Is a collateral attack on void judgments, on its face, an assault on the constitutional Right to Petition under any state or federal statute?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; , Petitioner’s .collateral attack demonstrated the ; judgments in a prior Riverside case were void on their face based on jurisdictional defects. Respondent did not dispute Petitioner’s claims but filed an anti-SLAPP . motion. A California Court ruled that, on its face, a collateral attack is an assault on Respondent’s First : Amendment Right to petition and dismissed Peti. tioner’s complaint citing California’s controversial antiSLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal affirmed the : Superior Court ruling citing Church of Scientology ve v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628 (1996) (“Church”) as precedent for the legal principle that claims of pro7 tected conduct rise to the level of jurisdictional significance.” : : : 1. Isacollateral attack’on void judgments, on its “ : face, an assault on the constitutional Right to _ ; Petition under any state or federal statute? 2. Do claims of protected conduct relieve a court , of its constitutional duty to rule on the issue submitted in a collateral attack? . 8. Does Church establish precedent that a collat: eral attack is subject to strike under Califor. nia’s controversial anti-SLAPP statute? 4. Can a California Court of Appeal review a ~ void judgment? , FAA0RA | | ese a 280 | | a boast treet ot ee at ii '" STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Hudack v. La Cresta Prop. Owners Ass'n, No. RIC1724414, . _ State of California, Riverside County Superior Court, Judgment Entered March 27, 2018. Hudack v. La Cresta Prop. Owners Ass’n, No. K070144, 2019 WL 2760834 (Cal. Ct. App. July 2, 2019), review denied (Sept. 18, 2019). , @ @ XN ; ili .