Whether a court's judgment is void if it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties, or acted inconsistently with due process

Question(s) Presented 1, Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the | subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, (Kiugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)") "A decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." Kenner v. C.L.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968) “Every constitutional provision is self-executing to the extent that everything done in violation of it is void.”( Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 29 Cal.4th 300,58 P.3d 339 .Constitutional Law 640) Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject | matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be | attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court. (People ex Rel. Brzica v. Lake Barrington, 268 Ill. App. 3d 420,425, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)) “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” (Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290) This case has experienced various forms of void orders, judgment, appealable | orders, and amended judgment. Any of these forms can reverse the void order | and judgment of this case, but the reality is that it has advanced freely, and even passed California Supreme Court having jurisdiction over the largest judicial | system in the nation. How does the United States Supreme Court ensure the | authority of above published case laws and maintain the uniform of the national case law? | i : | 2. The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges in the multi-judge corruption ring ignored and did not conduct the trial according to Labor code §98.2 and 5 claims, and violated the due process of this case. Judgment which is inconsistent with due process is void, The judgment rendered by judges in multi-judge | corruption ring was void. | Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, (Kiugh v. U.S., 620 | F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)" | The labor code §98.2 legal principle and 5 claims, are the due process of this case, which control the entire process of this case, the trial must be strictly complied with. Multi-judge corruption ring deliberately acted outside the limit of jurisdiction of labor code 98.2 and 5 claims. The judges have no jurisdiction, no authority to hear and rule, and all decisions made are void. The defendant and multiple judges claimed that the trial was tried in accordance with an invalid independent contractor agreement declared by law; and they proceeded according to invalid independent contractor agreement declared by law. We conclude, therefore, that a salesman, insofar as his relationship with his broker is concerned, cannot be classified as an independent contractor. Any contract which purports to change that relationship is invalid as being contrary to the law (Gipson v. Davis Realty Co., supra, 215 Cal. App. 2d 190, 207).” (Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) [109 Cal. App. 3d 570, $73]) [Emphasis added] Because the contract cannot give corrupt Judges jurisdiction, the defendant is the prevailing party of the contract, not the prevailing party of this case, and, they cheated the court in the name of the prevailing party of the contract, extorted attorney fees in the amount of $72,519.03 from appellant, and seriously violated the 14 amendments to U.S. Constitution. ii How does U.S. Supreme Court stop that multi-judge corruption ring is in treason to the | Constitution and usurp the jurisdiction which is not given? "Jud