them). 4 . Id. 5 . The jurisprudence of this Court informs us that, regardless of whether we characterize the issue as one of jurisdiction or one of judicial authority, throughout the overwhelming history of this Court we have held such orders to be void. 6 . This Court has held numerous times that a void judgment can be attacked for the first time on appeal because the judgment was a nullity and there is nothing to preserve. See Nix, 65 S.W.3d at 667-68; Seidel, 39 S.W.3d at 225; Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697-98 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). But see Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). It would seem that if the orders entered in this case are void due to the court lacking jurisdiction, then Appellant would have no duty to object at trial. Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 279 (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, if the orders entered were
holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent holding that lack of standing cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time by an appellate court on its own motion holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding that a lack of jurisdiction is a category one claim that cannot be waived or forfeited holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit