to judgments issued by the courts," to administrative orders, unless the orders are void because lacking jurisdiction); Mitchell v. Gales, 61 A.3d 678, 684-85 (D.C. 2013) (following Strand v. Frenkel, 500 A.2d 1368 (D.C. 1985) to prohibit a collateral attack on the validity of an administrative order in a subsequent judicial enforcement proceeding); Commonwealth v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 348 A.2d 765, 767-68 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1975) (ruling that defendant that failed to appeal from agency order could not attack the order in subsequent proceedings brought to enforce the order, and stating, "Cases involving other administrative agencies of this Commonwealth have long espoused this policy."); Commonwealth ex rel. Breakiron v. Farmer, 528 S.E.2d 183, 186-87 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (followed in Simmons v. Tynes, 56 Va. Cir. 82
holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that frivolous actions should be dismissed so as to preserve scarce judicial resources holding that for administrative orders as well as for judicial orders collateral attacks in defense of an enforcement action should be dismissed unless based on fraud holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense