RODNEY F. STICH
WESTERN DIABLO ENTERPRISES, Inc.
PO Box 10587
Reno, NV 89510
Phone 775-786-9191
Plaintiffs in pro se
RODNEY F. STICH,
WESTERN DIABLO ENTERPRISES,Plaintiff,
vs.
ESTELL C. MANNIS, KENT L. MANNIS,
Defendants.
___________________
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: CV-N-00-00152-ECR (PHA)
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
AND MOTION TO DECLARE RIGHTS &
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IN SEVEN DIVORCE JUDGMENTS IN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201Date: none stated
Time: none stated
Plaintiff moves for a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to declare his rights and legal obligations established in seven divorce judgments that legally established his divorce status and property rights as of January 31, 1966, and which have been taken by a September 28, 1988 judgment rendered by a California judge acting without jurisdiction, in violation of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards. Jurisdiction arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
On July 28, 1988, while Plaintiff was a resident of Nevada, defendant California Dennis Bunting, who held a temporary position as judge in the County of Solano, State of California, rendered a judgment claiming to terminate a legal marital relationship between Rodney F. Stich and Emma W. Stich, and ordered a taking of assets on the holding that they were community.
As a matter of law, there was no marital relationship between the parties and hadn’t been for the prior 22 years, and there was no community property as all of plaintiff’s personal and corporate assets had been acquired years after a prior divorce judgment held that there was no community property. Further, as a matter of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, that 1988 judgment is void.
The Legal and Factual Basis For Declaring That Judgment Void
That 1988 California "divorce" judgment is void on the basis stated in this motion for declaratory judgment, upon the facts and law stated in the attached points and authorities, upon the facts and law stated in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and related filings, and upon taking judicial notice of the exhibits attached to the points and authorities The 988 judgment is void on the basis that:
·
There was no legal marital relationship between the parties, as shown by divorce judgments dated January 31, 1966, and attached as Exhibit "A." The parties had separated while residents of Colorado in 1964, and had no physical relationship with each other since that time. The former wife, Emma Stich, resided in Texas since 1964. Both parties had submitted to the jurisdiction of a 1965-1966 divorce court that terminated the marriage which adjudicated all matters relating to the termination of the marriage.·
Both parties repeatedly declared themselves to be divorced after the 1966 divorce judgment was rendered. Emma Stich declared herself divorced in real estate transactions as she purchased and sold real estate. Exhibit "H" represents one of her real estate transactions in 1967 during which she declared herself divorced. An April 2, 1985 letter from the Social Security Administration (Exhibit "I") reveals that she declared herself divorced to the federal government as she sought higher Social Security payments. That declaration of a 1966 divorce judgment was made while she was simultaneously declaring to the California courts, committing perjury, that she wanted a termination of the marriage and half of Plaintiff’s properties.·
Since 1966, over 100 title insurance policies were issued on properties owned by plaintiff, insuring the title in Plaintiff’s name as a divorced person, based upon the prior divorce judgments and the state and federal laws requiring recognition of them and Plaintiff’s divorced status.Subsequent Divorce Judgments Entered In Various State Jurisdictions
Provided Further Proof Of Plaintiff’s Divorced Status Since 1966·
Registration of the January 31, 1966 divorce judgment in the Contra Costa judicial district, State of California for recognition as a local judgment and requiring recognition under the federal full faith and credit statute and constitutional provision. It is attached as Exhibit "B."·
Registration of the confirmed Contra Costa divorce judgment in the Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, action 91929, and attached as Exhibit "C."·
Entry of that January 31, 1966 divorce judgment as a local judgment in Washoe County, State of Nevada, Second Judicial District of Nevada, County of Washoe, case number 85-5391, and into foreign judgment registry, number 31. It is attached as Exhibit "D."·
Registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Case number FD-86-5870, and attached as Exhibit "E."·
Registration of the Contra Costa-entered judgment in the Judicial District of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page 78, Foreign Judgment Register. Attached as Exhibit F."Defendant Dennis Bunting rendered the September 28, 1988 judgment fraudulently claiming that he was terminating a marriage that he knew had been legally terminated 22 years earlier and established in seven divorce judgments. In addition, Defendant Bunting knew that:
·
He lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction arising from three different sources under clearly stated California statutes and rules of court.·
Several dozen California statutes and rules of court barred the cause of action, which was an attack upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the divorce court 22 years earlier.·
The argument used to attack the exercise of jurisdiction was barred by state and federal law and specifically prohibited by landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 50 years earlier.·
That attacks upon the exercise of jurisdiction by a prior divorce court were specifically barred by California law and jurisdiction was specifically denied under the Family Law Act.Absence Of Personal Jurisdiction On Basis Of Motion To Quash
He lacked personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff on the basis of a motion to quash which Stich had filed under the provisions of California Rules of Court 1230(a)(2), 1234, and 12339(a)(2) based upon the existence of a prior divorce judgment. The filing of that motion to quash deprived the court of jurisdiction until Plaintiff provided evidence of the prior divorce judgment. California law required that a hearing be calendared within 20 days for presenting evidence of that prior judgment. Once that judgment was provided to the court, the court, as a matter of law, lacked jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act. That hearing was never held. Instead, four years later, the defendant California judges conducted a full-blown trial relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by that 1965-1966 court, and substituted a requirement that was not required in any other court and which was ruled unconstitutional almost 50 years earlier. Defendant Friedman, Sloan and Ross law firm argued, and the defendant California judges "determined," that Plaintiff’s mental thought processes did not indicate an intent to reside forever in that earlier court’s jurisdiction. This preposterous argument was used despite the dozens of state and federal laws barring it, and the nationwide chaos it would generate if applied to anyone other than Plaintiff.
Using that bankrupt argument, anyone’s prior divorce judgment, divorce status, and property rights, can be taken from him or her, decades later, when that person makes the unwise decision to exercise the right to change residence and move to the State of California. It should not be necessary to argue the chaos that this contempt for law and constitutional protections would bring about. Plaintiff has just gone through that!
Absence Of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Family Law Act
Personal and subject matter jurisdiction is clearly barred under the Family Law Act when there is a prior divorce judgment, or for attacks upon the exercise of jurisdiction by a prior court.
The state and federal requirements to recognize the prior divorce judgments also contribute to a lack of jurisdiction.
Absence of Jurisdiction Over Separate Property under the Family Law Act
There is no jurisdiction to take separate property under the Family Law Act. Plaintiff’s properties could not be called community on the basis of having been acquired after the 1964 separation, after the 1966 divorce judgment was rendered which held there was no community property, and property acquired as a divorced person.
This Is An Actual Controversy Invoking Mandatory Court Jurisdiction by Legislation
Obviously, there is a controversy for which this court has an obligation to provide a court forum and due process. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 is specifically intended for this purpose.
Summary
This court must render a declaratory judgment holding that:
·
Each and every one of the seven divorce judgments determined the status of plaintiff’s divorce status from defendant Emma W. Stich on January 31, 1966.·
The property rights stated in those divorce judgments must be recognized.·
The absence of any financial obligations to each other, as established in those judgments, must be recognized.·
The judgment entered by defendant California judge Bunting on July 28, 1988 is void as a matter of law, and arises from:o
Absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff under the California Family Law Act.o
Absence of a marriage relationship between the parties.o
Rendering and entering of prior divorce judgments showing the parties divorced as of January 31, 1966, and all related matters adjudicated.o
Absence of jurisdiction over plaintiff’s properties.o
Violation of federal full faith and credit statute and Article IV, Section 1.o
Violation of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions that bar taking personal and property rights adjudicated in prior divorce judgments.o
Violation of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring recognition of the prior divorce judgments.o
Violation of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions barring attacks on the exercise of jurisdiction by prior courts on refusal to recognize lengths of residence or intent to reside permanently in the prior court’s jurisdiction. There is no requirement to pledge allegiance to a prior court’s jurisdiction by residing permanently in that court’s jurisdiction.The obligation of a federal judge to render a declaratory judgment is long overdue. The great and irreparable harm upon Plaintiff has already occurred and can never be undone. But this court has a duty to perform under his oath of office and responsibilities under the statutes.
Points and authorities are attached, along with exhibits.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law are requested.
Dated: September 5, 2000.
