Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits a state from maintaining a judicial system which (1) enforces a void judgment issued without subject matter jurisdiction, by empowering a court clerk to block appellate review, and (2) thereby permanently deprives a litigant of vested property interests and monetary assets without a proceeding before a competent tribunal

The trial court has been placed in an untenable position by aberrant appellate rulings. First, the intermediate appellate court issued a judgment and monetary sanctions against Petitioner despite the later adjudication by the trial court that the underlying order was never "final" or "effective." Second, that same appellate court knowingly refused to recall its void mandate, applying an equitable "reliance" test designed for waivable personal jurisdiction defects to this non-waivable subject matter jurisdiction defect. Third, the Clerk of the State Supreme Court administratively rejected Petitioner's timely, fee-paid application to appeal this refusal, on the grounds that the "case is closed." Fourth, the Tennessee Supreme Court summarily refused to instruct the Clerk to file Petitioner’s proper application for appeal. The question presented is: Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits a state from maintaining a judicial system which (1) enforces a void judgment issued without subject matter jurisdiction, by empowering a court clerk to block appellate review, and (2) thereby permanently deprives a litigant of vested property interests and monetary assets without a proceeding before a competent tribunal.