In Chambers v. B & O Railroad Co. 307 U.S. 142 the United States Supreme Court stated:
“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship.” [Emphases added]
The courts and the banks with their attorneys were in collusion from the beginning to end of the corrupt litigation against Ralph Bouma. They joined in a conspiracy to deny any semblance of a right to defend. Thereby rendering the judgment as; “ . . . a mere nullity; coram non judice and void.” In re Woodside-Florence Irr., 121 Mont. 346, P2nd 241, 247 (1948).
“When a Void judgment is called to the attention of a court in which it was entered, it is incumbent upon that tribunal to purge its records of the nullity by canceling the entry. Oregon Mortgage Company v. Kunneke 76 Mont. 117, 245 P.539 (1926).
“Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, or collusion in the parties, or fraud in the party offering the record in respect to the proceedings. Sec 26-3-105 M.C.A. Impeachment of a judicial record.
COLLUSION IN THE PARTIES
The Honorable Robert S. Keller as presiding judge over Pondera County Causes 8221/8073 Consolidated was clearly in collusion with Earl M. Berthelson, President of Farmers State Bank, and Cresap S. McCracken, counsel for the United Bank of Pueblo to take Ralph Bouma’s farm without any chance to defend..
a). Ralph Bouma was advised by a director of his bank that Berthelson, president of Farmers State Bank boasted they had found a law whereby they could take Ralph Bouma’s farm without him ever seeing a day in court.
Bouma was advised that Moor’s Federal Practice provides that:
“If a person attends trial throughout they can be considered as having their day in court.”
This was accomplished by:
b). McCracken causing a subpoena to be served upon Ralph Bouma to appear at the courtroom in the Pondera County courthouse at 10:00 October 5, 1970 to testify in behalf of his client [the United Bank of Pueblo].
c). Judge Keller ordered that day that:
“any witnesses who have been subpoenaed for today [who was Ralph Bouma only] the subpoena shall continue in existence until the trial is concluded.”
Judge Keller reinforced this order upon a continuance of trial with:
“Let the record show that we have reconvened in open court, and the reason for reconvening is to simply inform all witnesses [Ralph Bouma being the only witness present] who have been subpoenaed in this matter that their subpoena will continue in full force and effect . . . and your presence will be required at that date and each continuing date until you have been excused, or trial concludes.
d). Judge Keller denies the defendants any semblance of a defense during trial by not being able to cross-examining witnesses with the assurance “you are going to have lots of time to tell us why you put those entries there. . .at the end of trial”
e). At the conclusion of trial the Defendants were asked how much time they needed to put on their defense.
Their answer was: :
“Well you gave the Plaintiffs two and a half weeks to put on their case, and I will need about the same amount of time to put on a defense.”
Judge Keller’s response [which he latter admitted under oath] was:
“Now look. It’s 2pm. And I’ve checked out of my motel, and I’m going back to Kalispell at 5pm. If you want to be sitting here for two and one half weeks, you may, but I won’t be here.”
In his Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and JUDGMENT at the end of trial in Pondera Cause No. 8221 – 8073 Judge Keller:
a). declared The Land Exchange Contract between Ralph Bouma and Larry C. Iverson, Inc. was “Improvidently entered into and an ultra vies act of Larry C. Iverson, Inc.”
b). charged the corporate officers and Ralph Bouma with two felony crimes: “fraudulent conveyances 94-2101 R.C.M. and larceny 94-2701, M.R.C.M..”
JUDGE KELLER FURTHER DENIED A RIGHT TO DEFEND BY:
a). ordering the Receiver to confer with the county attorney about prosecuting the corporate officers and Ralph Bouma for fraudulent conveyances 94-2101 R.C.M. and larceny 94-2701, M.R.C.M.. “in the event a transcript of these proceedings is made, for any reason”.
b). preventing the corporate officers from exercising their right to appeal, and holding Ralph Bouma bound by his Judgment in Pondera Cause 8221 – 8073 consolidated on the basis that Bouma had attended all the proceedings – Judge Keller granted full credence to Earl Berthelson’s boast that he “had found a law whereby they could take the farm from Ralph Bouma without Bouma ever seeing a day in court.”
c). rendering an ORDER To Show Cause why the Receiver should not take immediate possession of Ralph Bouma’s land – attempting at this point to hold Ralph Bouma bound by his Judgment in 8221-8073 Consolidated, i.e., The Land Exchange Contract between Ralph Bouma and Larry C. Iverson, Inc. was “Improvidently entered into and an ultra vies act of Larry C. Iverson, Inc.”
KELLER’S DILEMMA
At the “Show Cause hearing
a). Bouma presented evidence that he had attempted twice [through two separate counsel] to intervene, and was denied both times during trial.
b). Bouma asked how he could be made a party to 8221-8073 after trial was over, he was twice denied a right to intervien, judgment was entered, and he had not been a party to the action.
c).This aforementioned shortcut was also further aborted by an affidavit of disqualification for Judge Keller filed by Ralph Bouma.
AT THIS POINT JUDGE KELLER CONCEDED
a).“the court is without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma”
b).“Ralph Bouma has objected, having never been made a party to this proceeding, and the objection is upheld and he ought not have been cited in, not being a party to the action.
JUDGE KELLER THEREBY RENDERED HIS FINDING MOOT
Ralph Bouma being a party to the Contract, Judge Keller’s finding in 8221-8073 consolidated that the Land Contract between Ralph Bouma and Larry C. Iverson, Inc. was “Improvidently entered into and an ultra vies act of Larry C. Iverson, Inc” was rendered moot by finding himself without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma in 8221-8073.
Therefore, the Receiver was ordered to sue Ralph Bouma in a separate action.
THE RECEIVER’S FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT
As a result of Judge Keller’s order for the receiver to sue the Bouma’s in a separate action, the Receiver filed PONDERA CAUSE No. 8509, the action of the receiver against Ralph Bouma and His wife Cornelia.
In this Cause of action Bouma was charged with the same accusations as Judge Keller had made against him in 8221/8073 i.e., unjust enrichment, and unauthorized transfer of the land.
WHEN THE RECEIVER SAW:
a). the result of 13 years of extensive discovery, including the taking of the deposition of Judge Keller wherein he finally admitted his denial of any right to defend by Ralph Bouma, or the defendants in Pondera Cause 8221-8073 consolidated.
b). how the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in 8221-8073 consolidated prevented any chance to defend by preventing any appeal from his findings by making criminal prosecution contingent upon ordering a transcript of the proceedings in 8221-8073 consolidated,
At this point the Receiver returned to the court in 8221-8073 for consent to abandon Pondera Cause 8509 because “the corporation was not provably worse off because of Bouma’s actions.” This judicial admission renders his complaint frivolous for lack of “Injury In Fact Caused By The Defendant Bouma”
The United States Constitution and the Montana Constitution both limit the power of the judiciary to redress injury, and it gives the judiciary no power to unjustly enrich any entity. The powers of the judicial branch are also clearly limited to redressing “injury in fact” by Article II, Section 16. The Administration of Justice, which provides that the judicial power conveyed to the courts of Montana by the Constitution, is to redress any “injury” to our person or property, or name.
The judicial branch has no power whatsoever except that which it has derived from the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has long upheld the principle that the judicial branch has no jurisdiction without a showing of “injury in fact” (not just a pretended injury). This is required to establish subject matter jurisdiction of any court before it has power to act in any judicial proceeding.
JUDGE LEONARD H. LANGEN RESORTS BACK TO 8221-8073
TO ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE BOUMA’S
When the then presiding judge in 8509, Judge Leonard H. Langen saw the light that Pondera Cause 8509 was frivolous and without merit on its face for a lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction without a showing of “INJURY IN FACT”– in a desperate attempt to save the two banks, their attorneys, the Receiver etc. from exposure to an action for Malicious Prosecution, again denied Ralph Bouma a right to defend by rendering all his defenses moot, and entered SUMMARY JUDGMENT against the Bouma’s on The Single Narrow Issue that was established by Judge Keller in 8222-8073 that the corporation had not followed the law by filing its bylaws on the public record.
