Is a district court's exercise of Article III judicial power over a non-controversy a rare instance of jurisdictional error that renders its judgment void?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Relief from a void judgment under “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error . . .” United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010). “Article III of the Constitution limits the ‘judicial power’ of the United States to the resolution of ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.” Valley Forge College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). See also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. . Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 679 (2016) (“If either the plaintiff or the defendant ceases to have a concrete interest in the outcome of the litigation, there is no longer a live case or controversy.”). The Hartke-Respondents brought suit in 2017 against Roger and others to void stale notes and mortgages. After appeal in their favor, the Hartkes made judicial admissions that Roger was not a party to the notes or mortgages and had no interest in the judgment obtained. Their judicial admissions mean that Roger never had a concrete interest in the outcome of the litigation. The district court exercised Article III judicial power over a non-case and a noncontroversy. ; The following questions are presented for review: 1. Is a district court’s exercise of Article III judicial power over a non-controversy a rare instance of jurisdictional error that renders its judgment void? 2. If so, is the judgment so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity can be raised even after the judgment became final? 3. In lieu of plenary review by this Court, is a GVRI 1 Roger uses shaded highlight herein for ease of reference. i Order, without determining the merits, appropriate ; for the following reasons: ; e There is a reasonable probability that a GVR Order : in light of the Hartkes’ judicial admissions will result in voiding the judgment? « The Hartke admissions are “confessions of error” _ that, because Roger had no concrete interest in the dispute, no case or controversy existed? « A GVR Order would promote fairness to Roger without using much of this Court’s limited docket? e There is reason to believe the Eighth Circuit did not fully consider the legal significance of the Hartkes’ judicial admissions? ii | Ul. ALL PROCEEDINGS BELOW 1. United States District Court, District of Minnesota, : Case 0:17-cv-01851, Bradley R. Hartke, et al., v. WIPT, Inc., et al. 2. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 17-3702, Bradley R. Hartke, et al., v. WIPT, Inc., et al. . 3. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 17-3685, Bradley R. Hartke, et al., v. WIPT, Inc., et al. 4. United States District Court, for the District of Minnesota, 18-cv-976 JRT/SER, Bradley R. Hartke, et ; al., v. WIPT, Inc., et al. 5. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, ; No. 19-2818, Bradley R. Hartke, et al., v. WIPT, Inc., . et al. iii :