Courts have a lot of power and therefore there have been restraints that apply to court procedures to discourage abuse and corruption.
Without these restraints there would be no guarantee that courts would render justice. They could do whatever they felt like — or worse, be corrupt.
The Las Vegas Tribune is concerned with judges in our courts that abuse their power of office and have a propensity to rule or make laws from the bench. Such actions of Judges violate laws and should be dealt with severe and immediate remedies.
Before any action can be heard or proceed in court, a fundamental and primary issue must be addressed. The subject of this series, Clark Feeley, asked a simple question: does the forum court have personal and subject matter jurisdiction? Las Vegas Tribune inquired of several local attorneys and came to our own conclusion.
Personal jurisdiction requires that all parties in the action must be legally before the court. A person can waive that requirement if they so choose, explained a local attorney who refused to get involved in the story by name; another attorney, as soon as he heard the story, asked the newspaper if the center of the story has appealed the case because there are many reasons to appeal.
Subject matter jurisdiction is such that it can never be waived, given, or agreed to. A court either has subject matter jurisdiction or it does not. This provision is so powerful that any ruling lacking jurisdiction is void forever, and it is considered to never have happened.
This newspaper has been publishing articles concerning a District Court case that was filed in Nevada, which presents a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
The District Court in Nevada accepted a case that was filed as a tort for misappropriation and access to financial records that would prove the tort where Clark Feeley was requesting a financial disclosure and bank records from his sister, Wanda Feeley, in regard to their mother’s New Hampshire Trust.
The Nevada Court had jurisdiction to hear the tort; however, early on in the case, the judge, Allan Earl, ordered the Plaintiff’s attorney to amend the complaint to what appears to be a scheme to enrich local attorneys that may enjoy a cozy relationship with the judge, including the non-prevailing attorneys, a ruling never seen before.
This order actually brought before the court innocent parties that had no cause of action, and a Trust from New Hampshire that was not an entity, and could not be sued, and it was outside the territory of Nevada. When the Judge did this he exceeded subject matter jurisdiction, a fatal mistake.
States in the United States have sovereignty and the US Government cannot infringe upon that. States have recognized that the formation of Trusts within their states create jobs and revenue.
The above is really basic and fundamental US Trust law. A United States Supreme Court Decision recognized the importance of the individual states Trust law and published a binding and mandatory opinion in Hanson v. Denckla (1958).
HANSON & DENCKLA EXCERPT
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, an exercise of jurisdiction over persons or property outside the forum State was thought to be an absolute nullity,  but the matter 250*250 remained a question of state law over which this Court exercised no authority. With the adoption of that Amendment, any judgment purporting to bind the person of a defendant over whom the court had not acquired in personam jurisdiction was void within the State as well as without. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714. Nearly a century has passed without this Court being called upon to apply that principle to an in rem judgment dealing with property outside the forum State. The invalidity of such a judgment within the forum State seems to have been assumed — and with good reason. Since a State is forbidden to enter a judgment attempting to bind a person over whom it has no jurisdiction, it has
even less right to enter a judgment purporting to extinguish the interest of such a person in property over which the court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, so far as it purports to rest upon jurisdiction over the trust assets, the judgment of the Florida court cannot be sustained. Sadler v. Industrial Trust Co., 327 Mass. 10, 97 N.E. 2d 169.
The above opinion becomes the law of the land and must be controlling on all lower courts in the country. Any decision contrary to such a ruling is void and has no force just as if it never was rendered.
The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions, Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
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. Exceeding Jurisdiction
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
“If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) “A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect.” (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) “a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its
jurisdiction.” (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370. Federal judges issued orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in federal courts. After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen corruptly seized and started to liquidate Stich’s assets, Judge Jones issued an unconstitutional order barring Stich from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation.
Void Orders Can Be Attacked At Any Time
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Portion of judgment directing defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining approval… was not appropriately limited in duration and, thus, district court abused its discretion by not vacating it as being prospectively inequitable.” Id at 722.
Excerpt of Void orders, Black’s Law dictionary, Annotation 13 — Fourteenth Amendment…
Jurisdiction Generally, Jurisdiction may be defined as the power to create legal interests. In the famous case of Pennoyer v. Neff, the Court enunciated two principles of jurisdiction respecting the States in a federal system. First, “every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory,’’ and, second, “no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.’’ Although these two principles were drawn from the writings of Joseph Story refining the theories of continental jurists, the constitutional basis for them was deemed to be in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574: Void judgment. One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its
inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a “void judgment” if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
The above excerpts are Case Law of the United States. Further, they all are bound and controlled by a United States Supreme Court Decision.
The Las Vegas Tribune has checked the facts of all stories published in the newspaper. We take everything very seriously here. Our investigation has determined that the facts presented above are legally correct.
No state in the country can control real property or Trust assets in another state. All Trusts would be worthless otherwise, explained Feeley. Any court that renders a decision attempting to control a sister’s state Trust is void and not subject to Full Faith and Credit, he added.
The Case that this newspaper has been reporting on, Feeley v. Feeley, has had a ruling entered in the Case that is void. The legal Trustee and the beneficiaries should not have the burden placed on them to prevail in an Appeal of a void order. The ruling never happened.
The State of Nevada is actively promoting the advantages of creating and housing Trusts under the laws of Nevada. This newspaper is wondering how that promotion is not fraud. A Nevada District Court entered an Order that attempted to seize assets from a sister state.
That establishes that Nevada does not have integrity, and any creator of Trusts would be foolish to establish a Trust in Nevada.
The above result of the Nevada action may well lose the opportunity to have trillions of dollars of Trust creation established within the borders of Nevada. All taxpayers of Nevada should be very concerned.
We have elected officials continuously that raise and continue to raise taxes. The revenue that Trusts bring to Nevada is a gift and our leaders better make sure it materializes, thereby lessening the burden on taxpayers.
The corruption in the Nevada courts is a major concern to all. The Feeley v. Feeley Case is before the Nevada Appellate Court and Nevada can restore integrity by the Court upholding the law of the land and ruling that the District Court rulings are void. Then the state can continue to promote Nevada as the number one jurisdiction to create and house a Trust in. If the Appellate Court does not follow binding precedent then the Judiciary loses all integrity. Any promotion of Trusts in Nevada would then be a fraud.