UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 RODNEY F. STICH P.O. Box Alamo, CA 0 Phone: -- Plaintiff in pro se UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (brieffed\declare.pet) RODNEY F. STICH, ) No. C ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE ) RIGHTS AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES v. ) IN JUDGMENTS RENDERED AND/OR ) ENTERED ) BY COURTS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED EMMA W. STICH, ) STATES AND MEXICO, AS OPPOSED ) TO JUDGMENT RENDERED BY ) CALIFORNIA COURTS LACKING ) JURISDICTION AND ACTING ) IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW Defendant. ) TITLE U.S.C. 01, 0, ) FRCivP ) Request priority on hearing 1. This court has jurisdiction and responsibilities, and the Plaintiff has the right, under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Title U.S.C. 01 and FRCivP, to have declared under the laws and Constitution of the United States, the rights and legal responsibilities established by five judgments showing his divorced status and property rights as of January 1,.. These rights and responsibilities have been, and are, being violated, inflicting great and irreparable harm upon Plaintiff. The Defendant, and judges in the State of California, have in unison violated blocks of federal and state statutes, case law, constitutional provisions, and rules of court, as they violated personal and property rights established in these judgments.. Plaintiff's rights and legal obligations established in six prior divorce judgments, 1

2 1 0 1 establishing these rights as of January 1,, are being violated in orders and judgments rendered by California judges and Justices while the state action was removed to federal court.. These are federal causes of actions, invoking mandatory jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court. This is a justiciable controversy for which this court has mandatory jurisdiction, and a responsibility to provide a declaratory judgment, and relief, under the laws and Constitution of the United States.. Five divorce judgments (Addendum "A"), entered into the records of five states, establish under federal and California law and the laws of the various states that have entered the judgments as local judgments, that the parties were legally divorced on January 1,, and that their person and property rights and obligations were established as of that date.. Twenty-two years later, in 1, after Plaintiff exercised his constitutional right to change residence without suffering a loss of previously established personal and property rights, a California judge rendered a judgment purportedly terminating the marriage that had not existed either in law or in fact for over two decades, and rendered an order distributing property held to be community. This order was unlawful and unconstitutional, and upheld by every higher court in the State of California, inflicting great harm upon Plaintiff, and threatening to do the same to the thousands of other citizens in similar positions.. All of the properties that were distributed by the California judge in the sham 1 dissolution of marriage decision were properties that Plaintiff had acquired years after the separation in Colorado and divorce. Under federal law this order constituted an unlawful and unconstitutional taking of properties. Under California law this order was unlawful, unconstitutional, and rendered without jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act.. This is not a family law act cause of action. There was no marriage and no pending marital termination matters at the time of the sham California "dissolution-of-marriage" action. Major and multiple federal causes of actions arise in this declaratory judgment action.

3 Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. The sham 1 dissolution of marriage judgment rendered by the California courts makes any federal court in the State of California a proper venue. Defendant Emma Stich is a resident of the State of Texas and has been since. She invoked the jurisdiction of the State of California by fraudulently claiming that she was married to Plaintiff, that there existed community property in that existing "marriage," that she wanted a termination of the marriage (that she had repeatedly declared in the State of Texas had been terminated in ), and that she wanted a division of the alleged community property (that Plaintiff had acquired years after the Colorado separation and divorce). DETAILED DESCRIPTION In, while the Plaintiff was married and living with his wife, the Defendant in this action, the parties resided in Denver, Colorado, where they had lived since. Plaintiff's former wife decided to return to her home state of Texas, where she resided ever since. In the parties obtained a mutually acceptable divorce, in which both parties were represented by legal counsel. That divorce decree held that there was no community property and that neither party would pay any spousal support. Thereafter, both parties represented themselves as divorced, and both parties purchased and sold real estate in their respective states of residence, identifying themselves as divorced. In Plaintiff's former wife, the defendant in this action, applied to the Social Security Administration for higher social security benefits based upon her status as a divorced person. Based upon the divorce judgment and the declaration by both parties, the United States government, through the Social Security Administration, recognized the divorced status and ordered higher social security benefits be paid to Plaintiff's former wife. In 1, after being contacted, encouraged, and promised financial rewards by a San Francisco law firm 1 for doing so, Plaintiff's former wife allowed herself to be used as a catalyst in a dissolution of marriage action against Plaintiff, even though she was legally divorced and had been 1 Friedman, Sloan and Ross.

4 1 0 1 declaring herself divorced for many years. This action exercises the rights of any citizen to have his personal and property rights declared, under the provisions of Title U.S.C. 01, in accordance with federal law and the laws of the various states in which these rights have been established by the divorce judgments. This statute provides: Title U.S.C. 01. Creation of remedy. "In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such." VENUE Any U.S. District Court in the State of California is the proper venue for declaring in the State of California the requirement for state judges to recognize the validity of the five prior judgments and the personal and property rights established by those judgments. PARTIES The parties to this action include Plaintiff (whose personal and property rights have been and are being violated and inflicted great and irreparable harm upon him); the State of California, whose actions inflicted this harm upon Plaintiff through a gregarious violations of his civil and constitutional rights and who is continuing to do so. Defendant Emma Stich had used the courts of the State of California to inflict these violations upon Plaintiff through a pattern of hard-core civil and constitutional violations, committed in a conspiracy with others. The basis for declaring that the divorce judgment and its established personal and property rights are controlling, and the registration of such divorce judgment in various states, is based upon the following federal and then state law and facts: 1. Plaintiff has been legally divorced in from the Defendant. The parties had been legally divorced for the prior two decades, and the divorce judgments had been filed/entered into the courts of five different states. (Addendum "X" contain copies of (List of divorce judgments showing divorced status and property rights final and

5 1 0 1 divorce judgments.). Both parties have declared their divorced status for the prior two decades. The woman named in the sham action resided in Texas, and was used by the Friedman law firm as the catalyst to subject Appellant to the divorce action, had been repeatedly declaring herself in her resident state of Texas to be divorced, and repeatedly purchased and sold real estate identifying herself as a divorced woman. She also had applied to the Social Security Administration for higher social security benefits based upon the prior divorce, which was recognized by the federal government as valid, and her request was granted. Evidence of these declarations is found in a sham dissolution of marriage action.. FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES RECOGNITION OF THE DIVORCE JUDGMENT AND THE ENTRY OF THAT JUDGMENT INTO THE COURTS AND RECORDS OF FIVE OTHER STATES Federal law required recognizing each of the prior divorce judgments and adjudicated personal and property rights. Federal statutes, constitutional provisions, and federal case law conclusive as of January 1,. (1) Initial divorce judgment following a bilateral consent divorce proceeding, rendered by jurisdiction of residence for five months, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, No., authenticated by U.S. Consul; () Registration and confirmation of the divorce judgment in the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, action number, under C.C.P. (b) and C.C. ; () Registration of the Contra Costa divorce judgment confirmation in the Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, action 1; () Judicial entry of the Contra Costa county confirmed judgment into the Nevada courts, Second Judicial District of Nevada, County of Washoe, case number -1 and into foreign judgment registry, number 1; () Registration of the divorce judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Case number FD--0; () Registration of the Contra Costa confirmed judgment in the Civil Courts of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page, Foreign Judgment Register. Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, No.. Title United States Code : Section.... full faith and credit. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession... Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such states... from which they are taken. Constitutional protections barring attacks on the prior judgments. Full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, 1); Fourteenth Amendment due process, equal

6 1 0 1 required recognition of the prior divorce judgments and personal and property rights, as of three decades prior to the filing of the sham divorce action. These federal protections supersede any state laws. California statutory law complies with federal law. However, the decision in the sham 1 dissolution of marriage judgment, and the holdings of the California Court of Appeals, openly violate blocks of California and federal law; and violates the laws of the different states in which Plaintiff was recognized as divorced since.. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES RECOGNIZING EACH OF THE FIVE PRIOR DIVORCE JUDGMENTS AND THE PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ESTABLISHED IN THE JUDGMENTS California statutes require that each of the prior divorce judgments establishing the divorce be recognized, along with the personal and property rights. California statutes protection, property, liberty, freedom rights; Privileges and Immunity Clause rights under Article IV, 1, and under the th Amendment (depriving right to obtain divorce on universally recognized residence basis, and right to change residence); right to unabridged interstate travel, without losing rights and privileges acquired in prior jurisdictions of residence; Article IV, 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause, and Title U.S.C., requiring recognition of the personal and property rights in the California divorce judgment, its entry for recognition as local judgments in the courts of Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt () U.S. (requiring the recognition of ex parte divorce judgments; Estin v. Estin (1)(requiring the recognition of prior divorce judgments); Sherrer v. Sherrer (1) U.S. ; Coe v. Coe (1) U.S. (requiring the recognition of prior divorce judgments); Perrin v. Perrin, 0 F.d (rd Cir. ) (prohibiting denying recognition to prior judgments when exercised on one day's residence). In Jordon v. Gilligan, 00 F.d 01, 0 (th Cir. ) the court held: "Decisions of the United States Supreme Court rendered by written opinion are binding on all courts, state and federal. The court's holding is stare decisis and cannot be overruled except by the court itself." Mandatory divorce judgment recognition statutes (Civil Code, 00, ; Code of Civil Procedure (b),.,, 1, 1 (effective when the judgment was rendered and for nine years thereafter); Evidence Code,, ; (statute of limitations, Civil Code 0.00, 0.0; Code of Civil Procedure,, ; Statute of limitations: Code of Civil Procedure,, ; Civil Code 0.00, 0.0; mandatory requirement to

7 1 0 1 protect California residents from being remarried; from having previously adjudicated personal and property rights adjudicated again and as of a date years after the prior divorce, and require California judges to recognize any of the five prior divorce judgments showing Appellant to have been divorced two decades earlier in, and that all personal and property rights were fully adjudicated at that time. A. California case law, prior to the controlling statutes, require recognition of each of the prior divorce judgments. Under California case law, California judges have been required to recognize any of the five prior divorce judgments for the prior three decades, even before the statutory requirement existed. These case decisions were then supplemented by the statutory requirement to recognize Appellant's previously adjudicated and legally recognize that the prior court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction when the judgment is under attack two decades after its exercise of jurisdiction, and the acceptance of the benefits by both parties: Evidence Code,, ; California Full faith and credit statutes: Civil Code 00 (Full Faith and Credit Requirement); (final and conclusive effects of prior judgment, local, foreign state, foreign country); C.C. (a filed custody decree has the same effect as a California judgment); C.C. (a foreign state judgment is conclusive between the parties); C.C.P. (effect of a California judgment is conclusive between the parties (and this conclusiveness applies to foreign judgments under, inter alia, C.C.. Rediker v. Rediker (0) Cal.d ("it must be presumed that the foreign court had jurisdiction and that its recital thereof is true... is not subject to collateral attack on a showing of error in the exercise of that jurisdiction... The validity of a divorce decree cannot be contested by a party who... aided another to procure the decree."; Scott v. Scott () 1 C.d ("There should be no implication... that would preclude contacts with the foreign country other than domicile as a basis of jurisdiction.... Section 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "A final judgment of any other tribunal of a foreign country have jurisdiction, according to the laws of such country, to pronounce the judgment, shall have the same effect as in the country where rendered, and also the same effect as final judgments as final judgments rendered in this state [which are final and conclusive of the rights and obligations of the parties--c.c. ]"; Spellens v. Spellens () C.d ("The principle of estoppel is applicable [when] the divorce decree was alleged to be invalid for lack of jurisdiction... The validity of a divorce decree cannot be contested by a party... who aided another to procure the decree..."); Whealton v. Whealton () C.d ("When both parties to a divorce action are before the court... it is questionable whether domicile is an indispensable prerequisite for jurisdiction.... the prerequisite of domicile may be easily avoided at the trial by parties wishing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court, with little fear in most instances that the judgment will be less effective than if a valid domicile in fact existed.").

8 1 0 1 established personal and property rights and the divorce judgments filed in five different states, including in California.. THE CALIFORNIA JUDGE THAT RENDERED THE 1 "DIVORCE JUDGMENT" IN A DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACTION LACKED JURISDICTION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA A. B. Absence of jurisdiction. Under California law there is no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act when there has been rendered or filed any prior divorce judgment. Judgements were rendered by California Superior Court judges and Court of Appeal judges for six years, knowingly acting without jurisdiction and in violation of blocks of state and federal civil and constitutional protections, inflicting great harm upon Appellant. B. C. No jurisdiction to attack prior divorce judgments. For argument, jurisdiction would have existed over Appellant if a declaratory judgment action had been filed, to determine the validity under California and federal law of the five prior divorce judgments. To have done this would have prevented immediately depriving California law depriving California judges of jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act to attack and void any of the five prior divorce judgments. Rules of Court 01(c)(defines jurisdiction under Family Law Act, and limits jurisdiction to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, nullity of prior marriage, excluding attacks upon any of the five prior judgments); (limits parties to existing wife and husband); (limits cause of action to those stated in the Rule 1 petition form and response form, which do not include attacks on prior judgments); (limits causes of action to those stated on the Rule 1 petition for dissolution of marriage form); (limiting jurisdiction to altering marital status as provided on form 1); (a), which prohibits inserting any matter in the 1 petition for dissolution of marriage form or the response form that is not printed on the face of the form, and which contains no provisions for attacking prior judgments); 0(a)() (which deprives court of jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment); 1 (petition for dissolution of marriage form, limiting causes of action to those stated on the form--which does not include attacks upon prior judgments); (response form, limiting response to the statements on the form, which provides no provision to answer cause of action attacking prior judgments); Civil Code 1 (limits jurisdiction to causes of action stated in Rule 01(c) and 1), 0 (limits cause of action to those stated on Rule of Court form 1 and (which excludes attacks upon prior judgments). California courts: C.C.P. 0. C.C.P. 0. To Ascertain Status or Construe Writing.

9 1 0 1 Appellant access to his funds which funded his exposure activities.. PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN RELIEF IN ANY CALIFORNIA COURT FROM THE PATTERN OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLATING THE PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATES OF PRIOR RESIDENCE, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA JUDGES DELIBERATELY AND REPEATEDLY VIOLATED BLOCKS OF STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES, CASE LAW, RULES OF COURT, CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, FOR OVER FIVE YEARS Plaintiff suffered great harm from the repeated, deliberate, knowing violations of the laws and Constitution of the State of California and the United States. Despite knowing that they lacked jurisdiction under California law, knowing that the orders rendered under the sham divorce action violated blocks of California statutes, rules of court, related case law, constitutional protections, and that they were simultaneously violating federal statutory and case law, and fundamental constitutional protections, judge after judge in the California judicial system rendered orders Any person interested under a deed, will or other written instrument, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property,... may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action in the superior court or file a cross-complaint in a pending action in the superior, municipal or justice court for a declaration of his rights and duties in the premises,... He may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of such rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and such declaration shall have the force of a final judgment. Such declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which such declaration is sought. C.C.P... Speedy Trial Priority on Calendar. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), actions brought under the provisions of this chapter shall be set for trial at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence may be given by law. (b) Any action brought under the provisions of this chapter in which the plaintiff seeks any relief, shall take precedence only upon noticed motion and a showing that the action requires a speedy trial.

10 1 0 1 inflicting great financial and personal harm upon Appellant. As a result of the renegade acts of the California judges, and those judges who aided and abetted the acts, Appellant lost his businesses, his home, his personal possessions.. California Judges Have Acted In Concert To Commit the Pattern/Conspiracy of Civil and Constitutional Violations From 1 to 1 Plaintiff has exercised rights and protections under California law in the form of appeals, petitions, and oppositions, to the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court. In every instance the judges of these courts have approved, aided and abetted, the pattern, the conspiracy, of gregarious violations of the basic and long-settled civil and constitutional rights. In addition, judges in the Superior Courts and the Court of Appeal have repeatedly ordered Plaintiff to pay heavy sanctions to the State of California, to attorneys, and to the Texas resident who fraudulently claimed she considered herself married to Plaintiff. Under Title USC Section 1, it is a federal crime to inflict harm upon any person for having exercised rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Title U.S.C. 1. Conspiracy against rights of citizens If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen 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;... They shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both; Although it is the duty of the U.S. District Courts in a cause of action of this nature, making reference to the conduct of the California courts shows the urgency with which this court meet its responsibility to a person being subjected to and harmed in this manner. California judges, in an obvious conspiracy, compounded the violations of state and federal laws and constitutions, California judges reversed the legal and common sense definition of frivolous, placing a frivolous label on every opposition and appeal filed by Appellant to the harmful orders rendered without jurisdiction and which violated over two dozen California statutes and rules of court, in addition to federal protections. In 1, after six years of inflicting great havoc upon Appellant, a Superior Court judge in

11 1 0 1 Solano County rendered a dissolution of marriage judgment, knowing that there was no marriage to terminate; that he lacked jurisdiction; that the parties had been legally divorced since ; that he was violating large blocks of California and federal statutory and case law and constitutional protections (in addition to blocks of California Rules of Court). Despite the fact that he had no jurisdiction over Appellant's real properties or those of Appellant's corporation, this judge held that the properties were community properties, and ordered a division of them. In addition to the absence of jurisdiction, the violation of law pertaining to the divorce judgment recognition, and the absence of jurisdiction over separate properties (all properties had been acquired by Appellant years after the separation in the Colorado residence and after the divorce). This ordered division of real property violated many of California statutes pertaining to absence of jurisdiction during a Family law action. Civil Code 00.1 provides: "For the purpose of division of property upon dissolution of marriage or legal separation, property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint tenancy form is presumed to be community property. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property. Section of Assembly Bill No. states, "This act applies to the following proceedings: (a) Proceedings commenced on or after January 1, 1. (b) Proceedings commenced before January 1, 1, to the extent proceedings as to the division of property are not yet final on January 1, 1." Civil Code Section. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other,... Civil Code provides that either spouse may enter into any transaction with the other, respecting property, and this would include conveying their interest in joint tenancy or community property. Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried.

