California law violated in scheme to halt exposing corruption in government.

<body> California Law Repeatedly Violated by California Judges As Part of Scheme to Halt Exposing High-Level Corruption As part of the scheme to halt former federal agent Rodney Stich's activities exposing widespread corruption in the three branches of government that he and a group of other government agents discovered, a sham lawsuit was filed against him by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco). That lawsuit was given a common label which permitted California judges to issue orders immediately blocking Stich's from access to the funds that funded his exposure activities. It is important to recognize the catastrophic consequences affecting the lives of many people, and national security, by the actions taken to halt the reporting of major corrupt activities in the government's aviation safety offices (that played major roles in the events of 9/11) and other government offices. That lawsuit was given a dissolution of marriage label, although Stich had been divorced for almost 20 years, he and his former wife had repeatedly declared themselves divorced in real estate and other official dealings, and five divorce judgments showed them to be divorced. Further, they lived in different states and hadn't seen each other in over 15 years. (The 1966 divorce judgment followed a bilateral consent divorce proceeding, and that judgment was entered as a local judgment in the states of Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Nevada, and two counties in California.) In addition, after the filing of the California "divorce" proceeding, the former wife, residing in Duncanville, Texas, continued to declare herself divorced in Texas--but conveniently declared herself married in California where she expected to receive a financial windfall from seizure of Stich's assets. For the CIA-front law firm, the goal was to seize and destroy the assets, which they then proceeded to do, leaving very little for the Texas resident to gain by her lying and perjury. The law firm, their lawyers, and California judges, already knew the deadly consequences of the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices that Stich had discovered as part of his official and professional duties. They obviously knew that their actions in hindering or halting Stich's exposure of these deadly activities would enabled to occur a continuation of the deadly crashes. And that did in fact occur, repeatedly, with catastrophic and deadly consequences. Dozens of California and federal statutory and case law and constitutional protections barred the filing of that lawsuit, which should have been promptly dismissed. Instead, over a dozen California judges joined forces with the CIA-front law firm, which violated federally protected rights for which there were remedies in federal court under the Civil Rights and other statutes. The following is a partial list of the law that the judges violated: California Judges' Absence of Jurisdiction The law clearly states that the existence of a prior divorce judgment automatically deprives California judges of jurisdiction in a Family Law Act proceeding. Stich had five divorce judgments. Absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. California statutes specifically deprive California judges of subject matter jurisdiction under the Family Law Act when there exists a prior divorce judgment. Rule 1201(c)(5)defines jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. Jurisdiction is limited to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, or nullity of prior marriage. Attacks upon the exercise of jurisdiction by prior divorce courts are not included in the strictly limited jurisdiction under the Act. Rule 1211(6) limits the parties in a Family Law Act proceeding to a husband and wife. A 1966 divorce judgment and its entry as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano firmly established that the parties were not husband and wife. (Neither party had any relations to each other after a 1964 separation occurring in Colorado.) Rule 1212(7) limits cause of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated in the rules under the Family Law Act. There is no provision on the form for attacking the jurisdiction of a prior court, and especially on the mental thought processes of the person filing for the divorce. The sham lawsuit argued that Stich did not intend to reside permanently in that prior court's jurisdiction, a requirement that exists in no court in the United States. Rule 1281(8) is the the Family Law form that must be used in Family Law Act proceedings, and the causes of action are limited to those three stated therein: dissolution of an existing marriage that had not already been legally terminated; dissolution of a marriage, or legal separation. Rule 1282(9) is the Family Law form that must be used in response, and limits the responses to those which address any of the three permissible causes of action.