With loss of due process in a case, a judge loses his powers. If a judge does not respect the due process clause of the national and state constitutions, he becomes impotent to further handle a matter before him.
In a criminal case, if he shows a bias in favor of the state, the defendant is right to move for a dismissal of all charges because the court’s actions and orders are not just voidable, but void.
By David Tulis / 92.7 NoogaRadio
In Chattanooga, the Diana Watt case is an example of the sort of powerlessness that judges such as sessions court judge Clarence Shattuck obtain by their actions — but which impotence they simply ignore and pretend doesn’t exist in their high-pressure jobs with 100-plus defendants a day..
Judge Shattuck, in the state’s prosecution of Diana Watt, showed clear bias against her by repeatedly excusing the accusing officer — the state’s main witness — for absences for which he had no excuse.
These absences Chattanooga policeman Brian McClard imposed in contempt of Judge Shattuck. In contempt of the judge and and session court’s 120-day “dispose the case” rule. Mr. McClard’s absence gravely troubled Mrs. Watt, a caregiver for old people, who was not given an iota of notice.
The entire case should have been dismissed, not just the bogus retaliation for past acts by officer charge, but the transportation counts under Title 55, the assault, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges, too.
But Judge Shattuck sent the case to the grand jury. Legally, that order is void, an empty shell of an order with no force, a fan whose motion is so slight it cannot make even a butterfly wing wobble.
Cases clear: No due process requires dismissal
The so-called case law for void judgment and due process is unmistakeable.
➤ 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.
➤ 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.2d720 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Portion of judgment directing defendant not to import vehicles
➤ A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment. State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).
➤ A void judgment is one which shows upon face of record a want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render the judgment. Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W. 2d 168 (Tenn. 1951).
Due process violations void case
➤ The rule for a judgment of either of these kinds is that every jurisdictional fact must affirmatively appear upon the record, or the judgment is void. This is true of judgments in attachment proceedings. Harris v. Hadden, 75 Tenn. (7 Lea), 215; Ingle v. McCurrey [McCurry] 48 Tenn. (1 Heisk.),  29; Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 585*585 (6 Baxt.)  257; Pope v. Harrison, 84 Tenn. (16 Lea), 82, 95.
➤ Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14, Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 896 P.2d 58 (Kan.1997)
➤ Void judgment, such as may be vacated at any time is one whose invalidity appears on face of judgment roll. Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okl. 1991).
➤ 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).
➤ Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law. Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E. 2d 741 (Ill. App. Dist. 1993).
➤ Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amed. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2D 1383 (Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1983).
➤ Void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render is has no jurisdiction. Mills v. Richardson, 81 S.E. 2d 409, (N.C. 1954).
➤ Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside. Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.
➤ 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).