Does the doctrine of laches apply to a jurisdictional challenge that if proven, renders the judgment void?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. This Court holds that when a judgment is void as a matter of law, the judgment never existed. Correspondingly, a petitioner may challenge the judgment at any time. The Eleventh Circuit adopted the opposite rule when it affirmed the district court’s denial of the Coram Nobis petition predicated on laches foreclosing the relief. Does the doctrine of laches apply to a jurisdictional challenge that if proven, renders the judgment void? 2. This court and the rule of the majority Circuit Courts hold that a court must decide the merits of an incompetent’s claims or defenses unless the incompetent’s interests are adequately represented by a licensed attorney. The Eleventh Circuit adopted a contrary rule when it affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. Amodeo’s Coram Nobis petition without appointing counsel. Does due process require a court to appoint an attorney to assist with developing an incapacitated litigant with developing claims prior to adjudicating the merits? 3. Mr. Amodeo raised a challenge in the 11th Circuit questioning the district court’s jurisdiction to issue an October 8, 2008, preliminary order of forfeiture. The district court denied the challenge based on laches. The Eleventh Circuit District court on appeal departed from the standard rule that a jurisdictional challenge cannot be forfeited or waived and found Amodeo had waived (abandoned) the claim. Can an appellant abandon a jurisdictional claim or must the appellant court examine the lower court’s jurisdiction on its own? i