Anytime, Any Place, Anywhere


 “When judges sacrifice the rule of law to find rights they favor, I fear the people may one day find that their new rights, once proclaimed so boldly, have disappeared because there is no longer a rule of law to protect them.”[1]

[1] Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S., 658 F.3d 1162, 1174 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pro se, non-prisoner Joanna Burke (“Plaintiff”) submits this Response to this court’s Show Cause Order and simultaneously submits a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, relevant to this response. For the reasons provided herein, Plaintiff avers the court has jurisdiction to proceed with this civil action.


The facts are well recited in the original complaint, which spans in excess of 100 detailed pages.  However, this court and Magistrate Judge[1] appear to have applied blinkers.  Whilst a single error could be ascribed to mere oversight, the presence of two pivotal mistakes in the interpretation of basic legal principles is perceived by the Plaintiff as not only judicial activism but also a breach of ethical conduct.

See;Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC, 12 F.4th 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2021).

“Courts derived the so-called well-pleaded complaint rule as “a quick rule of thumb” for discerning the presence of a federal question.”

Brown v. United States, 377 F. Supp. 530, 539 (N.D. Tex. 1974)

“The impartial conduct of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding is one of the most fundamental rights of due process that we have.”.

Jurisdiction in this proceeding is easily met.

See, Turner v. Godinez, No. 2015-CV-0343, at *10-11;

“Violations of due process, and any resulting judgment to be void. Sterling, 337 Ill. 354; Pure Oil Co., 10 Ill.2d at 245. Void order or judgment are void even before reversal. [Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine, Inc., 254 U.S. 348].

Which may be challenged through direct review or in collateral proceedings. People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149; C.J.S. Criminal Law Section 150; H. Black, The Law of Judgments, Section 258; Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143-33.

Any order or judgment based on a void order or judgment is void. English v. English, 72 Ill. App. 3d 736; Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343.

Obstructions of justice, through denials of due process of and equal protection under the laws, in violations of the U.S. Code Titles 42 Sections 1985(2) & 1986, Article I sections 9 & 10, 5th & 14th Amendments, U.S. Constitution.

 Res Judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment, Allcock v. Allcock , 62 Ill.Dec. 865, 437 N.E.2d 392.”).

Further, see;

Guinn v. Davis, No. 7:20cv753, at *5 (W.D. Va. July 15, 2021)

“Because a void order is a nullity, it can be challenged and set aside anytime, anywhere, by any person; it is, in effect, no order at all, and the normal procedural limitations on challenging a void order do not apply. Riddick v. Commonwealth, 842 S.E.2d 419, 424 (Va. Ct. App. 2020).”.

Barnes v. American Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925)

“Upon this record the first question presented for the consideration of this court is the extent of the court’s authority to pass the decrees of August 29th and October 4th herein before set out.

In other words, the decrees in question are valid and effective only insofar as the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter therein attempted to be adjudicated; and it is fundamental doctrine that “jurisdiction of the subject matter can only be acquired by virtue of the constitution and some statute;” Shelton v. Sydnor, 126 Va. 625, 102 S. E. 83.

To the extent, therefore, that the court exceeded its authority, or its jurisdiction, over the subject matter embraced in the decrees, they are absolute nullities, and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner; and may be declared void by every court in which they are called in question. Wade v. Hancock, 76 Va. 620; Seamster v. Blackstock, 83 Va. 232, 2 S. E. 36, 5 Am. St. Rep. 262; Neale v. Utz, 75 Va. 480; Shelton v. Sydnor, 126 Va. 625, 102 S. E. 83.”.

Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 952 (11th Cir. 1998)

“”may be attacked any where and any time in any court,” see Palmer v. Bunn, 218 Ga. 244, 245, 127 S.E.2d 372, 373 (1962). ”

Palmer v. Bunn, 218 Ga. 244, 245 (Ga. 1962);

“ they are therefore null and void and may be attacked anywhere and any time in any court. The court erred in refusing to vacate and set aside these void judgments.”

In re Backer, No. 98-50956, at *10 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 30, 2011)

“”A court cannot confer jurisdiction on its self where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court.” Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonauch, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).”

In accordance with the aforementioned legal precedent, which predominantly pertains to matters of civil proceedings, and upon a comprehensive review of the original complaint and accompanying pleadings submitted to this court, the issue of jurisdiction becomes manifestly clear.[2]

However, this court deplorably singles out the elder, widowed, pro se, non-prisoner litigant once again, mistakenly implying the absence of venue considerations and the application of section 1391(b). Consequently, this case purportedly becomes susceptible to dismissal or transfer, as elaborated upon in the subsequent page of the Magistrate Judge’s Order..

As illuminated by the pertinent legal precedent referenced above, and notably aligned with the Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the nullity of Orders, her entitlement to assert her grievance before this specifically elected court is indisputable.


            This civil action is directed “at the judicial machinery itself”. See Workman v. Bell, 484 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007):

“The elements of fraud on the court include conduct: 1) on the part of an officer of the court; 2) that is directed at the judicial machinery itself; 3) that is intentionally false, wilfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; and 5) that deceives the court.”.

For now, let’s put aside Plaintiff’s original complaint, which is directed towards the judicial machinery itself as stated in the opening sentence, in part “to vacate void judgments on the basis of fraud”.  See; Doc 1, p. 1 (Apr. 19, 2023). In this court, two orders were recently issued by the judicial machinery which violate the rule of law, appear to be retaliatory, and lack legal merit. These assertions are backed by irrefutable citations to controlling facts and authorities. It is important to note that Joanna Burke asserts her reservation of rights, including her civil and constitutional rights to due process, an impartial judge, and a fair hearing, as her property and liberty are at extreme risk. See; Parker v. Parker, No. 4:07-CV-00074, at *5-6 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 2008).


This case appears to have been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. Given the Magistrate Judge’s observed conduct and performance during prior and ongoing proceedings, the Plaintiff, Joanna Burke, formally notifies this court of her objection to the assignment of Magistrate Judge Dolce Foster.


For the reason set forth herein and as concisely stated in Turner v. Godinez, No. 2015-CV-0343, at *16 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017);

“This Court usurps of its power, rendered orders and judgment over matters beyond the scope of authority granted This Court by law and Constitution.”

(Thoroughly addressing the intricacies of fraud upon the court, including acts by court officials: “the judicial machinery itself”).

This fresh civil action could have been avoided if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to the rule of law by transferring the appeal to the Eighth Circuit, as meticulously outlined in the Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice.

Further, in her capacity as a pro se, non-prisoner Plaintiff, Joanna Burke asserts that the contested issues regarding jurisdiction, mistakenly grounded solely in section 1391, lack substantive merit.

In light of this stance, should the court persist in debating jurisdiction through a rectified Order, Plaintiff respectfully entreats the opportunity to engage in due process, allowing her the chance to formally present her response. This request extends prior to the issuance of any potential dispositive Order by this  Court.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 15th day of August, 2023.

[1] Mathiason v. Shutterfly, Inc., 22-cv-1203 (DSD/DJF) (D. Minn.) (Docket Entry No. 42: ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT [Magistrate Judge Dolce J. Foster’s]  REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 40 Report and Recommendation (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge David S. Doty on 2/17/2023.(JRC) (Entered: 02/17/2023).

[2] Including Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice with Exhibit and Proposed Order (Aug. 15, 2023).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments