Exhibit Filed With Stich's Opposition
To Dismiss California Judges

This list shows an unprecedented numbers of California and federal laws and major constitutional protections violated by California and federal judges, and attorneys working with them. When the violation of only ONE law or constitutional right justified judicial relief, these "protectors" of the nation's civil rights laws violated dozens of these protections, time and time again for an 18-year continuing series of brutal assaults as their initial attempt to silence him boomeranged.


Rodney Stich
PO Box 10587
Reno, NV 89510
Phone: 775-786-9191
Plaintiff in pro se

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA


RODNEY F. STICH, WESTERN
DIABLO ENTERPRISES, INC.

                    Plaintiff,

                    v.

ESTELLE C. MANNIS, KENT L. MANNIS,
ET AL.

                   Defendants.

______________________________

 

       CV-N-00-00152-ECR (PHA)

         Attachment To Opposition To
         Defendant California Judges'
         Motion To Dismiss

   

 

The following is a list of California and federal laws and constitutional protections that were repeatedly violated by California judges in a lawsuit attacking the exercise of jurisdiction by a divorce court 20 years earlier in a bilateral consent divorce proceeding occurring when neither party had any relationship to the State of California. Both parties had been declaring themselves divorced since than in their respective states of residence until the cause of action was filed in the California courts. The parties' divorced stated as of January 31, 1966 had been established under state and federal law by that 1966 divorce judgment and its subsequent entry as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.(1)

Absence of Personal Jurisdiction From Motion To Quash

Defendant 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.
  1. Rule of court 1230(a)(2)(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.

  2. Rule of Court 1234(3) provides for filing a motion to quash, and is specifically intended in Family Law Act proceedings when a prior divorce judgment terminated the marriage.

  3. 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.

Absence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction arose under the Family Law Act that did not provide for jurisdiction, and specifically barred jurisdiction, for the cause of action seeking to relitigate the exercise of jurisdiction by the divorce court 20 years earlier. That attack was based upon what mental thought processes were in Stich's head when he filed for divorce in 1965: whether he intended to reside permanently or indefinitely in that court's jurisdiction. If he did not intend to reside in that court's jurisdiction indefinitely, he, according to the filing in the California courts, could not get a divorce even though that 1965 court had no such requirement (and which had been held unconstitutional in several landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions).
    1. 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.

    2. 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.)

    3. Rule 1212(7) limits cause of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated in the rules under the Family Law Act.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. Rule 1222(12) limits jurisdiction under Family Law Act to altering a marital status not previously terminated, as provided on form 1281.

    8. 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.

    9. Rule 1230(a)(2)(14) deprives the court of jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment.

    10. Rule 1234(15) provides for a motion to quash summons under Family Law Act.

    11. Rule 1239(a)(2)(16) provides for a motion to quash response on the basis of a prior judgment.

    12. Civil Code 4351(17) limits jurisdiction to causes of action stated in Rule 1201(c) and 1281.

    13. 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.

California Statutes (13) Requiring Recognition of the Seven Prior Divorce Judgments

In addition to absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant California judges violated large numbers of California statutes:
    1. Civil Code 4554(19) provides that a prior divorce judgment constitutes a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties.

    2. Civil Code 5004(20) provides that 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.

    3. Civil Code 5164(21) provides that the filing of a divorce judgment from another state in California must be accepted as a judgment of the state of California.

    4. Code of Civil Procedure 1699(b)(22) provides that a foreign support order must be treated in the same manner as one rendered by a California court.

    5. Code of Civil Procedure 1713.1(23) provides that a foreign-state judgment must be recognized as a local judgment.

    6. Code of Civil Procedure 1713.3(24) defines a "foreign judgment" as a judgment of another nation.

    7. Code of Civil Procedure 1908.(25) Effect of foreign state or sister state judgment must be recognized as a local judgment.

    8. Code of Civil Procedure 1910.(26) Parties to the prior divorce judgment are precluded from attacking the judgment. (This prohibition is also stated in the 1966 judgment.)

    9. Code of Civil Procedure 1913(27) requires conclusiveness of sister state judgments and requires the same final recognition as a local judgment. This conclusiveness is extended to foreign nation judgments by Civil Code 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915.

    10. Code of Civil Procedure 1915(28) provided that a final judgment of a foreign country had the same effect as final judgment rendered in California. (Which are final and conclusive between the parties.)

    11. Evidence Code 622(29) requires that the recitals in prior judgments are presumed to be true between the parties, including the recital of proper exercise of jurisdiction, which was stated in the 1966 divorce judgment.

