id was decided in 2010. Besides the case at bar

was decided on non jurisdictional issues at the motion

to dismiss stage of the proceedings officers of the court

should not be thumbing their nose at the justices of

this court, by refusing to address every single

constitutional issue in the question before this court.

United Student Aid Fun ds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 130 S. Ct.

1367 made it clear that a void judgment is still a part

of present law, but did not define what constitutes a

void judgment. Commentators and lower courts have

different ideas interpreting what this court meant in

Espinosa, Id.

Rule 60(b)&(d) of the Federal Rules of

Federal Procedure Should Be Addressed

Rule 60(b)(4) and (d)(1) and (3) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure should be addressed and the

case at a bar brings this Rule into focus. This Court

has provided little guidance on applying Rule 60 for

fraud upon the court misrepresentation or void

judgments. Of course the reason is that void

judgments are rare. In Herring v. United States of

America 424 F.3d 384, 386 (3rd Cir. 2005) the court

stated, "Actions for fraud upon the court are so rare

that this Court has not previously had the occasion to

articulate a legal definition of the concept." The court

went on to quote some definitions of other circuits in

the footnotes. The Court then rejected the Tenth

Circuit requirements for a void judgment and went to

make their own requirements.

When appellant Courts go through the motions

without addressing the major issue of a case prior to

their decision, it is unfair. This is especially true when

a judgments is void on its face. Without some type of

mandate which the Tenth Circuit claims to use justice

will not be served and crooked lawyers will prevail.

When a Litigant Claims a Judgment Is

Void on its Face, All Courts Should Be Mandated to

Review That Issue in Their Decision

In everyday life, when a person does not want

to take about a certain subject, they change the

subject. How can a litigant feel like the court was fair

when the lawyers and judges refuse to address the

issue in a pragmatic manner instead of avoiding the

void issue like the plague by simply issuing piggyback

judgments based on the Eighth District Court

judgment. In the case at bar if a single judge would

have explained the reason for their decision, Petitioner

may have felt the proceeding was fair, but of course

that never happened, not a single time, nor could they.

However all courts state that if a judgment is void it

must be addressed. This court set the example in

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. vHartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S.

238 (1944), by mandating that,

The judgment is reversed with

directions to set aside the 1932 judgment

of the Circuit Court of Appeals, [1] recall

the 1932 mandate, [2] dismiss Hartford's

appeal, and [3] issue mandate to the

District Court directing it to set aside its

judgment entered pursuant to the Circuit

Court of Appeals' mandate, [4] to

reinstate its original judgment denying

relief to Hartford, and [5] to take such

additional action as may be necessary

and appropriate.

If the title of pro se instead of J.D. is a reason

for a decision and/or avoiding the issues then the

constitution is meaningless.

It has been said that a void judgment can never

gain legitimacy. Who is going to tell the lower courts

that the judgment against Petitioner is

unconstitutional for four or five reasons, and that void

judgments cannot stand?

When a court refuses to even talk about

misrepresentations, void judgments, fraud upon the

court and due process or explain why it will not

address the issue, it obviously means the court has no

answer. It is not just the courts that have refused to

talk about the void judgment, but is also all

defendants, and the lawyers for the State and the

lawyer for Utah courts. When a court slides an issue

under the rug it is an obvious thumb on the scales of

justice.

There can be no justice without

transparency. Petitioner brought up the issues of void

judgment and due process but each and every court

refused to address the issues and rendered piggyback

judgments relying on misrepresentations of

Defendants in the Eighth District Court judgment.

13. Void Judgments Are Part of Common Law

Void judgments can be traced back to early

English common law. It made sense then and now

because declaring a void judgment void promotes the

integrity of the courts. Courts and citizens in this age

of computers have no problem quickly finding what the

law is regarding various legal issues. So, if a court

says the law is such and such then does something

else, citizens rightfully feel they got a raw deal.

Stretching the law is evolution of the law that

can happen because no person thinks the same

including judges. Attorneys trying to help their

clients clutter the law with minuscule phrases when

put together can change the meaning of the law over

time. The issues that come before a court no doubt

have implications as to decisions on future opinions,

therefore because all cases are different, the law gets

stretched, pulled and pushed in different directions

simply by purported stare decisis of each circuit. The

need for Realigning the various issues that have

veered off in different directions is important,

especially on due process and equal protection issues.

