Validity of void judgment and order

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This United States Supreme Court and Michigan Supreme Court are clear on unauthorized practice of law and void judgment and Order. The US Supreme Court emphatically articulated in, . Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-203 (1993). It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. Osborn v. President of Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); see Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F.Supp. 451, 476 (ND Tex. 1975) (citing the “long line of cases” from 1824 to the present holding that a corporation may only a be represented by licensed counsel), affirmance order sub nom. Taylor v. Montgomery, 539 F.2d 715 (Table) (CA7 1976), and affd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Assn., 542 F.2d 56 (CA8 1976). Michigan law prohibits the unauthorized practice of law by individuals MCL 600.916 and MCL 450.681. Sec. 916. (1) A person shall not practice law or engage in the law business, shall not in any manner whatsoever lead others to believe that he or she is authorized to practice law or to engage in the law business, and shall not in any manner whatsoever represent or designate himself or herself as an attorney and counselor, attorney at law, or lawyer, unless the person is regularly licensed and authorized to practice law in this state. A person who violates this section is guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court and of the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred, and upon conviction is punishable as provided by law. Also, MCR 2.612(C) (1) (d), (e), (f) and MCR 2.612(C), (3) MCL 450.681. It shall be unlawful for any corporation or voluntary association to practice or appear as an attorney-atlaw for any person other than itself in any court in this state or iti before any judicial body, or to make it a business to practice as an attorney-at-law, for any person other than itselff.] ... But no corporation shall be permitted to render any services ’ which cannot lawfully be rendered by a person not admitted to practice law in this state nor to solicit directly or indirectly professional employment for a lawyer. Furthermore, both Courts are in agreement that Judgment and ' Orders are void and all times and does if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C.. 1985). Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940)...or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally. : “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that a void order is void at all times, does not have to be reversed or vacated by a judge, cannot be made valid by any judge, nor does it gain validity by the passage of time. The order is void ab initio. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920). “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426,23 Led 286,290; particularly when “a judge himself is a party to the fraud,” Cone v. Harris (Okl. | 1924), 230 P. 721, 723. Windsor v. McVeigh (1876), 93 US | 276, 23 Led 914, 918. iv "void judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, [any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudica