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.

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