The case at bar covers both issues, and other

constitutional issues. The case is important because it

covers various ways a judgment may be considered

void.

It Is Unfair for a District or Circuit Court

to Use non Jurisdictional Issues to Dismiss a Law

Suit at the Motion to Dismiss Stage of the

Proceedings

It is unfair for this court to use non

jurisdictional issues to dismiss a law suit at the motion

to dismiss stage of the proceedings, when refuses to go

into detail on a judgment that is void on its face as a

matter of law. In this case the District and Tenth

Circuit courts dismissed Anderson's claims that are

issues for the jury. Of course if the judgment is void

the slate should be wiped clean, Armstrong, Id.

Because the judgments against Anderson are

void on their face as a matter of law, independent of

which federal court of appeals is quoted, the reasons

for granting the writ of certiorari are more important

than this particular case. The court's input would give

clear guidance for future cases that come before all

courts, both state and federal.

Courts Are Afraid to Undue Another

Court's Judgment Thereby Denying Constitutional

Rights

Courts are afraid to undue another courts

judgment because the parameters have been laid out

by the circuit courts for the most part. Anderson

presented the issue to the Eighth District Court, the

Third District Court, Utah Court of Appeals, the

federal District Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of

Appeals. Each and every court avoided the void

judgment issue like the plague. They all refused to

even mention the words, "void judgment." If a single

court would have had the intestinal fortitude to at

least say, "The judgment is not void because of such

and such or so and so," it would at least have the

appearance of a fair proceeding. However, not a single

court dared go there. The courts have no answer

because the judgement was void on its face from the

beginning as a matter of law, therefore the courts

issued piggyback judgments relying on the Eighth

District Court judgment and arguments that may

apply if the judgment was not void. This problem is

nation wide and an internet article was written about

the issue entitled, Rule 60(b)(4): "When the Courts of

Limited Jurisdiction Yield to Finality," by Stephen

Ludovici.

In addressing most or all issues involving void

judgments at one time, it makes the law clear as to

when a judgment is, void thereby avoiding confusion

in later cases. This is a simple case to adjudicate,

because the judgment is void on its face as a matter of

law under Tenth Circuit precedent, which

automatically does away with non-jurisdictional

issues, that should be decided by a jury.

There can be no question that the Eighth

District Court judgment was void on its face, and each

and every subsequent judgment at best relied upon the

Eighth District Court's void judgment. There was a

total of six serial piggyback judgments happening in

every single court where the issue of the void judgment

was raised. The point being that even though courts

claim that they review a pro se litigant's complaint

liberally, it is much easier to rely on a large law firm's

claims.

16. No One Is above the Law

The old adage "No one is above the law," does

not exist in this case because Defendants stole a paid

for home with impunity, and they used the courts to do

it. Hearing the case would reaffirm that "no one is

above the law."

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

These

words, written above the main entrance to the

Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate

responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United

States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation

for all cases and controversies arising under the

Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the

final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with

ensuring the American people the promise of equal

justice under law and, thereby, also functions as

guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

In the case at bar, all courts both State and

federal have been afraid to mention due process, equal

protection, void judgment, or any other constitutional

issue mandated upon all courts by the constitution. At

the same time the courts say they address pro se

complaints liberally.

In contrast, regarding constitutional cases, in M

A. K Investment Group, LLC v. City of Glendale No.

16-1492 (May 14, 2018), with numerous lawyers for

the plaintiff, the Tenth Circuit reversed on a narrow

due process issue, while refusing to mention due

process, or void judgment in Anderson's pro se case.

M A. K Id was decided less than two months prior to

Anderson's case. Although courts claim they review

pro se cases liberally, the analogy says wrong.

Anderson's complaint has thirteen federal causes of

action. Neither the District Court of the Court of

Appeals addressed the issues separately, as mandated

by the Tenth Circuit and this court.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., more than a

hundred years ago writing for the Court in McDonald

vMabee 243 U. S. 90, 91 (1917) explained,

Subject to its conception of

sovereignty even the common law

required a judgment not be contrary to

natural justice. Douglas v. Forrest, 4

Bing. 686, 700,701, Bequet v.