(10) A response could not be made to the cause of action for which there is no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act except through a motion to quash challenging the court's jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. Rule 1215(11) limits and defines the causes of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated on the Rule 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form. Attacks on the exercise of jurisdiction by a court 20 years earlier are not included. Rule 1222(12) limits jurisdiction under Family Law Act to altering a marital status not previously terminated, as provided on form 1281. Rule 1229(a)(13) 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. There is no provision on the form for attacking prior judgments. Rule 1230(a)(2)(14) deprives the court of jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment. Rule 1234(15) provides for a motion to quash summons under Family Law Act. Rule 1239(a)(2)(16) provides for a motion to quash response on the basis of a prior judgment. Civil Code § 4351(17) limits jurisdiction to causes of action stated in Rule 1201(c) and 1281. Civil Code § 4503(18) limits cause of action to those stated on Rule of Court form 1281 and 1282 (which excludes attacks upon prior judgments. Absence of Personal Jurisdiction From Motion to Quash California judges repeatedly rendered orders inflicting great personal and financial harm without personal jurisdiction. This absence of jurisdiction arose as a matter of law when Stich filed a motion to quash in the cause of action filed under the California Family Law Act on the basis of an absence of any marriage arising from a divorce judgment rendered two decades earlier on January 31, 1966. Rule of court 1230(a)(2) provides for a special appearance challenging the court's personal jurisdiction by filing a motion to quash based upon a prior divorce judgment that terminated the marriage and all related issues. Rule of Court 1234 provides for filing a motion to quash, and is specifically intended in Family Law Act proceedings when a prior divorce judgment terminated the marriage. Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(4) provides for filing a motion to quash challenging the court's absence of personal jurisdiction based upon a prior divorce judgment. It provides that a hearing be calendared within 20 days, and until there is a hearing on that motion, limited to presenting evidence of the prior divorce judgment, the court has no personal jurisdiction over the party. California Law Required Recognizing the Prior Judgments California statutes requiring recognizing the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights associated with those judgments: Civil Code §§ 4554, 5004, 5164; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1699(b), 1713.3, 1908, 1913, 1915 (effective when the 1966 judgment was rendered and for nine years thereafter). California full faith and credit statutes that required recognition of each of the prior judgments and personal and property rights stated in those judgments: Civil Code §§ 5004 (Full Faith and Credit Requirement); 4554 (final and conclusive effects of prior judgment, local, foreign state, foreign country). Prevents attacks upon prior judgments adjudicated or entered as local judgments, requiring that the judgments be recognized as well as the personal and property rights. C.C. § 5164 (a filed custody decree has the same effect as a California judgment); C.C.P. § 1713 (a foreign state judgment is conclusive between the parties). C.C.P. § 1908 (effect of a California judgment is conclusive between the parties (and this conclusiveness applies to foreign judgments under, inter alia, C.C. § 5164. Violated major decisions of the California Supreme Court that were decided 50 years ago that barred denying recognition to Nevada or any other divorce judgments. These included: Finality and conclusiveness has been established by California Supreme Court decisions. In Estate of Casimir (1971) 19 C.A.3d 773, 779, making reference to the holdings of the California Supreme Court, the court stated: "As between the parties to a divorce the final decree is res judicata "not only of their status with relation to each other but also of all issues that were litigated or that could have been litigated therein." (Rediker v. Rediker, 35 Cal.2d 796, 801 [221 P.2d 1].) Summarizing current California law, California Practice Guide, Family Law, 1987: [18:196]: Res judicata limitation on standing to bring collateral attack: If the disputed issue has already been litigated by the parties, or could have been litigated in the underlying proceeding, the determination is res judicata and cannot be challenged by collateral attack in a later proceeding. [See, e.g., Moffat v. Moffat (1980) 27 C.3d 645, 165 C.R. 877; Marriage of Hotz (1985) 168 C.A.3d 605, 214 C.|R. 658; Heuer v. Heuer (1947) 33 C.2d 268, 201 P.2d 385; Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 C.2d 796, 221 P.2d 1; and Wall v. Donovan (1980) 113 C.A.3d 122, 169 C.R. 644--estoppel to attack domicile jurisdiction; Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 C.A.3d 203, 179 C.R. 492--prior judgment binding even if incorrectly decided] (1) [18:197] Determining whether decision res judicata: Collateral attack is barred on grounds of res judicata if: * The challenging party participated in the underlying proceeding; and [participation shown by divorce judgment recitals in CT 58,59,60] * The challenging party had a full opportunity to contest the rendering court's jurisdiction even if the jurisdictional issue was never actually raised; and [Jurisdictional issues raised--CT 58,59,60] * The judgment could not be collaterally attacked in the rendering state. [Sherrer v. Sherrer (1947) 334 U.S. 343--first forum's finding of domicile jurisdiction could not be collaterally attacked where complaining party appeared and participated in the proceeding; Craig v. Super.Ct. (1975) 45 C.A.3d 675, 119 C.R. 692] The recitals in all five judgments stated that the court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. These determinations are final and conclusive. Mandatory Statutory Law Requires Conclusive Presumption That The 1966 Court 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. California Supreme Court held that an error of law or fact could not be later raised in a collateral attack. (Armstrong v. Armstrong (1976) 15 Cal.3d 942.) ... mistake of law ... have been held non-jurisdictional errors for which collateral attack will not lie. The error of which plaintiffs in this case complain does not reach the power of the court to act, but concerns instead a mistaken application of law. Thus the judgment may not be collaterally attacked. Moreover, even were we to assume that the defect in the divorce judgment was jurisdictional ... "collateral attack will not be allowed where there is fundamental jurisdiction [i.e. of the person and subject matter] even though the judgment is contrary to statute." [citations omitted] Where some of the parties have relied on, or changed their position in accordance with the former judgment, a court may deny collateral attack. In Rediker v. Rediker (1950 (35 Cal.2d 796, the Supreme Court held: "it must be presumed that the foreign court had jurisdiction and that its recital thereof is true ... a judgment entered therein is not subject to collateral attack on a showing of error in the exercise of that jurisdiction ..." In Craig v. Superior Court (1975) 45 CA.3d 675, the court held that a party that had an opportunity to contest jurisdiction in an earlier proceeding cannot later relitigate the matter. Emma not only had an opportunity to contest jurisdiction, but she voluntarily submitted to the court's personal jurisdiction. The Recitals in the Five Divorce Judgments of Lawful Exercise of Jurisdiction Must Be Recognized Under Evidence Code § 622. The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest. Under Evidence Code § 620 these presumptions are mandatory conclusive presumptions. California Supreme Court Decisions Requires Recognition Of Prior Divorce Judgments, and Prohibit Attacks Upon Judgments By Refusing To Recognize the Residence Basis For Jurisdiction. Decades earlier, California statutes made it mandatory, the California Supreme Court made it mandatory, to recognize foreign-country divorce judgments, and the right of people to obtain a divorce. Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796: [I]t must be presumed that the foreign court had jurisdiction and that its recital thereof is true ... If a court has jurisdiction of an action, a judgment entered therein 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 .,... In Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498 C.2d 210, the California Supreme Court, approvingly citing Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796, 805: [T]he 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 ... a party who aided another to procure the decree is estopped to later challenge it. In a concurring opinion addressing an attack upon a divorce judgment rendered by a court in Mexico, the court held in Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249: [T]here should be no implication from the court's opinion herein that would preclude contacts with the foreign country other than domicile as a basis of jurisdiction. Section 1915 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "A final judgment of any other tribunal of a foreign country having 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 rendered in this state [which are final and cannot be attacked]. [Disapproving earlier appellate court decisions that applied the defective domicile argument, the California Supreme Court held that] The District Courts of Appeal of this state have denied recognition to divorce decrees of a foreign country when domicile was lacking, even though the foreign country did not require domicile as a basis for divorce jurisdiction. (See e.g., Ryder v. Ryder; Harlan v. Harlan; [citations omitted] These cases should be disapproved insofar as they make domicile a sine qua non of recognition. [a holding that the California Court of Appeal still violates, as In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 226. [A] decree of divorce that is valid according to the laws of the foreign country should be recognized here. (See Ruiz, The effect of Section 1915 of the Code of Civil Procedure on Migratory Divorces Procured in Foreign Countries, 13 So.Cal.L.Rev. 294; Ehrenzweig, Survey of California Law (1950-1951, Conflicts of Laws, 141-142.) There is no reason to read any requirement of domicile or bona fide residence into the statute. The status of persons as married or not married should be ascertainable with reasonable certainty. The valid judgments of courts of other countries should therefore be respected ... Over twenty years ago, in Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656, 663, Justice Traynor reaffirmed the holding that a prior divorce judgment cannot be attacked by refusing to recognize exercise of jurisdiction on the basis of residence: When both parties to a divorce action are before the court ... it is questionable whether domicile is an indispensable prerequisite for jurisdiction. If the moving party's mobility is greatly restricted, for instance, access to a domiciliary forum may be practically unavailable ... Moreover, when parties secure a divorce without the prerequisite domicile in the forum state, it