than sixty percent (60%) of his disposable earnings. 42 USC 1673(b)(2)(B). If the withholding seeks arrears support that is over twelve (12) weeks old, then as much as sixty five percent (65%) may be taken. As slaled in 42 1673(C). “No Court of the United States or any State, and no State (or office or agency thereof) may make, execute, or enforce any order of process in violation of this section." The Court's support order of March 22, 2006, took more than sixty percent (60%) of defendant's disposal earnings at the time. This undoubtedly was all done in good faith by the FOC, who apparently assumed thal defendant al the lime was continuing to work at his old job. In summary, pursuant to the federal statute, the Court’s support order was void. There is no limitation upon the time in which a void order may be brought to the Court's attention, pursuant to MCR 2.612. B. Additionally, the Court is entitled to correct a previous order “for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f). ‘The fact is that due to hopelessly inadequate representation, the FOC entered a support Recommendation, which defendant's former attorney allowed the Court to enter without objection, and which Recommendation was based upon circumstances that were no longer in effect; i.e., defendant was no longer employed with the Michigan Department of Corrections. Further, when defendant's prior legal counsel finally got around to filing a motion (and then an amended motion) for Reconsideration, defendant's previous legal counsel completely misunderstood what relief was needed. Rather than assert that the basis of the motion was the mistake by the FOC in assuming that defendant was continuing to make the same amount of money thal he did when he was employed with the Michigan Department of Corrections, defendant's prior attorney rested the motion for reconsideration on the DIV.CLiJurecki Motion, 040809 jlv doc 6