Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Plaintiff vs. Chuck A ,Figueroa Secured Party Creditor

___________________________________

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Case No. SC-2011-4343

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, SECURED PARTY CREDITOR, DAMAGED PARTY, MOTION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT VOID AB INITIO ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD

I Chuck A,Figueroa Secured Party Creditor, Personal Representative and party of interest to the above captioned actions, hereinafter movant, has an interest in the above captioned matters to file this motion to vacate void judgment in that movant has first hand knowledge that above alleged case is void ab initio and a complete nullity as jurisdiction in this alleged case has been challenged and never proven as the alleged defendants affidavits evidence and material facts on the record have never been rebutted and stands un challenged see exhibit M. Plaintiff is aware of the controversy in this case that has never been rebutted. That Wanda Figueroa, Movants mother is being held unlawfully, against her will, without any official court order and without any jurisdiction

BREIF AND SUPPORT Plaintiffs summary judgment in above captioned case is a substantive and procedural nullity. Plaintiffs summary judgment in above captioned case is frivolous on its face. Plaintiff has placed no facts on record, no facts appear on record weather by deposition, admission, answer to interrogatory , or by affidavit to suggest or to support jurisdiction at inception

as no competent witness appears on the record by the documentary essential facts required by law. [emphasis added] 1. On or about the 8th day of October 2008 A.D., in Tulsa county, OKLAHOMA Wanda Figueroa was seized for a second time, (1sttime was on or about September 23rd2010) without a warrant, written accusatory instrument, sworn affidavit, bona fide mittimus or committal papers or summons supported by oath or affirmation [emphasis added] 2. Wanda Figueroa was kidnapped and subsequently transported to an unknown location. All parties involved in this illegal action have failed to produce or serve upon the Court or the District Attorney of said county a witness that has filed a proper complaint and has sworn under oath that he/she has witnessed a crime being committed or committed by Wanda Figueroa.. 3. Movant has first hand knowledge that Wanda Figueroa is being held unlawfully, against her will, without any official warrant, written accusatory instrument, sworn affidavit, bona fide mittimus or committal papers or summons supported by oath or affirmation, without any jurisdiction see Johnson v. Zerbst ,and Movant believes that Movants mother is in danger of life and limb and in fact movant believes movants mother may already be dead from plaintiffs actions.[emphasis added] 4. The DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES- ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES c/o Reginald Sharp and possible party/ies unknown to Movant, have refused to release Wanda Figueroa, disclose her location to Movant and are holding Movants mother against her will, over Movants objection and without any jurisdiction . See Bruce v. Miller, and High v. Southwestern Insurance Company , State v. City of Tulsa[emphasis added] I. This is a an attack on the judgment rendered in the above captioned case regarding Movants mother without the court perfecting jurisdiction of the subject matter and jurisdiction in personum based on the fraud upon the court and the issuance of sham legal process. In Re Village

of Willowbrook.[emphasis added] II. This motion to vacate is based upon the uncontroverted, un rebutted facts of the record in this case clearly reflect that this honorable court was without personum or subject matter jurisdiction for reasons that will be explained in the memorandum and Affidavit in Support/Criminal Activity Report attached hereto exhibit M and incorporated herein by reference that plaintiffs have failed to refute and now is evidence of fact on the record.[emphasis added] III. The record shows that alleged defendant, Carlos A, Figueroa has testified, submitted affidavits and material evidence un -rebutted by plaintiff, see exhibit H'), Exhibit U ,exhibit W exhibit P,Q, and C) attached.[emphasis added] IV. The alleged judgment in the matter of Wanda Figueroa is void on the face of the record where Plaintiff detained Wanda Figueroa and is holding Wanda Figueroa without consent and over and above her objection. V. This court has inherent power, to vacate in its ministerial capacity and duty any judgments, actions, orders or decrees that are void on the face of the record. Austin v. Smith[emphasis added] VI. The face of the record and the facts therein are uncontroverted, un-refuted that the court lacked the proper invocation of its jurisdiction in regards to Movants mother based on sham legal process in the above captioned matters that purported to be valid. VII. The record shows that alleged defendant, Carlos A, Figueroa has testified, submitted affidavits and material evidence un -rebutted by plaintiff and testifying again infra establishing that material facts to which there is substantial controversy are at issue in this case, see exhibit H'), Exhibit U ,exhibit W exhibit P,Q, and C) attached. IIX. A void judgment neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it, and all claims flowing out of it, are absolutely void. The parties attempting to enforce it are trespassers." High v. Southwestern Insurance Company, 520 P.2d 662, 1974 OK 35 (Okla. 03/19/1974).

IX. The general rule is that a void judgment is no judgment at all. Where judgments are void, as was the judgment originally rendered by the trial court here, any subsequent proceedings based upon the void judgment are themselves void. In essence, no judgment existed from which the trial court could adopt either findings of fact or conclusions of law. Valley Vista Development Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 1988 OK 140 (Okla. 12/06/1988) X. Denial of previous motions to vacate a void judgment could not validate the judgment or constitute res judicata, for the reason that the lack of judicial power inheres in every stage of the proceedings in which the judgment was rendered. Bruce v. Miller, 360 P.2d 508, 1960 OK 266 (Okla. 12/27/1960). XI. A void judgment is one that is void on face of judgment roll, Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewley, 795 P.2d 1051 (Okl. 1990).The judgment roll has been defined to include the petition, process, return, pleadings, reports, verdicts, orders and all acts and proceedings of the court. Mayhue v. Mayhue, 706 P.2d 890 (Okl. 1985). Alleged plaintiffs alleged judgment cannot be considered by this court. Alleged plaintiffs summary judgment cannot be lawfully considered by this court. Movant was and now is Secured Party creditor of Wanda Figueroa see Exhibit U. Plaintiff has never lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties involved from the very inception as alleged movant has properly challenged jurisdiction from the very beginning and alleged plaintiff has not answered plaintiffs challenge to produce the legal ,lawful essential elements original affidavits and a competent witness/es to prove lawful jurisdiction see Exhibits H, P and Q . "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). This court is respectfully reminded that any person who is affected by a judgment that is void on the face of the record or void ab initio by uncontroverted facts can either make a direct or collateral attack in regards to said judgment. Title 12 O.S. 1971 1038 provides that a void judgment may be vacated at any time on motion of "any person affected thereby." CONCLUSION Wherefore: this honorable court is requested to act in its ministerial capacity to exercise its inherent power and issue an order that the entire process as captioned above against Movants mother was void ab initio from the onset and of no legal force and effect and any other relief the court deems just and proper under the circumstances including but not limited to investigation into the unlawful seizure in this case that was done without proper supporting documents. This court being wholly without jurisdiction of the person or the subject matter as reflected by the record is respectfully requested to notice Plaintiff and council of the void judgment of case #SC-2011-4343 .

by ____________________________ Chuck A, Figueroa, Movant, Non Attorney Secured Party Creditor My Mothers Best Friend All Rights Reserved