MacCarthy, 2 B. & Ad. 951, 959.

Maubourquet v. Wyse (1867), 1 Ir. Rep.

C. L. 471, 481. And in States bound

together by a Constitution and subject to

the Fourteenth Amendment, great

caution should be used not to let fiction

deny the fair play that can be secured

only by a pretty close adhesion to fact.

Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S.

394.

The McDonaldld., judgment was void for lack of

service because the defendant has left the state prior

to service by publication. In the case at bar, Petitioner

does not contest the service, but subsequently the

Court broke nearly every due process requirement of

the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald Id., Court at 92 also explained

that a judgment void in one state could not gain

validity in another state. Likewise, a judgment void

for Constitutional violations of procedural due process,

misrepresentation of the law, together with Statement

of Facts and Conclusions of Law with no reference to

the record, because no record existed would also be

void in any court in which it is brought. This court

reaffirmed that position in Armstrong Id

17. Rogue Attorneys Should Be Exposed

Rogue High-powered law firms should be

exposed not protected. Petitioner made a motion that

the Tenth Circuit hire a "Special Master" to

investigate this case, and if Petitioner was wrong

about the judgment being void, he would pay for the

special master, however if the judgment was void, then

the defendants would pay for the special master. The

court refused to entertain petitioner's motion, but

instead dismissed on non-jurisdictional grounds. If the

Tenth Circuit would have mandated that the

defendants answer the complaint with specificity it

would have exposed the corruption that started in the

Eighth District Court case.

As an example, even though all private party

defendants were Defendants in Petitioners first federal

law suit, they claimed in Utah's Third District Court,

the case was dismissed by the federal district court

with prejudice, when in fact it was dismissed without

prejudice. Defendants refused to correct their

statement until the judge ruled in their favor.

In Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U. S. 158, at 161 this

Court stated:

The purpose of § 1983 is to deter

state actors from using the badge of their

authority to deprive individuals of their

federally guaranteed rights and to

provide relief to victims if such

deterrence fails. Carey v. Pjphus, 435 U.

S. 247, 254-257 (1978).

The Wyatt court then sent the case back to

District court to see if the attorney involved was a

state actor, which shows the Tenth Circuit was wrong

in dismissing on privilege. Privilege is not a

jurisdictional issue. In addition privilege cannot

prevail over fraud, See Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown

Gee &Loveless 287 P.3d 1157, 1166 (Utah 2012).

18. Petitioner Has Been Falsely Accused of

Being a Dead Beat Renter Because He was not

Allowed to speak in the Eighth District Court in

violation of the First Amendment

Petitioner has been falsely accused of being a

dead beat renter, which could be on his credit report

for eight years. Petitioner has never had a right to be

heard and to betaken seriously and this case is not a

he said she said case. The six page memorandum

entitled "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss" speaks for

itself. The memorandum shows 30 misrepresentations

and by its very title shows the court held the

evidentiary hearing at the motion to dismiss stage of

the proceedings. The lower courts did not allow the

document to speak or for Petitioner to speak.

In Nelson v. Adams USA., Inc., 529 U. S. 460,

466 (2000), a case that is not only on point, mirroring

the case at bar, Justice Ginsburg writing for this court

stated:

We hold that the District Court

erred in amending the judgment

immediately upon permitting

amendment of the pleading. Due process

as reflected in Rule 15 as well as Rule 12

required that Nelson be given an

opportunity to respond and contest his

personal liability for the award after he

was made a party and before the entry of

judgment against him.

The opportunity to respond,

fundamental to due process, is the echo of

the opportunity to respond to the original

pleadings under Rule 12(a)(1)

To summarize, Nelson was never

afforded a proper opportunity to respond

to the claim against him. Instead, he

was adjudged liable the very first

moment his personal liability was legally

at issue.

