E. GOVERNMENT CODE: The sources of jurisdiction most often used to support a writ of mandamus to the supreme court or to a court of appeals appear in the Government Code.

II. VOID Orders/Judgments

A. The Elements of VOID Orders/Judgments:

1. Lacking jurisdiction of the subject matter, or parties, and violation of due process are the  most important elements of a VOID Order or Judgment.

2. 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. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.

3. When attacking a void order by mandamus, it is not necessary to show no adequate remedy at law exists. See In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1007 WL 854253 (Tex. June 29, 2000)(per curiam).

4. Mandamus will lie to correct a void order, that is, an order the trial court had no power or jurisdiction to render. See Urbish v. 127th Judicial Dist. Court, 708 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding). If an order is void, the relator need not show he lacks an adequate appellate remedy, and mandamus relief is appropriate. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding).

5. A judgment is void if it is shown that the court lacked jurisdiction 1) over a party or the property; 2) over the subject matter; 3) to enter a particular judgment; or 4) to act as a court. Jurisdiction could not be conferred by waiver or retroactively ELNA PFEFFER ET AL. v. ALVIN MEISSNER ET AL. (11/23/55) 286 S.W.2d 241.

C.  CITING FACTS, LAW, STATUTES, CONSTITUTIONS, ETC. TO ATTACK THE VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS:

1. We must carefully cite sufficient facts to substantiate our claims, defenses, or counter-claims and search online focusing on the relevant case law in our respective state to strengthen our position.

2. Research relevant law, statutes, rules, the Constitutional Provisions of our respective state and those of the US Constitution, e.g., Texas Open Courts Doctrine, 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

3. Refer to the samples of PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

4. Download our respective state’s  Rules of Appellate Procedure, e.g., Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure – Supreme Court of Texas.  Read the relevant rules with care to avoid making any procedural error, which will result in immediate dismissal.

5. Start drafting our own PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, and revise it as many times as possible before submitting it to the appropriate court.

6. Make a request to the state District Clerk, and designate the court record to be submitted to the Appellate Court.

7. If you encounter any procedural problems, ask the Appellate Court Clerk for help.

8. Send it to the Appellate Clerk by PRIORITY MAIL without return receipt because we can track the DELIVERY time and date online without extra cost.

9. Never forget to sign the PETITION and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE before a Notary Public because a VERIFIED PETITION is essential.

********************************************************************************

* It took me ten years to realize that MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments is my salvation after having suffered through my opponents’ fraud, and the opposing counsel’s fraud on the court in conspiracy with the corrupt judges who “are proud to be in their pockets,” quoting a certain judge’s own admission/statement. I believe the campaign contributions are to blame for the corruption of the officers of the court, including, but not limited to, lawyers and judges, e.g., David Roberts, Randall W. Hill, and Juergen “Skipper” Koetter!

Thus, know your opponent. Look for his or her weaknesses.

For example, I was lucky enough to contact the office of Texas Secretary of State to inquire about Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., which happened to be an ASSUMED NAME, and its CERTIFICATE expired on June 5, 1993 without any renewal. Consequently, it was factually, and legally non-existent, and it had no standing to sue. See Expiration of Assumed Name Certificate and Standing to Sue Posted on May 18, 2012. Besides, there are so many other fundamental defects in my opponents’ pleadings that I am sure of having justice served one of these days despite countless setbacks in the past ten years.