Embedded Files
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
On Sept 22, 2014 in 14RI-CV00038:
Petitioner Cynthia Haynes did not receive any notice of the hearing filed by Respondent's counsel (Petitioner's former attorney Siegrid Maness case no.14RI-CV00038) at all. In so doing Judge William Clarkson did on September 22, 2014 violate one of the most important fundamental rights of the parties, to wit the right to "Notice and opportunity" see Rule 44.01 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure ( Rule 44.01(d) requiring a five days notice before any hearing on a motion), because it an established fact that "Courts do not tolerate the entry of a judgment without proper notice in cases involving money or property. Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 234 (2006). [and] It is unconscionable to tolerate the lack of basic process when parental rights hang in thebalance.." (see opinion SC91141, issued January 25, 2011); see also Rule 2-2 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules, including but not limited to the requirements of Rule 2-2.6, particularly entitled "Ensuring the Right to Be Heard", which particularly declares that:
"(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
Comment
[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should be careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party’s right to be heard according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that thejudge’s participation in settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge’s own views of the case, but also on theperceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after settlement efforts are unsuccessful. Among the factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an appropriate settlement practice for a case are: (1) whether theparties have requested or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in settlement discussions, (2) whether the parties and their counsel are relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be tried by thejudge or a jury, (4) whether the parties participate with their counsel in settlement discussions, (5) whether any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.
[3] Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have, not only on their objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality. Despite a judge’s best efforts, there may be instances when information obtained during settlement discussions could influence a judge’s decision making during trial, and, in such instances, thejudge should consider whether recusal may be appropriate. See Rule 2-2.11(A)(1)."
Motion to Dismiss
BECAUSE MY CASE was Dismissed by Ct w/o Prejudice and disposed of on 9-22-14 without notice to me of the hearing (due process).
Judge's orders that do not follow the rule of law are VOID, not voidable:
36V050300313 - Charles Haynes previous divorce from Kimberly Haynes (08/19/2003) heard by Judge William Clarkson that dismissed Cynthia K. Haynes case #14RI-CV00038 on 9-22-14 without notice of hearing (due process) which was originally case #13RA-CV01291 that was transferred to Ripley County from Randolph County to the detriment of best interest and well-being of the minor children involved in this case.
I believe Judge Clarkson was prejudiced against me because of multiple conflicts of interest) for my case so that I can have a shot at a fair trial for my divorce. He was the judge on Chuck's prior divorce case and said I was his paramour in the divorce case - the case took over 3 years to get a divorce...that is a prejudiced statement against me in case #36V050300313
13BT-PR00384 Incapacitated-Disabled; PR Guardianship - Adult, 10/01/2013 = SHOCK AND CLARKSON WERE JUDGES ON THIS CASE - this was done by the "good ole boy's" against me in the child support case #
36V050100325 HOGG V HOGG CC Motion to Modify 06/14/2006
15RI-TJ00001 - CYNTHIA KAY HAYNES V PAUL DANIEL HOGG 01/05/2015
09RI-TJ00100 CYNTHIA K HAYNES V PAUL D HOGG
09RI-TJ00100 - CYNTHIA K HAYNES V PAUL D HOGG (child support lien) 09/08/2009
36V050100325-01 CC Motion to Modify HOGG V HOGG Hogg (Haynes) 06/15/2010
my constitutional rights have been violated - right to due process, homeschooling issue - see even Lewinsky's last filing where he states the children were removed from me because of educational neglect.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse