Divorce Judgment recognition law

<body> Bizarre Legal Scheme Mislabeling Lawsuit a Divorce Action This site describes the bizarre legal and judicial actions that were taken against a former federal agent seeking to halt his exposure actions. It used an alleged divorce action of a person divorced 20 years earlier to seize and liquidate the assets that funded his exposure actions. To carry out the scheme that required many years, it required repeated violations of (a) the laws protecting the personal and property rights of divorced people; (b) how they are violated by California judges; and (c) how a CIA-front law firm mislabeled a lawsuit as a divorce action, using a Texas woman to become part of a scheme to destroy a former government agent's attempts to expose massive corruption in government offices. Bizarre scheme initiated by CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco) and their lawyers. A scheme was commenced shortly after Stich published the second edition of Unfriendly Skies naming federal judges and others. That lawsuit targeted the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. The scheme consisted of a lawsuit that was barred by dozens of California and federal laws, for which personal and subject matter jurisdiction was specifically barred. The lawsuit was filed against Stich by a San Francisco law firm that had been identified by two reliable sources as a front for the CIA and FBI. The actions by the Friedman, Sloan and Ross law firm and their lawyers helped block the reporting and exposure of criminal activities that were inflicting great harm upon the United States. Among the corrupt activities that were blocked from being reported were those that made possible the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11, that resulted in 3,000 deaths. This relationship should be remembered in considering the ripple effects of their corrupt activities. CIA-Front Law Firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross In 1982, the San Francisco law firm filed a lawsuit against Stich, claiming their Emma Stich, of Duncanville, Texas, wanted a termination of a marriage that existed with Rodney Stich, and a division of the alleged community property. As a matter of law, and fact, there was no marital relationship, and the claim was a hoax, used to immediately separate Stich from the assets that funded his exposure of high level corruption in various government offices. A divorce judgment was rendered in 1966−16 years earlier−in a bilateral consent divorce proceeding in which both parties participated. That 1966 divorce judgment had been entered as a local judgment, entitled to recognition as a local judgment, in six subsequent jurisdictions (Oklahoma, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and in the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano). Stich's former wife repeatedly signed papers declaring herself divorced since 1966, including credit applications, real estate sales and purchases. She had previously applied for and received social security payments based upon her divorced status shown by the 1966 judgment. the Social Security Administration recognized the 1966 divorce. She continued to declare herself divorced in her home state of Texas while the CIA-front law firm claimed in California courts that she wanted a divorce. Title insurance policies used by the Texas resident to buy and sell real estate showed her as a divorced woman, as she claimed to be. Over 100 title insurance policies were issued showing Stich's properties to be the properties of a divorced person, based upon the 1966 divorce judgment. California Law Deprived Judges of Jurisdiction The California lawsuit to terminate the alleged marriage was filed under the Family Law Act. That Act prohibits filing of a dissolution of marriage ("divorce") action if there has been a prior divorce judgments issued. (There were six prior divorce judgments, including the judgments entered as a California judgment in the courts of Contra Costa and Solano.) California statutes and rules of court clearly state that there must be a marriage, and that there was not a prior divorce judgment, for a California judge to have jurisdiction. Despite the clarity of the law, orders were repeatedly rendered for six years without jurisdiction. (Note: For argument, a declaratory judgment lawsuit could have been filed, to determine whether there was actually a prior divorce judgment; and then California statutes and decisional law, and federal statutes, decisional law, and constitutional protections, required recognizing each of the prior judgments. Absence of jurisdiction arose from Rules of Court 1212, 1215(b), 1215(c), 1222, 1229, 1281, 1282; Civil Code §§ 4351, 4357(a), 4370, 4503, 4554; absence of jurisdiction over separate properties: CC § 4800.1 (b)(1)(2). 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. Civil Code § 5102. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other. [Separate property includes property acquired after separation, after divorce, or that determined to be separate property in the divorce judgment.] California Statutes Required Recognizing the 1966 Judgment California laws that require recognition of prior divorce judgments. California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1699(b), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1713.5, 1908, 1913, 1915; Civil Code §§ 4554, 5004, 5162, 5164, 5172; Evidence Code §§ 666, 665, 622, 620. U.S. Supreme Court Requirement to Recognize Each of the Five Judgments U.S. Supreme Court requirement for state judges to recognize previously rendered divorce judgments is found in many Supreme Court decisions including Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416 (requiring the recognition of ex parte divorce judgments; Estin v. Estin (19 )(requiring the recognition of prior divorce judgments); Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378 (requiring the recognition of prior divorce judgments); Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969) (prohibiting denying recognition to prior judgments when exercised on one day's residence). Title 28 United States Code § 1738. These rights were established years before the Supreme Court ruled on the separation of the blacks! Violating Constitutional Right to Travel By taking personal and property rights previously adjudicated or acquired while a resident of another state, California judges violated the right to travel, as provided by the Commerce Clause; the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, section 2; the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Guest (1966) 383 US 745, 16 L Ed 2d 239, 86 S Ct 1170. Violating Full Faith and Credit Clause The taking of Stich's personal and property rights by California judges violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, under Article IV, Section 1; 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. The assets were seized to halt his attempts to report and expose major criminal activities that continued to tragically affect the lives of many people. Violating Statutory Full Faith and Credit Protection Additional full faith and credit requirements exist under title 28 United States Code § 1738: ... full faith and credit. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State ... shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States. California Supreme Court Decisions Required Recognizing Prior Judgments California Supreme Court decisions, including Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249; Whealton v. Whealton (1967)67 C.2d 656; (rendering orders without personal jurisdiction): California Rule of Court Rules 1230(a)(2), California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 418.10(a)(1), 418.10(c), 418.10(d); (rendering orders without subject matter jurisdiction): California Rules of Court 1201(c), 1212, 1229, 1281, and 1282. Six Years of Repeated Violations by CIA-Front Law Firm and California Judges For six years, California judges repeatedly rendered orders inflicting great personal and property harm upon Stich, knowingly acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, and without jurisdiction over separate property under the Family Law Act. They violated blocks of state and federal laws. And then federal judges took over, continuing the violations. Indications of Powerful Interests Behind the Sham Lawsuit and Massive Judicial Violations 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. Harm Inflicted Through Pattern of Repeated Violations of Law The Friedman law firm filed lis pendens on all of Stich's properties, inflicting major harm upon his real estate holdings which amounted in the mid-1980s to $10 million. All of Stich's personal and corporate properties, in California and Nevada, were personal properties, not meeting the definition of community properties. They were acquired AFTER the couple separated while residing in Colorado; the seven divorce judgments stated there was no community property, and property acquired after the 1966 divorce is legally separate property. At that time, Stich's real estate holdings were worth about $10 million, and his only indebtedness was $4 million in mortgages that were being regularly paid. He was in excellent financial condition. He had no other financial obligations. His holdings consisted of 58 apartment units in Concord; a 60-unit motel in Yuba City; 8 rental units in Nevada; $500,000 home in Rockville; a $500,000 home in Alamo; 160 acres near Pleasanton; and other holdings. Even, for the sake of argument, if there had been a legal marital relationship, California law is clear that these properties were separate and outside the jurisdiction of a Family Law court because of their separate-property status. The Friedman law firm refused to lift the lis pendens long enough to permit loans and deeds of trust to be lifted to replace loans coming due. Valuable properties were lost, one which has a quarter miller dollar equity over the $200,000 mortgage loan. These were lost due to inability to replace the loan due to the lis pendens filed by the Friedman law firm. (If their client did have a community property interest in these properties, they allowed their client to lose large sums of money. They knew their client had no interest in it!) Exercising Federal Defenses Against Massive Violations of Federally Protected Rights Any single instance of any one of the multiple laws and constitutional protections that were violated in the California courts by the CIA-front law firm and California judges constituted a violation of federally protected rights for which federal judges have a mandatory duty to provide relief. These federal remedies exist under such laws as: Civil Rights Act, for which any person can file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain an order halting the violations, and obtaining financial damages against the violators. Declaratory Judgment Act, to obtain a declaration by federal judges that Stich's personal status as a divorced person, and his property rights, as established in the prior judgments, and as acquired while a citizen of other states, and the prior judgments, must be recognized. To this day, federal judges have blocked Stich from having this decision made. FRCivP 57, which provides that federal judges give priority to actions filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Not only couldn't Stich get priority--he couldn't get any hearing. Every effort was blocked by federal judges dismissing the actions, often as soon as they were filed, without a hearing (which violated additional due process). Stich filed the first lawsuit seeking relief in the federal court at Sacramento, California, which was assigned to U.S. district judge Raul Ramirez. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) His dismissal violated federal laws providing for: A judicial determination of Stich's rights. A judicial order halting the massive and repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. His dismissal: Protected the CIA-front law firm and lawyers in the sham lawsuit. Protected the intent of the scheme, which was to strip Stich of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure of corruption in government offices. Protected the criminal activities that Stich and a group of other former government agents sought to report and expose. In this way, Ramirez became complicit in protecting criminal acts, the perpetrators of the criminal acts, and the harm resulting from these acts. By understanding the criminal activities, it can be seen that the events of 9/11 were made possible by people such as Ramirez whose misconduct blocked Stich from reporting and exposing the criminal activities. The following year, the same Judge Ramirez, who protected the scheme initiated by the CIA-front law firm, held Stich guilty of criminal contempt of court for attempting to report the criminal activities to a federal judge, as required to be reported under the crime reporting statute, and for exercising federal defenses against the massive violations of state and federal law that he earlier aided and abetted. In 2006, Ramirez was in private law practice in Sacramento, California. Judicial Records Proved Federal Judges in Conspiracy A pattern of violating constitutional safeguards, and protecting others who violated important civil rights. Encouraging others to expand on the violations of federally protected rights. While aiding and abetting others to escalate their violations of federally protected rights, and perpetrating their own civil rights violations, they rendered orders barring Stich access to federal courts. Charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for exercising procedural due process remedies in the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, which are specifically intended for the violations of federally protected rights that were occurring. This is a criminal act under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241. Charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for reporting federal crimes to a federal judges, as required to be reported by federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, reporting federal crimes to a federal judge. This is a criminal act under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1503, 1512, and 1513, and indirectly a criminal act associated with obstruction of justice, misprision of felonies, aiding and abetting, and becoming guilty as an accomplice. Forcing Stich to seek refuge in Chapter 11 courts from the gross violations of federally protected rights. Corruptly seizing Stich's life's assets while enlarging upon the earlier violations of federally protected rights. The violations associated with the taking of Stich's $10 million in real estate assets included absence of jurisdiction; absence of noticed hearing; absence of hearing; absence of legally recognized basis for taking a person's property; pattern of fraud upon the court and upon Stich. This lawsuit would be authorized by the following federal laws: Civil Rights Act; Bivens; RICO; torts involving diversified jurisdictions, and the statutory and constitutional right to federal court access for obtaining relief guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The sequence of events, most or all of which are recorded in judicial records, strongly indicates that a high government official or powerful group orchestrated the initial attacks upon Stich and then orchestrated the obstruction of justice, the aiding and abetting of the wrongful acts, and the conversion of the federal courts into a corrupt arm of government. Somewhere there had to be a powerful force to orchestrate such massive breakdowns in the courts. Stich initially had legal counsel to defend against the sham California lawsuit, but their performance was a combination of incredible ignorance about California and federal law relating to the sham lawsuit, and in some cases a clear case of sabotaging their client, possibly to avoid offending the judges. Several who refused to represent Stich stated that their careers would suffer if they represented him. Seeking Relief in Chapter 11 Courts From Massive Civil Rights Violations The refusal by federal judges to order the halt of the massive civil rights violations, and the great personal and financial losses suffered by Stich, caused Stich to seek relief from the civil rights violations in Chapter 11, seeking to save his life's assets. Such an attempt may never before have been tried. Stich's asset s were in excellent financial condition, but the lis pendens placed on his properties in the California courts caused him to lose valuable properties when the mortgages came due and could not be turned over. One of the properties he lost was his home. In 1987, Stich filed two chapter 11 cases: one for his personal assets and one for his corporate assets. He filed in Las Vegas (where he had several rental apartments). The corruption that Stich discovered in the California and federal district courts were compounded in the bankruptcy courts. Stich would discover that massive corruption existed throughout the federal bankruptcy courts involving federal judges, federal trustees, lawyers, law firms, and their accomplices. (These are described in the book, Defrauding America.) Massive Legal and Constitutional Violations Paralleled Efforts to Block Exposure of Corruption in Government Offices In the bankruptcy courts, Stich experienced the corruption that many others had encountered, and this corruption is described in the book, Defrauding