Rodney F. Stich
Plaintiff in pro se
RODNEY F. 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, Plaintiff, vs. ESTELL C. MANNIS, KENT L. MANNIS, Defendant ____________________ |
) ) ) ) ) |
Case No.: CV-N-00-00152-ECR (PHA) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT |
List of Judgments Establishing As A Matter Of State and
Federal Laws Plaintiff’s Divorced Status and Property RightsSeveral dozen California and federal laws and constitutional protections were repeatedly violated by defendant California judges as they violated and destroyed personal and property rights established in seven divorce judgments, which had been adjudicated and recognized for two decades. The violations related to a divorce judgment rendered on January 31, 1966 in a bilateral consent divorce proceeding between Rodney F. Stich, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and Emma W. Stich, a defendant in this lawsuit. When that divorce judgment was rendered, neither party had any residence connection to the state of California. The parties had separated in 1964 while they resided in Colorado and "Emma" thereafter changed residence to Texas, where she continued to reside to this day.
The divorce judgment stated all jurisdictional requirements had been met; both parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the court; the judgment was final; the marriage was terminated; there was no community property; no spousal support was ordered.
Over a period of years, Plaintiff changed his residence several times, and had the 1966 divorce judgment entered as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. These divorce judgments include the following:
(1) The initial January 31, 1966, divorce judgment rendered on the basis of five months residence by the divorce court in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, No. 189723. That judgment was authenticated by a U.S. Consul. That judgment is attached as Exhibit "A."
(2) Registration and confirmation of the 1966 divorce judgment in the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, file number 251773, as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1699(b) and Civil Code § 5164. That judgment is attached as Exhibit "A."
(3) Registration of the Contra Costa County-entered judgment in the Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, file 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. This is attached as Exhibit "B."
(5) Registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Case number FD-86-5870.
(6) Registration of the Contra Costa-entered judgment in the Judicial District of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page 78, Foreign Judgment Register.
Void Nature Of the 1988 California "Divorce" Judgment Rendered Without A Marriage To Terminate, Without Jurisdiction, and While Violating Dozens of State and Federal Laws and Constitutional Due Process
On July 28, 1988, defendant California Judge Dennis Bunting, while serving as state judge for a short period of time, rendered a judgment purporting to terminate a marriage between Rodney F. Stich, the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, and Emma W. Stich, one of the defendants in this same action. That judgment is attached as Exhibit "C." Plaintiff, whose properties, business, sole source of income, and his home, were being taken, was barred from testifying or presenting any evidence, as further shown by Exhibit C showing on the top of the fourth page, "Marriage of Stich, Exhibit A To Judgment After Default Hearing."
Every conceivable violation of constitutional due process occurred throughout the six years of proceedings in the California courts (which were then duplicated and enlarged in the federal courts).
That judgment was rendered without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as shown in this motion and points and authorities, and further shown in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. It also violated several dozen California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, and multiple constitutional protections. Under law, it was a void order/judgment, and this motion is to declare that judgment as void.
Constitutional Protections That Were Violated
·
Full faith and credit statute (Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1738), which requires recognizing each of the judgments entered as local judgments, and Plaintiff’s divorced status and property rights stated in those judgments.·
Full faith and credit clause, Article IV, § 1, which requires that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.·
Privileges and Immunity Clause, Article IV, § 2, which provides to all citizens the constitutional right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated divorce status and property rights and without losing property rights acquired as a divorced person in prior states of residence.·
Fourteenth Amendment rights and protection which guarantees equal protection, protection of property rights, protects against taking a person’s liberty, protects against taking freedom rights. These were repeatedly violated and taken from Plaintiff as the defendant California judges violated rights established in those seven judgments.a. Equal protection of the law was repeatedly violated by the defendant California judges (and the Fifth Amendment equal protection of the law which was also violated by the federal judicial defendants). The right to obtain a divorce, the right to have it recognized, the protections under California and federal laws relating to such rights, were repeatedly violated and denied to Plaintiff by the defendant California and federal judges.
b. Liberty interests guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment were repeatedly violated by destroying Plaintiff’s income.
c. Property interests were violated by the California (and federal judges acting in concert), as plaintiff’s properties were taken from him, including those adjudicated and established in the seven divorce judgments and properties acquired thereafter as a divorced person in various states of residence.
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions That Were Violated
·
U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring recognition of prior divorce judgments and adjudicated personal and property rights, and rights acquired as a divorced person in prior states of residence:a. Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment or personal and property rights adjudicated therein).
b. Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378 (prohibited state judge from attacking prior divorce judgments and rights adjudicated in the judgment).
c. Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment).
d. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment).
e. Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment).
f. Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969) (prohibiting state judge from voiding personal and property rights adjudicated in foreign country judgment and refusal to recognize one day residence as basis for exercising jurisdiction or recognizing validity of judgment and adjudicated personal and property rights).