12 1 0 1 In addition to this unprecedented judicial civil and constitutional violations scenario, California judges in the Court of Appeals had the audacity to repeatedly ordered Appellant to pay sanctions to the Friedman law firm that had initiated the sham action. In effect, California judges Civil Code provides that either spouse may hold property as his or her separate property, and that they may convey such property to others. The property that Stich did own on the date of the January divorce had been deeded to Stich by his former wife and was separate property. The divorce judgments also made that determination. CC. Separate Property of Husband. All property owned by the husband before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof, is his separate property. The husband may, without the consent of his wife, convey his separate property. Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried. Civil Code 0.. Marital Property Transmutation. [legislated in.] Subject to Sections 0.0 to 0.0, inclusive, married persons may by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration, do any of the following: (a) Transmute community property to separate property of either spouse. Civil Code 0.0. Marital Property Written Declaration of Consent. [leg. in 1. Does not affect transmutations occurring prior to its enactment.] (a) A transmutation of real or personal property is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected. (c) This section does not apply to or affect a transmutation of property made before January 1,, and the law that would otherwise be applicable to such a transmutation shall continue to apply. C.C. 1 provides that the accumulations of a spouse living separate are the spouse's separate property. Civil Code Section 1. Earnings of Separated Spouse as Separate Property. The earnings and accumulations of a spouse and the minor children living with, or in the custody of, the spouse, while living separate and apart from the other spouse, are the separate property of the spouse. Case law: Either spouse may make a gift of separate or community property to the other, which results in the property becoming the separate property of the donee. Estate of Cudworth (1) Cal., P. 1; Estate of Walsh (1) Cal.App.d 0, P.d 0. Harry W. Low; Donald B. King; Zerne P. Haning.

13 1 0 1 misused their judicial position to inflict harm upon Appellant for having exercised rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the State of California and of the United States, seeking to halt the obvious conspiracy of violate Appellant's civil and constitutional rights. These were criminal acts under federal law. Another judge who is now on the Court of Appeals, ordered Appellant sent to county jail for five days, for having failed to personally appear at a hearing at which California statutes permit an attorney to appear, and who did appear. He too is guilty of the federal crimes associated with this convoluted and complex conspiracy. And this conspiracy involved subversive and criminal acts against the United States. Seeking to support their barrage of judicial corruption, California judges, and especially the California Court of Appeal judges, declared that Appellant's exercise of civil and constitutional defense remedies, in the light of these judicial outrages, to be frivolous. It was held in a publish decision (that is rampant with and supportive of civil and constitution violations) that it was frivolous for Appellant to raise the matter of the California judges' lack of jurisdiction under the Family Law Act (which was clear-cut and obvious even to them); frivolous not to agree to being remarried (which they lacked jurisdiction to require), and relitigate, two decades later, the matter of personal and property rights.. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE REASON FOR THE INEXPLICABLE SCHEME OF VIOLATING PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Plaintiff was first targeted for a series of judicial violations of his civil and constitutional rights and protections because he had sought to report and expose very serious criminal misconduct Title U.S.C. 1. Conspiracy against rights of citizens If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen 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;... They shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both; J. Clinton Peterson. The criminal activities include: (a) widespread and deeply entrenched pattern of CIA and DEA drug smuggling into the United States, by CIA and DEA personnel, aided and abetted by persons in Customs, Justice Department, DEA, and others, operating under the code names of Operation Indigo

14 1 0 1 against the United States. Appellant was a former federal investigator, and then a private investigator, using his assets to fund these exposure activities. In 1 the law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross filed a sham Petition for Dissolution of Marriage against Appellant, and then immediately filed lis pendens upon Appellant's properties, claiming they were community properties. These assets had funded Appellant's attempts to expose the criminal activities that he had uncovered. Deeply implicated in the planning or the cover-up of these crimes were attorneys in the U.S. Department of Justice, federal judges in the Ninth Circuit, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other government entities (as described in attached Exhibit "A").. Attached Exhibit "B" is a certified copy of a California judgment purporting to be a dissolution of a marriage that was rendered without jurisdiction due to removal (and which concurrently violated wholesale numbers of state and federal protections barring the attack upon five Sky; Operation Snow Cone; Operation Watch Tower; Operation Toilet Seat; Operation Morning Gold; Operation Triangle; Operation Burma Road; Operation Short Flight; (b) converting federal chapter and courts into criminal enterprises through looting of Chapter assets by a conspiracy consisting of corrupt federal judges, trustees, covert Justice Department and CIA law firms; and using these courts to sequester evidence of looted CIA proprietaries; (c) defrauding U.S. financial institutions by the CIA, under various operations known as Operation Cyclops; Operation Interlink; Operation Gold Bug; Operation Thunder; Operation Blue Thunder; Operation Woodsman; Operation Fountain Pen; which includes looting the HUD program and the savings and loans, generating funds for CIA proprietaries through loans on bogus bearer bonds; targeting companies for takeover through fraudulent misuse of federal agencies; (d) CIA treasonous scheme known as "October Surprise," and its felony coverup; (e) Inslaw corruption involving Justice Department personnel and federal judges; (f) Operation Mount Rushmore, a CIA/Mossad scheme to assassinate Bill Clinton in San Francisco; (g) criminal coverup and obstruction of justice by Justice Department personnel, federal judges, and others, of each of these and other crimes; (h) felony persecution of informants, whistleblowers, and protesting victims by federal judges and prosecutors; (i) numerous killings and mysterious deaths of the people threatening to expose the criminality; (j) involvement of California judges in helping to carrying out several of these schemes, including a ten-year pattern of judicial acts against Rodney Stich while violating blocks of California and federal statutes and constitutional protections, making them co-conspirators. Reported by high-ranking deep-cover CIA operatives to be one of several covert CIA and Justice Department law firms that they identified in the San Francisco area. These properties were acquired years after the separation while residing in Colorado and years after a divorce judgment that settled all property rights.