America, and to some extent in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries. The following are a few of the highlights: Judge Robert Jones, Las Vegas, initially ordered the lis pendens removed and that the Chapter 11 would be dismissed in four weeks. Stich's Las Vegas lawyer, Joshua Landish, secretly contacted Judge Jones and asked that Stich's properties be seized and liquidated. This was unknown to Stich. Judge Jones ordered the seize of Stich's $10 million in assets, without the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, or legal cause. At the request of the CIA-front law firm, the case was transferred to the Oakland, California bankruptcy court and assigned to Judge Edward Jellen. Jellen appointed bankruptcy trustee Charles Duck to seize and liquidate the assets. Jellen simultaneously issued an order barring Stich from filing any objections to the seizure and liquidation. Stich filed an objection, as provided by federal laws and constitutional due process. Jellen ordered the filed objection unfiled, and then charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for having exercised the most basic of legal and constitutional due process. Jellen refused to release funds to Stich to hire legal counsel to defend against the criminal contempt charge. Judge Jellen issued an order holding Stich in criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to federal prison. That sentence was never carried out. The $10 million in assets were then distributed to the CIA-front law firm and others who participated. Stich was converted from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty, ordered out of his home, and he was homeless for a period of time. Throughout these actions, Stich sought relief from the 9th Circuit court of appeals (of which Judge Anthony Kennedy was a part of), and from the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. They all acted to support the massive violations and obstruction of justice. Sampling of Deadly Consequences All forms of human tragedies have been inflicted upon the people of the United States from the corruption discovered by the people behind this site−and made possible by enablers in and out of government. The below pictures are only a sampling of the consequences from the documented corruption that are able to be portrayed graphically. The tragedies in other areas resulting from the corruption, cover-ups, and public indifference, are not shown here. United Airlines crash into New York City, the world's worst at that time. Withheld from the Amererica public were the reports by federal safety inspectors-investigators showing a continuing pattern of corruption, fraud, criminal alteration of major government required records−and the standard abuse of those few inspectors attempting to require the airline management to comply with industry standards and clear requirements of federal aviation safety requirements−and FAA management to require compliance. None of the guilty, the enablers, to these and the continuing fraud-related crashes ever were held accountable for the hundreds of deaths that they enabled to occur. These few examples of the horrors associated with airline disasters enabled to occur by documented corruption withheld from the American people. The standard culture of cover-ups in the United States enabled the corruption, cover-ups, to mutate into different areas. In the aviation area, although the continuing series of airline disasters eventually came to a halt for other reasons, the culture continued, and enabled to occur a number of easily preventable airline disasters. The inbred culture created the conditions that enabled four groups of terrorists to easily hijack four airliners within a few hours of each other and kill nearly 3,000 people. In criminal law, people are accomplices, and guilty, if they know of a criminal act and fail to report it to proper authorities and also to take efforts within their capability to halt their continuation. And there are endless numbers of accomplices that are complicit in these crimes and enablers of the consequences. Among the "Least" Guilty of the Enablers Criminal Statutes Violated by the Judicial Acts The judicial acts constituted criminal acts under various federal criminal statutes. But it wasn't only Stich who was harmed by them. Millions of people were directly affected, and everyone was indirectly affected. Tragedies, deaths, and national disasters were the ripple effects that no one, fortunately for the corrupt judges, recognized. Many of the judicial acts were crimes under: 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; Free book segments. For a listing of the books written by former government insiders on the continuing history of corrupt activities responsible for a continuing series of human tragedies, and to download at no charge segments of each of the books. These books are now the latest attempt by a coterie of lawyers and judges seeking to remove from public availability the books that expose their own complicity in the many areas of corrupt activities. Email address for the author and activist against corruption in government: stich@unfriendlyskies.com. For more information relating to the author and his activities put "Rodney Stich" into a search engine such as Google or yahoo.com. The links run into many tens of thousands. 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: Hot cell phone and service deal from amazon.com, with 30-day return if not satisfied. Consider placing orders for any product from amazon.com through the following links. There is no extra cost or delay in doing this, while it provides us a small commission to help fund this site and our public-spirited efforts. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.druggingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com www.defraudingamericablog.com </body>