Documented Misconduct by California Judges Met Criteria Of RICO Criminal Enterprise— With Dramatic National Consequences This posting provides information on one segment of a complex matter that enabled a series of national tragedies. The heavily documented misconduct by judges in the three upper levels of the California judicial system played an enabling role in these matters. Multiple efforts were made to halt the efforts of corruption fighter, Captain Rodney Stich, who was exposing serious and criminal misconduct that initially played enabling roles in a series of corruption-enabled aviation disasters, and at a later stage, the corruption he was exposing played enabling roles in a series of al Qaeda successes. Captain Rodney Stich has a long record showing his competence and credibility. This posting addresses the complicity of judges at the three top segments of the California judicial system. Were it not for the criminal misuse of their judicial positions, it is very probable that the efforts of Stich and his group of other insiders could have succeeded in halting the corruption in high federal positions and brought a halt to the resulting harmful and catastrophic events. Start of Bizarre Scheme To Silence Corruption-Fighter The scheme involved filing a sham lawsuit in the California Superior Courts at Fairfield, filed by the CIA-front San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. That firm filed a sham lawsuit against Stich, used the former wife living in Texas as a straw plaintiff. The sham lawsuit was filed under the California Family Law Act, permitting a California judge to immediately gain control of the assets, and resulting in their loss. Facts Showing the Sham Nature of the Lawsuit The lawsuit declared that the Texas resident was the wife of Captain Stich, and she wanted a divorce and half of the community assets. The facts showed the sham nature of that claim: Sixteen years earlier, while neither party resided in California, the parties divorced, and that 1966 divorce judgment was entered as a binding local divorce judgment in the states of Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada—and California. Legal documents in Texas showed the former wife declaring herself divorced in real estate sales and purchased, credit applications, and to the Social Security Administration. She continued to declare herself divorced in Texas after the Friedman law firm filed the sham divorce action in California. All of Stich's assets were acquired after the parties separate in Colorado, converting the properties, under law, outside of the community property doctrine if the parties were not divorced. California Judges, At Every Level, Became Complicit in The Corruption—and Enablers of Great "Events" Further evidence of the criminal conduct by California judges, including the California Supreme Court, were the six years of the following violations of California and federal statutes, controlling decisional law, and landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. To have repeatedly perpetrated those factual matters and massive legal blocks were prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and meeting the legal definition of a RICO criminal enterprise. Six Years of Unprecedented Record-Setting Violations Of California and Federal Laws To carry out the scheme by the CIA-front San Francisco law firm, the following several dozen state and federal statutes had to be violated (with immunity provided at the federal level). Absence of Personal Jurisdiction In California Courts Rule of court 1230(a)(2) Special appearance challenging the court’s personal jurisdiction by motion to quash based upon a prior divorce judgment terminating the marriage 20 years earlier. Rule 1230. Motion to Quash Proceeding. (a) Within the time permitted to file a response, the respondent may move to quash the proceeding, in whole or in part, for any of the following: (2) That there is a prior judgment .... between the same parties for the same cause. Rule of Court 1234. Motion to quash specifically intended in Family Law Act proceedings when there is a prior divorce and no marital status. Rule 1234. Motion to Quash Summons. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, a respondent may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service of summons upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or a notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10. Provides for motion to quash challenging the court’s absence of personal jurisdiction, during which time the court has no jurisdiction over the party. Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10. Defendant May Serve and File Notice of Motion to Quash Service of Summons or to Stay or Dismiss Action−Time Limit−Grounds−Conditions−Default. (a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his time to plead or within such further time as the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion either or both: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him. Absence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rule 1201(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). Rule 1201. Definitions. (c) "Proceeding" means a proceeding pursuant to the Family law Act for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation. Rule 1211(limits parties in Family Law Act proceedings to existing wife and husband). Rule 1211. Parties to Proceeding. (a) ... the only persons permitted to be parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife. Rule 1212(limits cause of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated in the Rule 1281 petition form and 1282 response form, which do not include attacks on prior judgments. California and federal law required recognition of the prior judgments. The reason for labeling the action a