15 1 0 1 prior divorce judgments that terminated the marriage years earlier.. Attached Exhibit "E" is a copy of the confirmation of the judgment as a California judgment, in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.. Attached Exhibit "C" is a partial list of the state and federal protections concurrently violated while rendering orders during the time of removal and additional absence of jurisdiction.. Attached Exhibit "D" is a partial list of the harms deliberate inflicted upon plaintiff during the pattern/conspiracy of judicial violations.. As if these major violations of federally protected rights weren't shocking enough, California judges and justices rendered orders for eight years knowing that: A. They lacked jurisdiction under California law for the legally preposterous cause of action. 1 B. California statutes and case law (Exhibit "C"), federal full faith and constitutional clause, barred the action. United States Supreme Court decisions barred the action. Constitutional protections barred the action. These protections were deliberately violated, while deliberately inflicting upon plaintiff the shocking harms partly listed in Exhibit "D." C. It would be literally impossible for the California judges, and every party who took advantage of these violations, to have done so without a criminal conspiracy, which did in fact exist. In addition to absence of jurisdiction for the past eight years under California law, and while knowingly violated blocks of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. 1 The cause of action attacked the validity of five prior divorce judgments, and the personal and property rights established in them, on the legally bankruptcy argument that California judges would not recognize (any of the millions of) divorce judgments in which the prior court exercised personal jurisdiction on (the universally recognized and exercised) residence basis. The argument, and California holding, was that unless the prior court required the subjective mental thought processes of domicile (denied if the party did not purchase real property in the prior court's jurisdiction), the millions of divorce judgments were void (except when California judges exercised personal jurisdiction on residence) as almost exclusively occurs.

16 During the time that the California action was removed to federal court, California judges/justices rendered the following orders, knowing that they lacked jurisdiction arising from the removal: A. December, Order appointing a receiver. California judge John DeRonde rendered an order appointing a receiver over Stich's multi-million dollar personal and corporate assets. (December,.) The motion for the order was filed on April,. B. July, 1 dissolution of marriage judgment allegedly terminating a marriage that had been legally terminated years earlier, alleging that the properties of Plaintiff were community, and seizing plaintiff's business, properties and assets. California judge Dennis Bunting rendered a July, 1 order purporting to be a dissolution of marriage judgment; 0 dissolution of marriage action; 1 in a purported purporting to divide community properties; and ordering payment of $00 monthly purported to be spousal support. C. May, order denying plaintiff's appeal of the July, 1 judgment, holding that it was frivolous to file the appeal, and ordering plaintiff to pay $0,000 financial sanctions in retaliation for exercising such remedies. In retaliation for filing an appeal of the July, 1 judgment rendered while the 0 Five divorce judgments showed the parties as legally divorced in following a bilateral consent divorce proceeding, and adjudicating all personal and property rights. 1 The cause of action was an attack upon the five prior divorce judgments, seeking to void the judgments that must be recognized under state and federal law; seeking to remarry Stich to a Texas resident from whom he had been legally divorced for the prior years (and beyond the court's jurisdiction to do); seeking to void the property rights established in the five divorce judgments; seeking to void the property rights acquired during years of divorced status and void the state and federal property right, due process, equal protection rights. The retaliation for exercising rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States violated, inter alia, criminal statute Title U.S.C. 1, which makes it a crime for two or more people to threaten or harm a citizen for having exercised rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.

17 1 0 1 state action was removed to federal court, California Court of Appeal justices rendered an order for plaintiff to pay $0,000 to the State of California and to the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. The basis for this huge financial sanction was that plaintiff allegedly filed a frivolous appeal! Plaintiff appealed the July, 1 judgment on the basis: (a) That the state judges lacked jurisdiction on the basis of removal; (b) The court lacked jurisdiction under California law on that basis that the California Family Law Act provided no jurisdiction to attack and void any of the five prior divorce judgments; (c) On the basis that over a dozen California statutes barred the cause of action; (d) On the basis that U.S. Supreme Court decisions required recognizing each of the five prior judgments. D. April, 1 order by Judge Clinton Peterson ordering Stich to pay financial sanctions for a purported frivolous motion. Plaintiff's motion was based upon the absence of jurisdiction due to removal and the other bases for absence of jurisdiction and barring the sham action. E. December 1, order placing Stich into default and depriving him of even the right to object. California judges then commenced conducting hearings and rendering orders without notifying Stich, while stripped of jurisdiction as a result of the removal to federal court. F. May, motion to seize Stich's assets via receiver, filed by the law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. This motion, the suspension of all state and federal due process protections by California and federal judges and justices, forced Justices King, Low, Haning.