Violated Laws Of Prior States Of Residence, Including Nevada and Oklahoma
Plaintiff acquired property as a divorced person while a resident of the States of Nevada and Oklahoma. Under their laws, Plaintiff was recognized as a divorced person and the properties he acquired as a divorced person were recognized as his sole properties. These rights were violated after Plaintiff exercised his constitutional right to change residence and then suffered a taking of these protected personal and property rights after arriving in California.
Record-Setting Violations Of California Laws
California law required:
Recognizing each of the prior divorce judgments.·
·
Recognizing Plaintiff’s divorced status.·
Recognizing Plaintiff’s property rights adjudicated in the prior judgments and acquired as a divorced person.·
Required recognizing the absence of financial obligations between the divorced parties.·
Barred attacks upon these rights under any California proceeding.·
Barred attacks upon these rights or any of the prior divorce judgments under the California Family Law Act.·
Barred attacks upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the prior court 20 years earlier.·
Barred voiding prior court’s orders/judgments on the argument that the prior court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff in that earlier action did not intend to reside permanently in that court’s jurisdiction.
Specific California Laws That Were Violated
·
Civil Code § 4554. Provides that a final divorce 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 supports, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial.·
Civil Code 5004. Provides that a final judgment is final and cannot be appealed or subject to a motion for a new trial.·
Civil Code § 5164. Provides that a decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court in California and that it shall be treated in the same manner as a decree of a superior court of California. Plaintiff’s 1966 divorce judgment was entered as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.1. Requires California judges to recognize divorce judgments from courts outside of the United States.·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.3. Provides that a foreign judgment is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies 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.·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1908. Provides that prior judgments are conclusive between the parties and the thing adjudicated. This would pertain to the parties’ divorced status, property rights, and spousal support determination.·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1910. Provides that the parties to the prior proceeding are concluded by the prior judgment. This blocked attacks upon the prior court’s exercise of jurisdiction.·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1913. Provides that the record of a sister state is the same as a judgment rendered by a California court. The 1966 divorce judgment was entered as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1915. This statute was in effect at the time of the 1966 divorce and for nine years thereafter, and required that foreign country judgments be recognized as local California judgments, and that the judgments are final as to the personal and property rights and obligation of the parties.
California Full Faith and Credit Statutes Barred Refusal To Recognize the Prior Judgments and Plaintiff’s Divorced Status and Property Rights
·
Civil Code § 5004 requires full faith and credit be given to the six divorced judgments entered as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.·
Civil Code § 4554 requires that prior judgment, local, foreign state, foreign country, be recognized as final and conclusive.·
Civil Code § 5164 requires that a sister state or foreign custody decree from another court has the same effect as a California judgment.·
Civil Code § 1713 requires that a foreign state judgment be recognized as conclusive between the parties.·
Code of Civil Procedure § 1908 requires that a California judgment is conclusive between the parties, and this conclusiveness applies to foreign judgments under, inter alia, Civil Code § 5164.
California Supreme Court Decisions Barred the Cause of Action
California Supreme Court decisions, predating the statutory requirements, required recognition of each of the seven divorce judgments showing plaintiff's divorced status and property rights adjudicated in 1966:
(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.Rediker v. Rediker
In Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498 C.2d 210, the California Supreme Court, approvingly citing Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796, 805, held:
[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] decree of divorce that is valid according to the laws of the foreign country must 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 ... [Emphasis added.]
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. [Emphasis added.]
These holdings in California Supreme Court decisions followed the decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, and were followed by statutes legislating these requirements.
Doctrines of Law Barred Attacks On the Prior Divorce Judgments
The res judicata doctrine made the prior judgments conclusive of the rights of the parties. The various estoppel doctrines barred relitigating what had become final years earlier.