Judge Langen allowed the corporation to avoid its contractual obligation with Ralph Bouma on the grounds that the corporation had failed to file its own bylaws, after six prior uncontested real-estate sales including Bouma’s 400 cow ranch taken in trade in the Bouma Contract based on those same unrecorded bylaws, which the Court refused to order returned to Bouma because the corporation had sold it and was not able to return it.
Judge Langen granted counsel’s application for Summery Judgment in Pondera 8509 based upon Judge Keller’s Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order in 8221-8073 consolidated, wherein Judge Keller admitted Ralph Bouma was not a party, and that the court had no jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma.
“This application has been made pursuant to Order dated February 8, 1978, in combined Civil No. 8221 and 8073 pending in above entitled Court. This Court in this cause takes judicial notice of the said Order dated February 8, 1978.”
MONTANA SUPREME COURT LACKED JURISDICTION
TO AFFIRM SUMMERY JUDGMENT IN 8509
Ralph Bouma not being a party to 8221-8073 consolidated, the District Court had no jurisdiction therein. Judge Keller ruled therein that:
a). “the court is without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma”
b). “Ralph Bouma has objected, having never been made a party to this proceeding, and the objection is upheld and he aught not have been cited in, not being a party to the action.
Yet the ruling of the Montana Supreme Court, in affirming the void Summary Judgment in Pondera Cause No. 8509 in Mont., 639 P.2d 47 at 54 relied exclusively upon Judge Keller’s corrupt Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order in 8221-8073 consolidated, wherein Keller had denied any semblance of a defense, and prevented appeal by making criminal prosecution contingent on ordering a transcript of proceedings.
The Montana Supreme Court based it entire ruling upon that Judgment of Judge Keller in 8221-8073 consolidated that is void on its face by reason of collusion in the parties Sec 26-3-105 M.C.A. Impeachment of a judicial record, Supra:
The District Court’s ruling was based upon only one narrow issue. This issue was the basis for granting of the corporation’s summery judgment motion. After reviewing the Affidavits, depositions, documents, court decrees, orders and findings of facts and conclusions of law from consolidated 8221/8073, the district court found that the contract was void from the start. Mont., 639 P.2d 47 at 54.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS DERIVATIVE!
Whereas the District Court Judge recognized the fatal flaw in its own jurisdiction in Pondera Cause No. 8509 by Judicial Admission of the Plaintiff therein that the corporation was not provably worse of because of Bouma’s actions, he granted the application of the bank stockholders to resort back to the Findings of Facts in 8221/8073 to grant the void SUMMERY JUDGEMENT IN Pondera 8509.
Seeing the District court was without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma in either Pondera Cause 8509 by judicial admission of the Plaintiff Receiver therein, and 8221/8073 by concession of Judge Keller therein the Montana Supreme Court’s jurisdiction being derivative, was none existent to affirm the Void Summery Judgment in Pondera Cause No. 8509. [See facts and legal argument in the Supporting Memorandum in Bouma’s Rule 60 (b) (4) Petition herein on pages 24 line 20 through page 33 –[which are incorporated as though specifically set forth at this point by this reference].
The United States Supreme Court has held that,” the type of fraud that defiles the court itself” as the un-denied facts on the face of the court record establish herein from the court record:
“involves more than injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institution set up to protect and safeguard the public …The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.” Hazel-atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct 997, 1001, 88l. ED 1250 (1944).xxx
In Chambers v. B & O Railroad Co. 307 U.S. 142 the United States Supreme Court stated:
The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship.” [Emphases added]
This highest right was denied Ralph Bouma by Judge Langen rendering all Bouma’s defenses moot because he had ruled in the Plaintiff’s favor [based upon the corrupt judgment in 8221/8073], and by Judge Keller denying any semblance of a defense in 8221/8073 consolidated as set forth above.