18 1 0 1 plaintiff to seek refuge in Chapter. G. May, order seizing plaintiff's -year-old grandson to keep the scheme going. Sealed order relating to the seizure of five-year-old son from plaintiff's daughter, and granting custody to Friedman's -year-old Texas client, as a bribe to prevent her from dismissing the sham attack on the prior divorce judgments. H. May, bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest. Judge Clinton Peterson rendered a bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest, based upon plaintiff's inability to pay void money orders after California judges and the Friedman law firm halted plaintiff's income since the 1 filing of California action seeking to void plaintiff's property rights and divorced status. I. Dozens of lis pendens filed by law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in. J. December, order, ordering plaintiff into default, and barring plaintiff from defending against the taking of his life's assets, business, and human rights. Plaintiff was no longer notified of any hearings or allowed to defend. Default ordered by Judge Harold Wolters. K. December, attorney fees, rendered by Judge William Jensen. L. December 1, spousal support order, without a marriage for supporting the order, and without jurisdiction under state and federal laws. Order to pay $1,000 monthly spousal support. Five prior divorce judgments showed no spousal support rights or obligations. M. December 1, order to pay $,000 attorney fees, by Judge William Jensen.. The orders, judgments, and other acts, rendered without jurisdiction due to removal of the action to federal court, inflicted severe and in many cases irrevocable harms upon plaintiff. A partial list of these harms is attached as Exhibit "B."

19 Upon declaring that all orders/judgments rendered by California judges during removal are void, provide for plaintiff (under Title U.S.C. 0), to provide briefs for injunctive relief, and other federal remedies. CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DELIBERATELY VIOLATED. Under superseding federal law (Addendum " ") each and every divorce judgment establishing Plaintiff's divorced status and personal and property rights must be recognized by every judge in the United States, and particularly, the judges in the State of California. 1. Under superseding California law, (Addendum " "), each and every The violation of these FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 0. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 1 above by reference. 1. Plaintiff requests that this court: A. Declare the validity of each of the five divorce judgments establishing that Plaintiff was divorced from Emma W. Stich on January 1,, and the personal and property rights established therein. B. Declare the invalidity of the 1 dissolution of marriage judgment rendered by a California judge, and all orders based upon that judgment. C. Declare that the California courts, and all other courts, must recognize as valid Plaintiff's divorced status, personal and property rights, as judicially established in, and as judicially established in the divorce judgments. D. Declare void the California judgment ordering Plaintiff to pay to the State of California the sum of $,000, which was rendered in retaliation for exercising rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the United States and the State of California (filing appeal of the dissolution of marriage order, rendered without jurisdiction and in violation of California and federal law.) CONTROLLING FEDERAL LAW REQIRES RECOGNIZING THE PRIOR JUDGMENTS AND THE PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 1

20 1 0 1 STATED IN THOSE JUDGMENTS. Under federal law, each and every one of the five prior divorce judgments must be recognized by every judge in the courts of the United States. Federal statutes (Addendum "B"), federal case law (Addendum "C"), and the U.S. Constitution (Addendum "D"), requires recognizing these judgments. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE PRIOR JUDGMENTS AND PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ESTABLISHED IN THOSE JUDGMENTS MUST BE RECOGNIZED. Under California statutes (Addendum "D"), each and every one of the prior divorce judgments must be recognized.. Under California case law which was followed by the California statutes (Addendum "E"), each and every one of the prior judgments must be recognized.. Under the California Constitution the prior judgments must be recognized, along with the personal and property rights and responsibilities articulated in those judgments. VIOLATING PROPERTY RIGHTS. Federal and state statutes, associated case law, and constitutional rights and protections, require recognizing the property rights established in the five judgments showing these rights adjudicated on January 1,, and prevent taking these property rights in the sham 1 "dissolution of marriage" action.. If, for argument, the parties had not been divorced after the Colorado separation, under California law, properties acquired after the separation are considered separate properties, and outside the jurisdiction of a dissolution of marriage action.. The actions by the California judges and the defendant violated additional constitutional rights and protections relating to the right to travel without suffering a loss of personal and property rights. (Addendum "D").. California Court of Appeal judges violated many federal statutes and related case law, including retaliating against Plaintiff for having exercised rights and protections under the laws and 0

21 Constitution of the United States and of the State of California. (Addendum "E.") For instance, California Court of Appeal judges ordered Plaintiff to pay $,000 sanctions to the State of California in retaliation for having filed an appeal of the sham 1 "dissolution of marriage" judgment and property seizure/distribution. This violated Title U.S.C. Section 1 of the federal criminal code. In addition, California judges engaged in a pattern of civil and constitutional violations, aided and abetted these violations, involving for instance Title U.S.C. Section and Title U.S.C. Section Until the rights and responsibilities established in the five judgments showing Plaintiff to have been divorced in, and all personal and property rights and obligations established, Plaintiff will continue to suffer great harm. To this date, the wrongful acts of the California judges and the Defendant have inflicted great and irreparable harm upon Plaintiff, that will continue to his death. (Addendum "G.")