Nelson's winning argument.

rests

on his right to have time and opportunity

to respond to the claim once Adams

gained leave to sue Nelson in his

individual capacity, and thereby to reach

beyond OCPs corporate till into Nelson's

personal pocket. Nelson, Id. at 469

We say

that judicial

predictions about the outcome of

hypothesized litigation cannot substitute

for the actual opportunity to defend what

due process affords every party against

whom a claim is stated. As judge

Newman wrote in his decent: "The law,

at its most fundamental, does not render

judgment simply because a person might

have been found liable had he been

charged." [Nelson Id., at 471]

As this Court held that such action violated the

corporate president's due process rights since he had

no opportunity to defend. The District Court had

usurped his right to have time and opportunity to

defend the claim. Conspiracy was not an issue in

[Nelson, Id]

Anderson was refused time and opportunity to

respond after his 12(b)(6) motion was denied. This was

accomplished by Respondent- attorneys

misrepresenting the law and facts to Judge Anderson.

Judge Anderson in one fell swoop denied Petitioner

Anderson's 12(b)(6) motion and ruled for Respondents

without testimony or confrontation from either side.

The decision denied Petitioner his Fourteenth

Amendment due process rights, and his Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure rights under Rule 12(a)(1).

legislative executive or administrative branch of

government. The Nelson Id., Court continued,

The action of state courts in

imposing penalties of depriving parties of

other substantive rights without

providing adequate notice and

opportunity to defend, has, of course, long

been regarded as a denial of the due

process of law guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment.

opportunity to defend was put off for

another day and another court.

Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings. V.

Hill, supra. Cf. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.

S. 714(1878)

In the Eighth District Court case, Anderson was

never given an opportunity to respond to the claim

that he was a renter. There was no indication that the

Court planned to end the proceedings at the motion to

dismiss stage of the proceedings. In fact, petitioner

was under the assumption and confident that he would

prevail with his Motion to Dismiss, (App. Pp. 232)

19. The Court Splits should be addressed

concerning void judgments

In Herring v. United States ofAmerica 424 F.3d

384, 386 (3'' Cir. 2005) the Court in its foot notes

explained the various definitions of void judgments by

various circuits. The splits and various definitions by

the Circuits should be addressed.

Moore's Federal Practice 3D 60-159 §60.44,

details different Circuits reasons for void judgments.

At 60-163 § 60.44[51[b] [a], Moore.s stated,

Every Rule 60(b) motion is, at

least theoretically, subject to the court's

discretion (see § 60.22[1] However, if a

judgment is void, the only way the court

can exercise its discretion is by granting

relief.

In other words, if a court

determines that a judgment is truly void,

and not simply erroneous (see[1], above,

the court really has no discretion at all; it

must recognize that the judgment is a

nullity and grant relief.

At [c] Moore's continued,

as discussed in § 60.65[1], Rule 609(c)(1)

requires that every motion seeking relief

from judgment under Rule 60(b) be

brought "within a reasonable time. This

requirement technically applies to

motions under Rule 60(b)(4), because of

the unique considerations applicable to

void judgments, a motion brought many

years after the judgment was obtained

may nevertheless be made within a

reasonable time. The mere fact that a

significant amount of time has passed

since a void judgment since a void

judgment was rendered cannot "cure" its

fatal infirmity. For this reason, some

authority states that a motion under

Rule 60(b)(4) may be made at any time.

[5] footnotes detailing various circuits

position omitted]

20. Wiping the Slate Clean

By wiping the slate clean as this court did in

Armstrong Id., it will send a message that fraud upon

the court, denial of due process, denial of equal

protection, conspiracy, and refusal to refer to the

record will not be tolerated. If this court were to make

mandates as it did in Hazel-Atlas Id., it will send a

message of what can happen when courts deny

Constitutional rights.

CONCLUSION

Because of the 20 reasons Petitioner has put

forth, in this Petition for certiorari this Court should

set aside the Eighth District Court judgment against

Petitioner. The Court should also wipe the slate clean

as in Armstrong Id., mandate the lower courts and

State courts set aside their Orders and Judgments as

in Hazel Atlas Id, and clarify other issues in this

Petition as it sees fit. The issues presented are

conspiracy, due process, equal protection, First

Amendment violations, fraud upon the court, and

referring to the record when writing the Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Respectfully Submitted October, 2018

Greg Anderson

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.