    12. Evidence Code 665(30) requires that the parties to a prior divorce proceeding are presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of their voluntary acts.

    13. Evidence Code 666(31) requires that any court of California or of a foreign nation is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. It was this exercise of jurisdiction that was being attacked in the California lawsuit on the bizarre basis that Stich's mental thinking did not constitute an intent to reside permanently or indefinitely in that court's jurisdiction. This argument would probably void a major percentage of divorce judgments!

Acted Without Jurisdiction Over Separate Properties That were Then Taken

Defendant California judges also lacked jurisdiction in Family Law Act proceedings over separate properties.
  1. Civil Code 5102(32) provides that neither husband or wife has any interest in the separate property of the other. All of Stich's properties were separate. (This assumes that there had actually been a marital relationship between the parties.)

    1. Civil Code 5103(33) provides for acquiring property as separate property. In addition, most of Stich's properties were acquired while a resident of a state other than California, over which California judges had no jurisdiction.

    2. Civil Code 5118.(34) Provides that property acquired while living separate becomes separate property. All of Stich's properties were acquired after the 1964 separation and after the 1966 divorce judgment was entered established absence of community property.

California Supreme Court Decisions That Were Violated

Numerous California Supreme Court decisions were violated which required recognition of the prior divorce judgments

Procedural Due Process Violations By California Judges

In addition to acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, and violating dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, the defendant California judges repeatedly violated procedural due process remedies under California and federal laws and constitutional due process.
  1. Refused to conduct the mandatory hearing on the Rule 1230 Motion to quash. The law provides for scheduling the hearing within 20 days of filing the motion to quash. About four years later, California judges converted the limited hearing on the motion to quash to a full blown trial relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court. There was no jurisdiction under a motion to quash to conduct any form of trial. There was no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to conduct a trial to relitigate what had been litigated and decided 20 years earlier. Further, federal and state laws barred the attack, and federal and state laws required recognizing all of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights established in them.

  2. Repeatedly refused to issue mandatory findings of facts and conclusions of law when timely requested. Code of Civil Procedure 632(35) and 634.(36) Rule 23.(37) To have provided findings of fact and conclusions of law would have made their violations more obvious.

  3. Appeal briefs were repeatedly dismissed without addressing the issues.

  4. In one appear, defendant California judges King, Low, Hanning, rendered a published decision that upheld every single one of the dozens of violations of California and federal laws and constitutional protections. This published decision threatens any previously divorced person who changes residence to California with the same awesome personal and property outrages that were inflicted upon Stich. That published decision also mocks the laws and Constitution of the United States and the state of California.

  5. Defendant court of appeal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising due process remedies. This is a criminal offense under Title 18 U.S.C. 241.(38)


Federal Law and Constitutional Protections Violated By California Judges

Defendant California judges violated federally protected rights established in federal statutes, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and major constitutional protections. These include:
  1. Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1738.(39) This statute required the California judges to recognize the divorce judgments entered as local judgments in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.

  2. Article IV, 1(40) is the constitutional full faith and credit clause, similar to Title 28 U.S.C. 1738. This constitutional provision requires recognizing the personal and property rights in the divorce judgments showing termination of the marriage and adjudication of all marriage termination issues on January 31, 1966.

  3. Privileges and Immunity clause in the Commerce Clause, Article IV, 2,(41) protects all persons against the taking or loss of previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights after they change residence to another state. California judges violated the constitutional right to unabridged interstate travel(42) by taking these rights, including Stich's divorced status and literally remarrying him; taking the properties that were adjudicated and established in seven judgments to be his separate property; taking the properties subsequently acquired as a divorce person in states prior to moving to California; the absence of any spousal support requirements.

  4. Due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment.(43) Great numbers of substantive due process protections under California and federal laws were violated and then compounded by repeated violations of procedural due process protections. (Similar to the conduct by federal judges.)

  5. Equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. California judges denied to Stich:

    1. The protections provided by California and federal laws.

    2. The right to constitutional due process appellate remedies.

    3. The right to obtain a divorce under the same conditions available to others.

    4. The right to have the divorce judgment and his divorced status recognized.

    5. The right to have the financial obligations established in the seven divorce judgments recognized.

    6. The right to have property rights adjudicated and stated in those divorce judgments recognized.

    7. The right to have property acquired as a divorced person while residing in states other than California recognized.

    8. The right to change residence to California without being stripped of life's assets.

    9. The right to honest judges.

    10. Privileges and Immunities Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides the same protection.

    11. Procedural and substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(44) Procedural due process refers to the right to a meaningful hearing, at which the laws and Constitution will be honored. As the U.S. Supreme Court held, "the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 US 371 (1971).

