notice to the court Suffolk County New York Family Court

State of New York , « . - ,
County of Suffolk
. : Purported Cause #NN-16863-0
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVCES,
Purported Plaintiff, -
V. ' - '
Winona Palmiotti,
Mother,.
NOTIave a court vacate a void order, but the void order is still, void ab initio, whether vacated or not; a piece of paper does not determine whether an order is void, it just memorializes it, makes it legally binding and voids out all previous orders returning the case to the date prior to action leading to void ab initio.
THEREFORE I Winona Palmiotti, do hereby declare that this case is null and void as it stands. I demand this court must establish jurisdiction on the record with verifiable information documented that would contradict my above stated FACTS and Exhibits. In the same breath, I demand this court pursuant to its inability to prove jurisdiction to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. Any action taken against me will be a cause of action for a COMPLAINT against all those involved in this assault against me and my child. I will be picking up my child and her things immediately upon correction of the error described herein.
Winona Palmiotti mother and caretaker
VERIFICATION:
I, Winona Palmiotti, affirm under penalty of perjury that the above stated facts are true and correct. I am the lawful mother of Winona Piscitelli and no court in this country can lawfully and legally separate us for the above stated reasons. The Family Court DOES NOT have jurisdiction to proceed against us and can no longer act under color of law under based on lies, deceit and fraud. You are hereby put on NOTICE that any unlawful, fraudulent actions against me are a felony and will be dealt with in a higher court.
Winona PalmiottiCE TO THE COURT
Notice to the court under the authority of the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court and Demand this court to follow the Supreme Law of the Land:___________
Adiudicative facts to which there is no dispute: COMES NOW Winona Palmiotti without submitting to the jurisdiction of this court to hereby put this court on judicial notice to cease and desist any further unlawful assault against me and my child Winona Piscitelli Winona Palmiotti, without submitting to the jurisdiction of this court, hereby challenges the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to the following facts and law. You are hereby put on judicial notice that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that once jurisdiction has been challenged, it is presumed that the court lacks jurisdiction unless or until the evidentiary sufficiency is provided and submitted to the record. The presumption is that a court lacks jurisdiction on a particular issue until it has been demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. The facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively in the record. If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The limits upon jurisdiction must be neither disregarded nor evaded. The requirement to submit admissible evidence upon the record proving jurisdiction once jurisdiction is challenged is mandatory. The Supreme Court of the United States as well as lower courts have consistently reaffirmed the requirement that once jurisdiction is challenged those who claim jurisdiction must submit the evidence to prove the validity of the claim. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908), Old Wayne Mutual Life Association v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907), Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14, S.Ct. 1108 (1894), Pennoyerv. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877), Hagen v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, at 533, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S.Ct/ 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974), United States v. Roger, 23 F. 658 (W.D. Ark. (1885), State of Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980), McNutt v. General Motors Acceptane Corp. of Indiana, Inc. , 298 U.S. 178, 80 L.Ed. 1135, 56 S.Ct. 780 (9136), (jurisdiction may never be presumed), Special Indemnity Fund v. Pruitt, 205 F.2d. 306, 201 OKI. 308, (jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown), United States c. Chairito, 69 F. Supp. 317 (D. Or. 1946) (jurisdiction cannot be presumed), Standard v. Olesen, 98 L.Ed. 1151, 74 S.Ct. 768 (1954), Garcia v .Da//, 586 S.W. 2d. 524, at 528, (Tex. C.A. 1980) (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal), Burks v. Las/car, 441 U.S. 471 (1979) and Title 5 U.S.C. SS 556 & 558(b). . • -
Generally there is no requirement for one subjected to a "void" judgment to do anything more than call the trial court's attention to the mistake with a request
at the same be corrected pursuant to Trial Rule 59. See State, ex rel. Eaaers v. anaman (1932) 204 Ind. 238. 183 N.E. 653.
18 USC Sec. 241 01/19/04 TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or, If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. . , ,
This court is put on judicial notice per this NOTICE TO THE COURT that all orders rendered in this case without jurisdiction and is null and void. --,?..-
FACTS:


I am Winona Mae Palmiotti born 4/7/73 to mother Winona Grant born 10-8-45.1 have Never used " Winona Grant" as my identity as alleged, her history with involvement with cps has been put on record and I have repeatedly tried to correct this false allegation.
2. On August 26,2009 a person working for a DSS office made a malicious report fabricating lies such as me punching my child in the chest, and elaborating the story further when testifying
- . . .-•£
in court. This person never described me or pointed me out in court and her story changed from the first time in record, she had more time to make up more malicious allegations for which there is no evidence material or physical that verifies or confirms her fabricated tales of which the court allowed into record. , : , <
3. The child sustained no injuries nor was she EVER neglected by her mother and there is no factual evidence to show otherwise. The child should not have been removed from her mother there was NO IMMINENT danger therefore no legal authority to kidnap her and keep control of her liberty and right to be free from such violations of her rights as secured by law under the proper care of her mother.
4 Non compliance with illegal process has given the court reasons to allege me to be mentally ill although the court admits no expert assessment or diagnosis has been submitted to this court. Not consenting to extortion and illegal violations of my secured rights does not make me mentally ill. And this court has no authority to assess persons before them just because they refuse to be violated further.