dissolution of marriage action arose from the need to immediately seize Stich's assess to his funds on the sham argument that these were community properties. Rule 1212. Other Causes of Action. Neither party to the proceeding may assert against the other party or any other person any cause of action or claim for relief other than for the relief provided in these rules or the Family Law Act. Rule 1215. (limits causes of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated on the Rule 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form). Rule 1215. Pleadings. (b) The only pleadings permitted by a petitioner is the petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281. Rule 1222. (limit jurisdiction under Family Law Act to altering a marital status not previously terminated, as provided on form 1281). Rule 1222. Commencement of Proceeding. A party who seeks a judicial determination altering his marital status pursuant to the Family Law Act shall complete and file in the superior court a petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281. Rule 1229(a) (which prohibits inserting any matter in the 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form or the 1282 response form that is not printed on the face of the form, and which contains no provisions for attacking prior judgments). | Rule 1229. Motion to Strike. (a) Neither the petition or the response shall contain any matter not specifically required by Rule 1281 or Rule 1282, respectively. AT the request of either party, upon noticed motion, or on the court's own motion, any matter not so required may be stricken by the court or otherwise disregarded by it. Rule 1281, being the Family Law Form petition, and Rule 1282, being the response, provides no provision for the cause of action or claim for relief raised by petitioner, or the relief that she requested. Her petition relies upon matters specifically prohibited by 1229 and 1281, attacking the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court, that had already been recognized as local judgments in six different jurisdictions within the United States. To make the cause of action even more preposterous, the attack on the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court was based on the argument that Stich did not intend to reside permanently in that court’s jurisdiction, something held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940s and 1950s. Rule 1230(a)(2) (which deprives court of jurisdiction of personal and subject matter jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment). Rule of Court 1230 Motion to Quash Proceeding. (a)(2) That there is a prior judgment or another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. Special Appearance Ignored and Violated Civil Code Section 4356. Special Appearance During Pendency of Motion. (a) During the time a motion pursuant to Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending, the respondent may appear in opposition to an order made during the pendency of this part and the appearance shall not be deemed a general appearance by the respondent. Rule 1234.(motion to quash summons under Family Law Act). Rule 1234. Motion to Quash Summons. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, a respondent may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service of summons upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or a notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 1239(a)(2) (Motion to quash responsive relief on basis of prior judgment). Rule 1239. Motion to Quash Responsive Relief. (a) Within 15 days after the filing of the response, the petitioner may move to quash, in whole or in part, any request for affirmative relief in the response for any of the following: (1) Respondent’s lack of legal capacity to sue. (2) That there is a prior judgment or another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. (3) That the residence required by Civil Code Section 4530 is lacking. ... (b) The notice of motion to quash pursuant to this rule shall specify a hearing date not more than 20 days from the date of filing such notice. (c) A notice of motion to quash pursuant to this rule shall distinctly specify the ground upon which the motion is based. Unless it does so, the motion may be disregarded by the court. (d) When a motion to quash pursuant to this rule is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter must be specified in the motion or in the supporting memorandum of points and authorities for the purpose of invoking such notice except as the court may otherwise permit. Rule 1281 (petition for dissolution of marriage form, limiting causes of action to those stated on the form−which does not include attacks upon prior judgments). Rule 1281. Petition for Dissolution of Marriage Form. Form clearly shows that the causes of action are limited to "proceedings," as defined by Rule of Court 1201(c), to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, or nullity of marriage. There is no provision on the form to attack prior judgments, or previously adjudicated personal or property rights. Rule 1282 (response form, limiting response to the statements on the form, which provides no provision to answer cause of action attacking prior judgments). Rule 1282 Response Form This form limits the response that can be made, and the responses are limited to those issues stated on the form. Any other response is prohibited. Therefore, appellant could not make a response to the legally prohibited causes of action stated in the Rule 1281 petition form. Civil Code § 4351(limits jurisdiction to causes of action stated in Rule 1201(c) and 1281). Civil Code 4351. Jurisdiction of Superior Court. In proceedings under this part, the superior court has jurisdiction to inquire into and render any judgment and make such