    12. Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was violated by denying to Stich the same rights as others to obtain a divorce, to file for divorce under the laws of that particular jurisdiction, to have that divorce judgment and the personal and property rights established in the seven divorce judgments recognized, to have property rights acquired as a divorced person recognized, to enjoy the constitutional right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights, and other constitutionally protected rights.

    13. Property protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was violated by taking Stich's $10 million in real estate properties and conveyed to a Texas resident perjuring herself, declaring in California that she was married to Stich, while declaring in Texas and to the Social Security Administration and in real estate transactions that she had been divorced since 1966.

    14. Liberty protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was violated by taking various liberty rights. Violated basic civil liberties, by depriving Stich the right to to marry, to establish a home, and the pursuit of happiness. Stich had taken from him the right to engage in his real estate business, the right to an income from that business, the right to marry, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to privacy,

Violated rights established in landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

    1. Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577. This decision prohibited state judges from voiding prior divorce judgments or the personal and property rights adjudicated and stated in such judgments.

    2. Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378. This decision prohibited state judges from attacking prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights adjudicated in the judgments.

    3. Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343. This decision prohibited state judges from voiding prior divorce judgments.

    4. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt. (1957) 354 U.S. 416. This decision prohibited state judges from voiding prior divorce judgment or refusing to recognize the exercise of jurisdiction by prior courts on the basis of length of residence, upholding even one-day residence requirements.

    5. Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541. This decision prohibited state judges from voiding prior divorce judgments.

    6. Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969). This decision prohibited state judges from voiding personal and property rights adjudicated in foreign country divorce judgments and refusal to recognize one day residence as basis for exercising jurisdiction or recognizing validity of judgment and adjudicated personal and property rights. It focused on the thousands of one-day divorce judgments obtained by people flying to Mexico for their divorce.

Federal judges, in positions of trust to promptly order a halt to these violations, reversed their positions. They denied to Stich every protection under federal law for these violations of federally protected rights; they protected the parties who were violating these rights and inflicting great harm upon Stich; and after seizing Stich's life assets without any hearing, distributed the proceeds among those lawyers and law firms who perpetrated the violations.


 

      ENDNOTES

      1. (List of divorce judgments showing divorced status and property rights final and conclusive as of January 31, 1966. (1) Initial 1966 divorce judgment following a bilateral consent divorce proceeding, rendered by jurisdiction of residence for five months, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, No. 189723, authenticated by U.S. Consul; (2) Registration and confirmation of the 1966 divorce judgment in the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, action number 251773, under C.C.P. 1699(b) and C.C. 5164; (3) Registration of the Contra Costa divorce judgment confirmation in the Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, action 91929; (4) Judicial entry of the Contra Costa county confirmed judgment into the Nevada courts, Second Judicial District of Nevada, County of Washoe, case number 85-5391 and into foreign judgment registry, number 31; (5) Registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Case number FD-86-5870; (6) Registration of the Contra Costa confirmed judgment in the Civil Courts of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page 78, Foreign Judgment Register.

      2. 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.

      3. 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.

      4. 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.

      5. 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.

      6. Rule 1211. Parties to Proceeding. (a) ... the only persons permitted to be parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife.

      7. 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.

      8. 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.

      9. 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.

      10. Attacks upon prior divorce judgments could be made under the California declaratory judgment statute, but state and federal law required recognition of the prior judgments. The reason for labeling the action a dissolution of marriage action probably arose from the need to immediately block Stich's assess to his funds on the argument that these were community properties.

      11. Rule 1215. Pleadings. (b) The only pleadings permitted by a petitioner is the petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281.

      12. 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.

      13. 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, some5thing held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940s and 1950s.

      14. 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.

      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.

      15. 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.

      16. 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.

      17. 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.]

      18. 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.

      19. 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.]

      20. 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.

      21. 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.

      22. 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.

      23. 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.

      24. 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, ...

      25. 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.]

      26. 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.

      27. The registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in courts of California, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas invokes the protection of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, and 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. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment of Sister State:

      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.

      28. 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.

      29. 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;

      30. Evidence Code 665. Ordinary Consequences of Voluntary Act Intended. "A person is presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his 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 ....

      31. 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:

      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.

      32. Civil Code Section 5102. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other, ...

      33. Civil Code 5102. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other, .

      34. 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.

      35. 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.

      36. 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.

      37. 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.

      38. 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;



      Title 18 U.S.C. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

      (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to

      (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding:

      shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. [1988 amended reading]"



      Title 18 U.S.C. 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ..."

      39. 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.

      40. 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.

      41. 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.