may not be attacked at a later date by either of them ... Hence, 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 any less effective than if a valid domicile in fact existed. In addition, the doctrines of laches, quasi estoppel, collateral estoppel, bars attacks upon the five divorce judgments. Statutory implementation of these doctrines is found in Evidence Code § 665 (ordinary consequences of voluntary acts); Evidence Code § 663 (misleading statements by 22 years of declaring herself divorced); Civil Code § 3512 prevented Texas resident declaring in Texas she is divorced while her attorneys declare in California that was is married. California Constitutional Protections Repeatedly Violated Due process rights under Article I, § 13, were violated. Equal privileges and immunities under Article I, § 21 were violated. Separate property rights under Article XX, § 8, were violated. The prohibition against attacking prior divorce judgments stated in these California Supreme Court decisions was later prohibited by statutes and denial of jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. Repeatedly Violated Federal Laws And Constitutional Protections Violated the full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which required recognizing plaintiff’s divorced status and property rights established in the prior divorce judgments. Violated the full faith and credit constitutional protection in Article IV, § 1, which also required recognizing the prior divorce judgments filed in several jurisdictions, and the divorce status, property rights, and no-spousal-support status. Violated landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that required recognizing each of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights arising in and from those judgments. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416; Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948); Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969). The long-settled rights under these Supreme Court decisions existed years before blacks were no longer required to sit in the back of buses, to use separate drinking fountains, and separate toilets, and should have been capable of being recognized by California judges and Friedman! Violated Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law. Violated substantive due process protections, violated procedural due process protections, and denied, solely to plaintiff, the right to have his personal and property rights that were acquired in prior states of residence to be recognized by California judges. Violated the privileges and immunity clause under Article IV, § 1, by depriving plaintiff the right, while a resident of another state and jurisdiction, to obtain a divorce on a universally recognized basis, and deprived plaintiff of the right to change residence without losing previously acquired personal and property rights. Violated the constitutional right to unabridged interstate travel, the right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights and previously acquired property rights as a divorced person. The right to travel is provided by the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, section 2; and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the protection of property rights, the protection against being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and denying to plaintiff the equal protection of the law. Violating any one of these state or federal laws or constitutional protections invoked federal defenses for which federal judges were paid and entrusted to protect prompt relief and order a halt to the violations of federally protected rights. The fact that every judges at every level of the California courts, and at every level of federal courts, deprived Stich of the protections and protected the California judges and lawyers violating major federally protected rights indicates that powerful forces somewhere in the federal government were subverting the laws and Constitution of he United States, and intent at blocking the exposure of criminal activities being reported by former federal agent Rodney Stich. Retaliating For Exercising Procedural Defense Laws In addition to violating dozens of laws and constitutional protections, California judges then violated every relevant procedural defense. In addition to violating these defense protections, California judges retaliated against Stich for exercising them. It is a felony to inflict harm upon anyone for having exercised his civil and constitutional rights. Title 18 U.S.C. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; (check if this has been applied against a group, such as whistleblowers). Indications of Powerful High-Level Source Orchestrating and Protecting the Violators Any single one of the many state or federal laws, or constitutional protections, legally barred the sham lawsuit. Instead, dozens were violated, repeatedly, indicating a deliberate scheme behind the filing of the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm, with powerful interests in the judicial system. Subsequent events in the courts suggest that the filing of the sham lawsuit was intended as a quick-kill. But Stich's vigorous defense required ever more powerful judicial interests to become openly involved so as to protect the CIA-front law firm, California judges, and others who became implicated. Sampling of Events in Which California Judges Became Early Enablers The following are some of the prior and continuing