5.1 have been obstructed at every occurrence of presenting factual evidence which shows my disputes of allegations to have merit where evidence clearly confirms the allegations against me are false. . , :
6. Without my consent my child has been placed with a father who has never cared to be involved in the child's life, never gave support for the child and had no meaningful relationship with the child by his own choice or lack there of.
7 Winona Piscitelli bom 7/6/05 had current shots records signed off by myself only as I took her to be seen when proper. Her father was never in attendance since this child was bom I have been her sole caretaker. She wants to just come home.
8. Timothy Grant was taken by my mother from birth due to the fact I gave birth when I was a minor. He was never neglected by me as alleged, again that was my mother who had the history with cps.
9. There has never been any allegation that has reported Winona Piscitelli claims I have injured or neglected her. She would never fabricate such a horrible lie.
10. The Family Court Of New York Suffolk County has acted without jurisdiction in moving forward with these court proceedings against me. A Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5,14 Matter of Marriage of Hampshire. 869 P.2d 58 (Kan. 1997).
11 The agency has injected another person's identity to cause the removal of my child their mistake shows this Court is deprived of subject matter/personam jurisdiction to hear this case. Also, take judicial notice that this court does not have personam jurisdiction over Winona Palmiotti or Winona Piscitelli.
12. At no time has Winona Palmiotti ever submitted to the jurisdiction of this court. Winona's efforts have only been to get this fraudulent action dismissed. Relief from void judgment is available when trial court lacked either personal or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E. 2d 458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).
13. This court is deprived of jurisdiction. This court never had jurisdiction. Agents for the Department of Family and Children's Services ail willfully and maliciously did lie, commit perjury, kidnapped my child with the vindictive intent to deprive us of our life together and our property.. Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal. 628 N.E. 2d 741 nil. ADD. Dist. 1993).
In order to get this case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, mother Winona Palmiotti has had an ineffective attorney who made gross mistakes that have assisted the delays of this dismissal and prolonged this fraud.
14. In a filed Affidavit Winona has attempted to correct the record by presenting factual evidence Exhibit 1 clerk stamped affidavit filed 6/23/10 This court has failed to dispute Winona's claims.
15. In Re: May V Anderson (1953) 345 US 528, 533, 73 S. Ct. 840, 843 97 L. Ed. 1221,1226; this case involved a mother stripped of her rights without the right to utter a single word in her defense. This case was reversed upon appeal.
f6I This instant case is similarly situated . I'm being stripped of my status as a mother without the right to utter a single word in my defense. These are other cases that have held that the right of a parent to raise his children has long been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, "far more precious than property rights." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972), quoting May v. Anderson, 345, U.S. 528, 533 (1953); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, (1942); Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), See, e.g. Castigno v Wholean, 239 Conn. 336 (1996); In re Alexander V., 223 Conn. 557 (1992).
If. I was forbidden the opportunity to prove that the court did not have £*ov jurisdiction. I challenge the provisional order that I did not agree to which was procured under fraud, deceit and in the absence of all jurisdiction. That the United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

18. My ineffective attorney maliciously, willfully and without authority has proceeded to allow these proceedings against my consent and knowing the allegations are false against me.
19. June 23, 2010 Hearing was a sham hearing where every attempt to establish admissible evidence on the record which would prove the Family Court lacked jurisdiction was not allowed by Judge Quinn. All of my pleadings have been ignored. This court is hereby ordered to cease and desist this unlawful attack in this proceeding and rebut with particularity anything in this pleading that you disagree with which is your duty. Silence can only be equated with fraud and silence is acquiesce. Connally v. General Construction Co.. 269 U.S. 385.391. notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law". See also: U.S. V. Tweel. 550 F.2d.297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."
Unless, this court has subject matter/personam jurisdiction any order rendered from this court in this instant case is null and void and has no force of law.
20 Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 - Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985); Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved and such a judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (III. 1987); "Choices about marriage, family life, upbringing of children are among associational rights ranked as of basic importance in our society, rights

sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. U.S.C.A. Constitutional Amendment 14.
21. This principle of law was stated by the U.S. Supreme Court as "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that 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 IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL." [Emphasis added]. Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 LEd. 608, 617 (1808).
22. This frivolous, fraudulent action offends every ideal of jurisprudence; the doctrine of clean hands alone, prohibits all actors from harming my life, liberty, and privacy to control and care for my child without intrusion.
CONCLUSION:
WHEREFORE, The U.S. Supreme Court that controls your decisions has already ruled numerous times that any order or ruling without jurisdiction is null and void. Winona Palmiotti did not meet the residency requirements for Family Court of New York Suffolk County This Court is deprived of jurisdiction for the above stated FACTS and cannot lawfully proceed with these court proceedings. A party may
ave a court vacate a void order, but the void order is still, void ab initio, whether vacated or not; a piece of paper does not determine whether an order is void, it just memorializes it, makes it legally binding and voids out all previous orders returning the case to the date prior to action leading to void ab initio.
THEREFORE I Winona Palmiotti, do hereby declare that this case is null and void as it stands. I demand this court must establish jurisdiction on the record with verifiable information documented that would contradict my above stated FACTS and Exhibits. In the same breath, I demand this court pursuant to its inability to prove jurisdiction to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. Any action taken against me will be a cause of action for a COMPLAINT against all those involved in this assault against me and my child. I will be picking up my child and her things immediately upon correction of the error described herein.
Winona Palmiotti mother and caretaker
VERIFICATION:
I, Winona Palmiotti, affirm under penalty of perjury that the above stated facts are true and correct. I am the lawful mother of Winona Piscitelli and no court in this country can lawfully and legally separate us for the above stated reasons. The Family Court DOES NOT have jurisdiction to proceed against us and can no longer act under color of law under based on lies, deceit and fraud. You are hereby put on NOTICE that any unlawful, fraudulent actions against me are a felony and will be dealt with in a higher court.
Winona Palmiotti