orders as are appropriate concerning the status of the marriage, the custody and support of minor children of the marriage and children for whom support is authorized ... [Requires a marriage for jurisdiction.] Civil Code § 4503 (limits cause of action to those stated on Rule of Court form 1281 and 1282 (which excludes attacks upon prior judgments). Civil Code 4503. Petition for Dissolution-Forms, Contents, and Service. A proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or for legal separation shall be commenced by filing in the Superior Court a petition entitled, “In re the marriage of ____________ and ________________” which shall state whether it is a petition for the dissolution of the marriage or a legal separation. A copy of the petition together with a copy of a summons in form and content approved by the Judicial Council shall be served upon the other party to the marriage in the same manner as service off papers in civil actions generally. California Statutes Required Recognizing the Prior Prior Judgments That Settled the Matters Civil Code §§ 4554. Effect of final judgment constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against relitigating, and bars collateral attack being prior divorce judgments.] Civil Code § 5004. Full faith and credit must be given to each of the six divorce judgments entered as local judgments in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. Civil Code § 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of divorce judgment from another state must be accepted as judgment of the state of California. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk--Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state. Code of Civil Procedure § 1699(b). Foreign support order must be treated in the same manner as one rendered by a California court. Code of Civil Procedure § 1699: Upon registration the registered foreign support orders shall be treated in the same manner as a support order issued by a court of this state. Foreign state judgments must be recognized as local judgments. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.1. Foreign State and Foreign Judgment Defined. As used in this chapter: (1) “Foreign state “ means any governmental unit other than the United States, or any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (2) “Foreign judgment” means any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine, or other penalty, or a judgment for support in matrimonial or family matters. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.3. Defines “foreign judgment” as a judgment of another nation. Under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1713.1 (2) defines a "foreign judgment" as "any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money. The foreign judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit, ... Effect of foreign state or sister state judgment must be recognized as a local judgment. Code of Civil Procedure Code § 1908. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment. (a) The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive between the parties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.] Parties to the prior divorce judgment are precluded from attacking the judgment (as is also stated in the 1966 judgment). Code of Civil Procedure § 1910. Parties Concluded by Judgment. The parties are deemed to be the same when those between whom the evidence is offered were on opposite sides in the former case, and a judgment or other determination could in that case have been made between them alone, though other parties were joined with both or either. Code of Civil Procedure § 1913.Conclusiveness of sister state judgment the same as a local judgment. This conclusiveness is extended to foreign nation judgment by Civil Code §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915. The registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in courts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada—and California, required recognition of the divorce status—that occurred long before one of the parties moved to California. California judges, in effect, were remarrying people upon exercising the constitutional right to change residence without losing previously established legal status. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution required California judges to recognize the legal status of the parties in prior states. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment of Sister States is shown in the statutory embodiment of that clause in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1913 (as well as Civil Code Section 5004). California Code of Civil Procedure section 1913 states: The effect of a judicial record of a sister state is the same in this state as in the state where it was made, except that it can only be enforced here by an action or special proceeding .... The protection of this statute is extended to foreign country judgments by California Civil Code § 5164; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915. The full faith and credit clause is statutorily embodied in California Civil Code § 5004. Section 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Section 5004 reinforces similar protection in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1908 and 1913. Final judgment of a foreign country has the same effect as final judgment rendered in California. Civil Code § 1915. A final judgment of any tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction, according to the laws of such country, to pronounce the judgment, shall have the same effect as final judgments rendered in this state. Civil Code § 5004. Requires full faith and credit be given to the six judgments entered as local judgments in Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. Civil Code § 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Civil Code § 4554. Entry of prior judgment constitutes final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against the relitigating and collateral attack being prior divorce judgments. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of custody decree of another state shall be treated as custody decree of local judgment. Civil Code Section 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk−Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713. Prior judgment is conclusive between the parties, and this is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; civil Code § 5165. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1713.3. Conclusiveness of Foreign Judgment: "A foreign judgment ... is conclusive between the parties ..." (This protection is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure § 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; Civil Code § 5164; California Civil Code section 5164 provides that the registration of the 1966 divorce judgment with the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, and Superior Court, Solano County, shall provide not only the same recognition and protection against collateral attacks and relitigating (See e.g., Civil Code Section 4554) as is granted to California divorce judgments, but also enforcement of the judgments: A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state. Code of Civil Procedure § 1908. Conclusiveness of prior California divorce judgment, and extended to sister state and foreign country judgments by other statutes, including Civil Code § 5172 and Code of Civil Procedure §§1653(j) and 1713.3. Code of Civil Procedure Code § 1908. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment. (a) The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive between the parties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.] Evidence Code § 622: Recitals in Written Instruments. The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest. Evidence Code § 665. Ordinary Consequences of Voluntary Act Intended. "A person is presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act." The parties to the prior divorce proceeding in 1965-1966 are presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of their voluntary act. The protection of the quasi estoppel doctrine is further provided by the common law Quasi estoppel doctrine, as articulated in controlling federal law, and in California decisional law, including inter alia, In re Shank's Estate (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 888: [O]ur courts have recognized another species of estoppel, called 'quasi-estoppel,' which is based upon the principle that one cannot blow hot and cold .... Evidence Code § 666. States that any court of California or of a foreign nation is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. Evidence Code § 666: Judicial Action Lawful Exercise of Jurisdiction. [A]ny court of this state ... or ... any other nation ... is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction ... when the act ... is under collateral attack. Conclusive presumption that the prior court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction protects appellant against the sole basis stated in the May 10, 1983 decision refusing appellant's motion to quash. Absence of Jurisdiction over Separate Property Under the Family Law Act Civil Code § 5102. (If, for argument, there had been a marriage, all of Stich’s properties were separate and outside the jurisdiction of a judge under a Family Law Act proceeding. Section 5102 provides that neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other. All of Stich’s properties were separate.) Civil Code Section 5102. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other, ... Civil Code § 5103. (Provides for acquiring property as separate property.) Civil Code § 5103 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. Civil Code § 5108. (Provides for separate property transfers.) Civil Code § 5110.720. (Provides for conveying community to separate property status, as was done before the 1966 divorce.) Civil Code § 5110.710. Marital Property−Transmutation. [legislated in 1985.] Subject to Sections 5110.720 to 5110.740, 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 § 5110.730. Marital Property−Written Declaration of Consent. [leg. in 1984. 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, 1985, and the law that would otherwise be applicable to such a transmutation shall continue to apply. 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 (1901) 133 Cal. 462, 65 P. 1041; Estate of Walsh (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 704, 152 P.2d 750. Civil Code § 5118. (Provides that property acquired while living separate becomes separate property. All of Stich’s properties were acquired while living separate before the 1966 divorce and again, after the 1966 divorce.) Civil Code Section 5118. 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. Repeated Procedural Due Process Violations California judges refused to recognize Stich’s special appearance status and absence of personal jurisdiction. All orders were rendered without jurisdiction. Code of Civil Procedure § 632. Statement of Decision. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. The statement of decision shall be in writing unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure § 634. No Inference That Trial Court Decided in Favor of Prevailing Party. When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or if the statement is ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was brought to the attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal or upon a motion under Section 657 or 663 that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to those facts or on that issue. Refused to conduct a hearing on the Rule 1230 Motion to quash. California judges refused to conduct a hearing on the court's challenged jurisdiction in response to a motion to quash, and four years later, converted the limited hearing on the motion to quash to a full blown hearing relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court. Repeatedly refused to issue mandatory findings of facts and conclusions of law when timely requested. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 632 and 634, and Rule 23. Rule 23, Findings and Additional Evidence on Appeal. (A) Request for findings. A request that the reviewing court make findings of fact shall contain a draft of the proposed findings, and may be made in a brief, or a separate application may be served and filed. If opposing counsel has not had an opportunity in his brief to object to the request, he may serve and file written opposition thereto. Violated Major Federal Laws and Constitutional Protections Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1738. Title 28 United States Code § 1738: 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. Article IV, § 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause), requires 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. Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Fourteenth Amendment due process, equal protection, property, liberty, freedom rights, by denying to Stich due process, equal protection, and the protections of California and federal law. Privileges and Immunity Clause rights under Article IV, § 2, and under the 14th Amendment (depriving right to obtain divorce on universally recognized residence basis, and right to change residence). Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The right to unabridged interstate travel, under the Commerce Clause, without losing rights and privileges acquired in prior jurisdictions of residence. Article IV, § 2. Interstate Privileges of Citizens. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Violated Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions The California judges repeatedly violated rights established in U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring recognition of prior divorce judgments and adjudicated personal and property rights, and rights acquired as a divorced person in prior states of residence. They acted as if they had advance approval that they would be protected against lawsuits in the federal courts for their deliberate and repeated civil rights violations: Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment or personal and property rights adjudicated therein). Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378 (prohibited state judge from attacking prior divorce judgments and rights adjudicated in the judgment). Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment). Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment). Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment). Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969) (prohibiting state judge from voiding personal and property rights adjudicated in foreign country judgment and refusal to recognize one day residence as basis for exercising jurisdiction or recognizing validity of judgment and adjudicated personal and property rights). In United States v. Guest (1966) 383 U.S. 745, the Supreme Court held: “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another [occupies] a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” The constitutional right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated or acquired personal and property rights has been held to arise under (a) the privileges and immunities clause of Article 4, § 2 of the Constitution; (b) privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (c) Article 1, § 8, clause 18 of the Constitution; (d) Ninth Amendment, in that the power to deal with violations of the right of interstate travel was "delegated to the United States by the Constitution; (e) the power to interfere with this right was not "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; (f) position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union and a basic right under the constitution. (See e.g., Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) 400 US 112, 27 L Ed 2d 272, 91 S Ct 260; Slaughter House Cases (1872, US), 16 Wall 36, 21 L Ed 394. Punishment for Exercising Due Process Defenses Every attempt to halt the great and irreparable personal harm, and financial harm, resulting from the unprecedented number of violations resulted in California judges ordering Captain Rodney Stich to pay damages to the law firm filing she sham action, sometimes thousands of dollars. This retaliation resulted in still more due process violations and constituted additional federal causes of action. Bizarre Published California Court of Appeal Decision: Blatant Lies of Pathological Liars An initial bizarre and published decision was issued by the judges in the California Court of Appeal during the convoluted period. The decision implied that anyone moving to the State of California can be subjected to being remarried to someone from whom they were previously divorced while living in another state (and now maybe remarried). The basis, believe it or not: The above-the-law California judges could relitigate the priors court's jurisdiction, and invalidate that prior divorce judgment if the California judges felt that the parties in the prior divorce did not intend to live forever in the prior court's jurisdiction. That stupid, illegal, and unconstitutional decision by Judges P.J. Low and J. Haning, was so bizarre, illegal, and unconstitutional, more suitable coming from inmates of a mental institution. Eventually, pressure from unknown sources caused it to be unpublished. That decision, In Re Marriage of Stich, 167 Cal. App.3d226—Cal.Rptr.