      42. 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;

      43. Fourteenth amendment states in part: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

      44. 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.

      45. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331. Federal question. "The federal courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

      46. Title 28 United States Code Section 1343: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

      (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42: To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

      (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.

      (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, ...

      47. Title 28 U.S.C. 2201. Creation of remedy. "In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

      48. Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides: Every person who, under color or any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State of Territory, subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

      [Applies to anyone acting under color of state law who violates these rights, with no exception for judicial violations; the clear wording of the statute supersedes the self-serving judicial immunity in judge-made case law..]

      49. 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 therefor, 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."

      50. "With regard to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a 1983 complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can provide no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 696 F.2d 901, 907 (11th Cir. 1983) (Hatchett, J. specially concurring); Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1981). For purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Richardson, 651 F.2d at 368. Furthermore, private attorneys alleged to have conspired with immune state officials may be held liable under 1983. Id. at 371.

      51. Fifth Amendment, Section 1. No person [shall be] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

      52. 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.

      53. Title 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony). "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

      54. Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.)(addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the coverup of the DC-10 cargo door problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by claimant seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.

      55. Title 28 U.S.C. 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

      56. Title 18 U.S.C. 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever wilfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

      Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only anyone who directly commits an offense and anyone who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

      57. Title 18 U.S.C. 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

      58. 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;

      59. Title 18 U.S.C. 1505. Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      60. Title 18 USC 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation. (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) As used in this section, the term "criminal investigator" means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States. [Stich was a federal inspector-investigator responsible for air safety at the most senior program at United Airlines, when he discovered an ongoing pattern of criminal activities related to a series of fatal airline crashes.]

      61. Title 18 U.S.C. 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ...

      62.

  1. Title 18 U.S.C. 1515. Definitions of terms in criminal statutes (as used in sections 1512 and 1513).

(a)(2) the term "physical force" means physical action against another and includes confinement; (a)(3) the term "misleading conduct" means(A) knowingly making a false statement; (B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement; (C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false ... or otherwise lacking in authenticity; (D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a ... object that is misleading in a material respect; or (E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead; (4) the term "law enforcement officer" means an officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant(A) authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; (5) the term "bodily injury" means(E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary. (a)(1) the term "official proceeding" means ... (C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law. 18 U.S.C. 1515 (a)(3)(A). Misleading conduct means knowingly making false statements.

63. 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 in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

64. Title 18 U.S.C. 245. Federally protected activities. ((b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with-(1) Any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons [whistleblower, witness, informant] from-(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

65. Title 18 U.S.C. 246. Deprivation of relief benefits. Whoever directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation, ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

66. Title 42 USC 1961. Definition. As used in this chapter-(1) "racketeering activity" means (A) any act or threat involving ... relating to 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering, ...



Title 42 USC 1962. Prohibited Activities. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly 9 or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. ...

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern or racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section. ...



Title 42 USC 1964. Civil Remedies, (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divert himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions of the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.

(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.

(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

(d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.



Title 42 USC 1965. Venue and Process. (Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

(b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal thereof.

(c) In any civil or criminal action or proceeding instituted by the United States under this chapter in the district court of the United States for any judicial district, subpoenas issued by such court to compel the attendance of witnesses may be served in any other judicial district, except that in any civil action or proceeding no such subpoena shall be issued for service upon any individual who resides in another district at a place more than one hundred miles from the place at which such court is held without approval given by a judge of such court upon a showing of good cause.

(d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

67. The injunctive orders reversed the clear legal requirements: the injunctive orders were rendered against the party suffering great and irreparable harm (Stich); were rendered in favor of the parties perpetrating the harm and responsible for the record setting violations of state and federal laws and federally protected rights; were rendered against the public interest rather than in the public's interest; failed to stated these requirements in the decisions; and in the process misused their judicial positions to aid and abet the violations of federally protected rights that they were paid and entrusted to uphold and enforce.


Free books: Segments of each of the 14 books revealing the continuing history of corruption and cover-ups, and related tragedies, are available by clicking here.


Consider making your purchases from amazon.com through the following links, which help fund the cost of maintaining this site. There is no extra charge for ordering in this manner.

 

 


 

Return to:

www.defraudingamerica.com

www.druggingamerica.com

www.unfriendlyskies.com

www.defraudingamericablog.com

 

 

 

 

Viagra online available in various online pharmacies can be adopted to get back the normal sexual health once more at any age. Generic cialis is also a drug which is highly adopted for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. This drug unlike any online pharmacy other similar drug does not affect blood pressure of the patient under any circumstances and thus highly appreciated.