22 RODNEY F. STICH P.O. Box Alamo, CA 0 Phone: -0-0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RODNEY F. STICH, ) ) Nr. C -0 MLS. Plaintiff, ) ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN v. ) SUPPORT OF DECLARATORY ) JUDGMENT ) Judge WILLIAM JENSEN, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 1 0 1

23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Cases and Other Authorities... i Introduction... 1 Discussion... I. FEDERAL COURTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO DECLARE RIGHTS AND PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES WHEN THE FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK... II. ORDERS/JUDGMENTS RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH ARE VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, ARE BEING RECOGNIZED AS VALID BY THE DEFENDANTS, CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO SUFFER GREAT HARMS TO HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS... III. VOID ORDERS ARE FOREVER VOID, AS ARE ORDERS SEEKING SUPPORT IN SUCH VOID ORDERS... IV. SHOCKING NUMBERS AND SEVERITY OF HARMS INFLICTED BY CALIFORNIA JUDGES WHILE CONCURRENTLY VIOLATING FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS... V. SPECIFIC RELIEF NEEDED... VI. STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS COURT TO ACT... SUMMARY i

24 TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES: Bailey v. Hinsley 0 F.d 0 Buchold v. Ortiz, 01 F.d 1 (th Cir.... Dykes v. Hoseman, F.d (th Cir. 1)... Forrester v. White (1) L.Ed. d... G & M, Inc. v. Newbrun F.d... Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1) U.S Jordon v. Gilligan, 00 F.d 01 (th Cir. )... Kalb v. Feuerstein () 0 U.S.... Pennoyer v. Neff () U.S.... Rankin v. Howard, F.d (th Cir. )... Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency F.d ()... Rose v. Himely (0) Cranch 1, L ed 0... United States v. Holtzman F.d 0 (th Cir. )... FEDERAL STATUTES: Title U.S.C. Title U.S.C. Title U.S.C. 01 Title U.S.C. 0 FRCivP... OTHER LAW Bache v. Wallace, Minn. [1 N.W. ]... Barrett v. Southern Ry. (D SC ) FRD... In re Rimmons, Ala,... ii

25 People v. Greene, 1 Cal Exhibit "A": Exhibit "B": Exhibit "C": Exhibit "D": Exhibit "E": Exhibit "F": Clerk's docket sheet showing removed state action in federal court from June,, through January 0, 11. Copy of California judgment purporting to be a dissolution of marriage judgment, rendered during removal of the state action to federal court. List of law violated during removal. List of harm inflicted upon plaintiff during removal. Entry and confirmation of judgment as California judgment. Justice Department report on Chapter criminal activities, and investigative media reports addressing the judicial corruption. iii

26 1 0 1 INTRODUCTION This is an action to declare rights and legal obligations arising from state orders and judgments rendered by judges lacking jurisdiction due to a Title U.S.C. 01 removal to federal court. The state action ignored the fact that five prior divorce judgments had long ago terminated the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and his former wife who had been a resident of the state of Texas since. The California dissolution of marriage action simply ignored the fact that there were five prior judgments that established the divorced status and the parties personal and property rights. Eight years of repeated and shocking violations of wholesale numbers of state and federal protections, knowingly acting without jurisdiction under California and under federal law, obviously surpasses federal case law criteria for prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to violate plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights, in a RICO and criminal offense. Within 0 days of rendering another order inflicting great and irreparable harm upon plaintiff, and unable to obtain the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the State of California and of the United States, and on the basis of record-setting civil right violations, plaintiff removed the state action to federal court (E.D. Cal. Nr. CV-S--0 MLS) on June, (List of divorce judgments showing divorced status and property rights final and conclusive as of January 1,. (1) Initial divorce judgment following a bilateral consent divorce proceeding, rendered by jurisdiction of residence for five months, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, No., authenticated by U.S. Consul; () Registration and confirmation of the divorce judgment in the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, action number, under C.C.P. (b) and C.C. ; () Registration of the Contra Costa divorce judgment confirmation in the Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, action 1; () Judicial entry of the Contra Costa county confirmed judgment into the Nevada courts, Second Judicial District of Nevada, County of Washoe, case number -1 and into foreign judgment registry, number 1; () Registration of the divorce judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Case number FD--0; () Registration of the Contra Costa confirmed judgment in the Civil Courts of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page, Foreign Judgment Register. RICO Act, Title U.S.C. 1-; Title U.S.C. 1, the criminal offense of two or more persons threatening or harming a citizen for having exercised rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. 1