national events made possible by the scheme involving massive civil rights violations to hinder former federal agent Rodney Stich from continuing his exposure of criminal activities. The numerous people and groups meeting the definition of enablers have control of key segments of the government and news distribution, insuring that the public will never know. TWA Flight 800 Two unpublicized events made possible the downing of TWA Flight 800, as disclosed in the books, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries, and Crimes of the FBI-DOJ, and the Mafia. These events are addressed in letters that were sent by former federal agent Rodney Stich, including the following: . These were the following: Most of the above catastrophic events occurred on the program for which FAA air carrier operations inspector Rodney Stich had been given the assignment to correct the conditions responsible for the worst series of airline disasters in the nation's history. Pictures of many other crashes are not shown. The continuation of the culture of corruption−and the continuation of the cover-ups−made many people and groups enablers of many subsequent airline disasters. The following aviation disasters occurred after forewarned information of the terrorist attacks were given to FBI agents by a mole inside a key al Qaeda cell: TWA Flight 800, departing a New York City airport was downed, shortly thereafter. Strong Suspicion of Terrorist Act. See the book, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries. This link provides information on 100 surface-to-air missiles being made available to Middle East terrorists about one year before the downing of TWA Flight 800; the rejection of the missiles by FBI-CIA personnel, and the letters written by former federal agent Rodney Stich to members of Congress seeking to prevent the transfer of the missiles. No response−followed by the missile downing of TWA Flight 800. Followed by the need for the standard cover-up to protect high-level government personnel. Additional FBI Enablers To Downing of TWA Flight 800 In a recent book, Crimes of the FBI-DOJ, and the Mafia, details are given of how a Mafia soldier acted as a mole inside the al Qaeda cell headed by Ramzi Yousef, who directed the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center and had plans to simultaneously bomb 11 U.S. airliners departing Far East locations. The advance warnings were disregarded by high FBI-DOJ personnel who sacrificed the lives that would be lost so as to protect personnel in the Department of Justice. Very sensitive information, that would also play a role in ignoring the warnings of planned terrorist attacks on other U.S. targets. That cover-up enabled to occur approximately 4,000 deaths as the forewarned terrorist attacks occurred. See also: Sampling of letters reporting the relationship between FBI-DOJ cover-ups and successful terrorist attacks. The hijackings of U.S. airliners occurring on September 11, 2001.September 11, 2001 Forewarned Terrorist Attacks Details about the FBI-DOJ cover-ups and the contacts between the al Qaeda operative and Gregory Scarpa Jr. can be found in the book, Crimes of the FBI-DOJ, and the Mafia, available in print and e-book formats from amazon.com (and in Kimble) and other sources. The decades of preventable airline disasters and their enablers are described and documented in the book, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries. More information on the enablers to those catastrophic events: 9/11 index. Information provided by a mole inside the al Qaeda cell headed by infamous Ramzi Yousef on the planned terrorist attack, information that was then "deep-sixth" by high-level FBI-DOJ personnel. Absence of preventative measures resulted in nearly 4,000 deaths. Comparative blame for 9/11 between Afghanistan, Iraq, and the documented conduct of enablers in the United States. 9/11 enablers. American Airlines Flight 587 (Strong indications of Terrorist Action) Consequences of Corruption And Cover-Ups Not Limited to Aviation Corruption of the type described at this site does not occur in a vacuum. High-level corruption in one area is simply one tentacle of a widespread culture of corruption. And the consequences of that corruption−and the endemic cover-ups−have consequences in other areas. The culture of corruption affects the people and the nation in many other ways, That includes the latest series of financial frauds that has occurred in the housing and financial sectors. Also, the effect of the endemic corruption and endemic cover-ups−major parts of the culture in the United States−that enablers successful terrorist attacks upon U.S. interests. Forewarned Bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania List of Documentary Books On Endemic Corruption in the United States More information about these books by clicking here. Sampling of prior books reviews. Sampling of reader comments. Download DVD videos from amazon to rent or to buy, onto your Windows XP operation system computer. For more information, click here. To order a DVD video download, click on the following amazon link: Cell phone and service deal from amazon.com, with 30-day return if not satisfied. Help fund and continue our exposure efforts by ordering any product from amazon.com through our links. Thank you. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com www.druggingamerica.com www.defraudingamericablog.com www.transoceanairlines.com www.defraudingamerica.com/pictures_lists.html </body>