Product: Debt collection

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX was served ( via United States Postal Service ) an illegal and voided order for garnishment by an attorney XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX, SD. This paperwork included proof of XXXX XXXX illegally garnishing XXXX federally protected income in her XXXX, Montana US Bank account. 

This illegitimate order was issued by a judge ( the order has no signature ) in XXXX XXXX, by a judge who continues to attempt to preside over a civil proceeding in which he completely lacks statutory subject matter jurisdiction, so the case is dismissed and voided. The order was served upon a XXXX XXXX branch. 

This illegal entry of order by XXXX XXXX and garnishment by attorney XXXX XXXX on XXXX exclusive protected income in her bank account violated federal and Montana statutory law. 

Unless otherwise stated herein, your account and this Agreement will be governed by federal law and, unless superseded by federal law, by the law of the state in which your account is located. XXXX US Bank account has been located in Montana since XXXX evidenced by the mailing address, property location for her home mortgage, and all deposits being in her Montana branch and by Montana sources. 

US Bank violated 25-13-608 M.C.A ; 25-13-614 M.C.A. Montana Code Annotated specifically states that XXXX is entitled to 19 types of exempt income or property, including : 4. Medical and/or XXXX benefits 5. XXXX benefits 6. Social Security and XXXX benefits 7. Unemployment benefits 8. Unmatured life insurance contracts 9. XXXX benefits 10. XXXX benefits, also called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ( TANF ) 11. Workers compensation 12. Professionally prescribed health aids The garnishments included 100 % of XXXX only income paid by the State of Montana for purposes as listed above. 

Further, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX garnishing 100 % of XXXX weekly income is prohibited under Section 303 ( b ) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. XXXX  ( b ) ( 2 ) and further stated as ( c ) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited. No court of the United States or any State, and no State ( or officer or agency thereof ), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section. 

The funds garnished from US Bank constitute 100 % of XXXX weekly income and the taking is in violation of SDCL 21-18-52. No more than 20 % of a persons weekly disposable income may be garnished per SDCL 21-18-51. 

Moreover, XXXX does not reside within the county where US Bank was served [ XXXX ] and as it was not served upon the State of Montana or corporate headquarters of US Bank, so such service is defective. This illegal service in XXXX XXXX violated the current banking garnishments for foreign accounts and enforcing judgements across state lines, upheld across the United States since the early 1900s. 

A warrant of attachment served upon a branch bank does not reach the assets held for, or accounts maintained by, the defendant in other branches or in the home office. 
Cronan v. Schilling, 100 N.Y.S.2d 474 ( Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. XXXX ). 

The 2nd Circuit Court holding that the separate entity rule precludes a court from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain assets of judgment debtors held in foreign branches of the bank. 
Motorola Credit Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank, 771 F.3d 160, ( 2d Cir. XXXX ) SOUTH DAKOTA COURTS LACK JURISDICTION OVER XXXX Courts are constituted by authority, and they can not go beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 26 U. S. 340 ; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8.

Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348 ( XXXX ) The burden of proof was therefore upon the plaintiffs to show by what authority the South Dakota court could legally enter a personal judgment against the statutory subject matter jurisdiction authorized by the South Dakota legislative branch, which states the plaintiff must be a resident of South Dakota at the time of filing - SDCL 25-4-30. 

XXXX XXXX acknowledged that the Plaintiff [ XXXX XXXX XXXX ] was a resident of Montana pursuant to SDCL 41-1-1.2. Instead XXXX XXXX stated he could be a resident of XXXX. It doesn't matter. This finding of the Court did not meet the mandatory forty-five day requirement and steps to establish residency as this Court established in Rush v. Rush, XXXX S.D. 56, 12-15, 866 N.W.2d 556, 561-62. 

When assessing a persons acts and declarations regarding residency, [ m ] ore weight or importance will be given to a persons acts than to his declarations, and when they are inconsistent, the acts will control. It is said in this connection that actions speak louder than words, but that the words are to be heard for what they are worth. Veseth v. Veseth, 147 Mont. 169, 173, 410 P.2d 930, 932 ( XXXX ) ( quoting 28 C.J.S. Domicile 18, p. 45 ). XXXX actions during the years at issue speak volumes. Id. at XXXX. 
Greenwood v. Montana Department of Revenue, DA 19-0615 ; XXXX MT 149. 

Both federal and South Dakota law is extensively established DIV18-41 must be dismissed ; with every order voided- even prior to entry by the court. 

The Court must dismiss any case over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ( h ) ( 3 ). 

Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to act such that without subject matter jurisdiction any resulting judgment or order is void. Cable v. Union Cty. Bd. Of Cty. Comm'rs, XXXX S.D. 59, 20, 769 N.W.2d 817, 825. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred solely by constitutional or statutory provisions. Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass'n v. Brookings Cty . Planning & Zoning Comm'n, XXXX S.D. 48, 15, 882 N.W.2d 307, 312. Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction can neither be conferred on a court, nor denied to a court by the acts of the parties or the procedures they employ. Cable, XXXX S.D. 59, 20, 769 N.W.2d at 825. Lippold v. Meade County. Bd. of Commerce, XXXX S.D. 7  When the circuit court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter in litigation, the Supreme Court does not acquire jurisdiction by appeal to it from a judgment of the circuit court. In XXXX XXXX 's Addition, 85 SD 196, 201, 179 NW2d 268, 270 ( SD XXXX ). 
Schrank v. Pennington County Board of Commissioners XXXX SD 108, 43 ; 584 N.W.2d 680, 682 Federal law clearly states that res judicata does not apply when a court lacks jurisdiction. 

The elements of Federal claim preclusion are : ( 1 ) there must have been a final judgment on the merits ; ( 2 ) the decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction ; ( 3 ) the prior action must have involved the same parties or their privies ; and ( 4 ) the prior action must have involved the same claim. 

According, however, to Rule 41 ( b ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following are not claim preclusive and are not considered an adjudication " on the merits '' : 1 ) a lack of jurisdiction 2 ) improper venue South Dakota states that res judicata is only applicable when a case is decided on the merits. A case can not be decided on the merits where jurisdiction is absent. 

As such, we are bound by the dictates of XXXX XXXX, both by reason of the exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, as well as by principles of comity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The following four tests must be met to sustain collateral estoppel : ( 1 ) The issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the action in question ; ( 2 ) There was a final judgment on the merits ; ( 3 ) The party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and ( 4 ) The party against whom the plea is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior adjudication. 
Grand State Property , Inc. v. Woods, Fuller, et al., XXXX SD 139, 12, 556 N.W.2d 84, 87 ( quoting Black Hills Novelty Co. , Inc. v. South Dakota Commission on Gaming , 520 *295N.W.2d 70, 73 ( S.DXXXX ) ( other internal citations omitted ) ) ; see Grand Laboratories, Inc. v. United States , 882 F.Supp. 906, 909 ( D.S.D.XXXX ) ( applying collateral estoppel under South Dakota law ). 
SDDS, Inc. v. State, 15 ; 569 NW2d 289, XXXX SD 114 Therefore, any judge who intentionally and willfully enters a decision in direct contradiction of both established federal and South Dakota statute and law is proceeding in clear violation of law and subjects the judge to personal suit. 

" officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law. 
Owens V. City of Independence, 448 U.S. .1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 ; Hafer V. Melo, 502 U.S. 21. 
As such, XXXX XXXX is civilly liable for his intentional refusal to uphold state and federal law, including paying XXXX damages incurred.