—(Apr. 1985). Since there was no marriage in fact or in law, the very title was bogus. Sampling of the order: "The Court of Appeal affirmed, and imposed sanctions of $10,000 against the husband based upon its finding that his appeal was taken solely for the purpose of delay." [Appealing lack of jurisdiction, lack of a marriage, violations of dozens of state and federal laws improper? Provides an example of the degree of judicial lying in the California courts.] "...substantial evidence, that the wife had demonstrated a fair or reasonable probability she would be successful in establishing the invalidity of the [prior divorce judgments]." Evidence showed the so-called wife had been declaring herself divorced for the prior 16 years and was continuing to do so; and had been entered as a local judgment in five other states.] "As to the imposition of sanctions, the court held that every action taken by the husband [husband?] had been to delay as long as possible any requirement that he make any payment to the wife ... " Complicity of California Supreme Court Justices: Exception, Justice Stanley Mosk The Justices of the California Supreme Court were complicit in the above atrocities, with the exception of highly respected Justice Stanley Mosk. In a 1983 appeal to the California Supreme Court, Justice Mosk voted to hear the appeal. The continued support by every other California Supreme Court Justice for the unprecedented violations and criminalization of the California judicial system continued the outrages for the next five years. Ironically, when these and other matters, related to the same goals of silencing the corruption-fighter, were presented in an Emergency Petition to highly respected U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bryon White, he implied the gravity of the issues presented, and then apologized for being unable—as a single justice—to help. The California Supreme Court Justices at that time included ...... Criminal Aspects of the Attacks and Conspiracy Of the California Judges and Justices Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. 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; Unprecedented Civil Rights Violations by California Superior, Appeal, and Supreme Court Judges Under the Civil Rights statutes, anyone who knows of a civil rights violations, and has the ability to prevent them, and who fails to do so, becomes complicit and violates the law. They violated in addition, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. The California Judges Were One Part of A Series of Actions Taken to Halt Exposure Of Deadly High-Level Corruption The California judges were part of a scheme, which evidence indicates originated within the U.S. Department of Justice. It requires the most powerful people in the United States government to enable such unprecedented corrupt conduct and provide immunity to the parties. To understand the gravity of this matter, the criminal and deadly role played by the California judges, and the ripple effects their misconduct enabled, requires more serious readings. A sampling of these very serious matters exists at the following locations, shown in the approximate sequences of events: Series of aviation disasters, some occurring in the immediate area of responsibility of federal airline safety inspector Rodney Stich, and many enabled by politics, incompetence, and corruption. The unprecedented and life-and-death-assignment given to Stich, to halt the corruption at a politically powerful airline and with the political power base of the Federal Aviation Agency, known at that time to knowledgeable insiders as the "tombstone agency." The criminal activities involving key personnel in the federal government that corruption fighter, Captain Rodney Stich, and his group of other government insiders discovered. The background and credibility of Stich. The consequences of the corrupt and criminal activities that they discovered, covering the period before and during the attacks upon Captain Stich by the California judges, and afterwards. Series of corruption-enabled aviation disasters, including several aviation disasters while under attack during his life-and-death assignment. Series of terrorist successes enabled by the corruption Captain Stich discovered and sought to halt. Harm to individual Americans. The conspiracy involving the California judges and the harm inflicted upon Captain Stich greatly hindered the attempts to halt the worsening corruption and the worsening series of catastrophic events. The ripple effects of the corrupt conduct of California judges will continue for generations. Documentaries by Unique Insiders On 50 Years of High-Level Corruption In Government— And Resulting Consequences Unprecedented in any Modern Industrial Nation (Print available at www.amazon.com and www.amazon.co.uk) EBooks Worldwide All of the books are available at amazon.com, in print and on digital formats, and at many other Internet sites. They bring together the various pieces of the puzzle to better understand the overall picture, and why the same conditions continue year after year. Information on the books by former government agent Rodney Stich Sampling of early books reviews Sampling of complimentary letters/faxes to author/activist Rodney Stich. Credibility information: Captain Rodney Stich bio. Sampling of commendations given to Stich over his lifetime. Evidence of Stich's credibility. Unprecedented letter and unprecedented apology by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White. More information about these books by clicking here. Print books from Amazon.com in Europe: http://www.amazon.co.uk./s/ref=nb_sb_noss/277-4275297-4922359?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22Rodney%20Stich%22.