Statutory Laches And Estoppel Provided Additional Prohibitions
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 (perjured statements by Emma Stich declaring herself married to Plaintiff in the sham California lawsuit while continuing to declare herself divorced from Plaintiff as she had done since 1966).·
Civil Code § 3512 prevents Emma Stich from declaring in Texas she is divorced while she and her attorneys perpetrate fraud upon the courts by declaring and misrepresenting that she is married.·
Perjury statutes invoked by defendant Emma Stich’s perjury before the California courts, declaring that she wanted a termination of the marriage that she alleged to exist while continuing to declare in legal dealings with state and federal government units to have been divorced since 1966.California Constitutional Provisions Were Violated
In addition, California constitutional protections were violated, including due those clearly stated under Article I, § 1, which states: "All people … have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Also, property acquired while separated is considered separate property, over which California judges lack jurisdiction under the Family Law Act if, for argument, there had been a valid marriage.
Article 1, § 21, which provides for separate property ownership, and which states: "Property owned before marriage or acquired during marriage by gift, will, or inheritance is separate property." That would include property adjudicated as separate and acquired as a divorced person.
Acting Without Personal and Without Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In addition to violating dozens of California and federal laws, defendant Bunting, who rendered the 1988 judgment purporting to terminate an existing marriage, knowingly acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction under clear California statutes and rules of court.
First Basis For Absence Of Jurisdiction
The first basis for the absence of personal jurisdiction over plaintiff arose when Plaintiff filed a timely motion to quash challenging the court’s jurisdiction over him. This absence of personal jurisdiction arose from plaintiff making a special appearance via a timely motion to quash, challenging the court's jurisdiction under the Family Law Act on the basis of prior judgments between the same parties that terminated the marital relationship and adjudicated property rights and financial obligations.
The absence of jurisdiction while a motion to quash is pending is clearly stated in California Rules of Court pertaining to Family Law Act proceedings: Rule of court 1230(a)(2); Rule of Court 1234; Rule of Court 1239(a)(2).
Second Basis For Absence Of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The second basis for absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction arose from the clearly worded absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction under the Family Law Act when there is a prior divorce judgment and absence of a marriage. This absence of jurisdiction is clearly shown by the following California statutes and rules of court:
Rule 1201(c) defines jurisdiction under Family Law Act, and limits jurisdiction to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, nullity of prior marriage, excluding attacks upon any of the five prior judgments.·
·
Rule 1211 limits parties in Family Law Act proceedings to husband and wife. Parties shown in prior judgments to have been divorced do not qualify as husband and wife.·
Rule 1212 limits the cause of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated in the Rule 1281 petition form and 1282 response form. These do not include attacks on prior divorce judgments or relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by a prior court.·
Rule 1215 limits causes of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated on the Rule 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form. Attacks on prior judgments are not provided or allowed.·
Rule 1219 provides for filing lis pendens on properties only if the cause of action is permitted under the Family Law Act. The attack upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1965-1966 divorce count was not permitted, and the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The lis pendens caused the eventual loss of a $10 million estate, the permanent loss of Plaintiff’s sole source of income and support, and great harm to Plaintiff’s quality of life.·
Rule 1222 limits jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to the causes of action shown on form 1281. Parties who were previously divorced have no marital status to alter.·
Rule 1229(a) 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. Again, there is no provision for attacking prior divorce judgments or to relitigate the exercise of jurisdiction by the prior divorce court 22 years earlier.·
Rule 1230(a)(2) deprives the court of personal and subject matter jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment.·
Rule 1230(a)(4) provides that AA party waives objections to the court's jurisdiction if they are not raised by a timely filing of a motion to quash. The same equal protection should apply to the 1965-1966 divorce court proceeding where the former wife made an appearance and did not object. This same right was denied to Stich by the California judges.·
Rule 1234 provides for filing a motion to quash the summons on the basis of absence of jurisdiction arising from a prior divorce judgments.·
Rule 1281 is the form under the Family Law Act that states the three possible causes of action, none of which provide for attacking a prior divorce judgment or relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by a prior court.·
Rule 1282 is the response form to the Rule 1281 form, and limits the response to the statements on the form, which provides no provision to answer cause of action attacking a prior divorce judgment.·
Civil Code § 4351 limits the court's jurisdiction to causes of action stated in Rule 1201(c) and 1281.·
Civil Code § 4503 limits the cause of action to those stated on Rule of Court form 1281 and 1282, dissolution of an existing marriage, nullity of marriage, or legal separation. (No provision to attack the jurisdiction of a prior court.).Third Basis For Absence Of Jurisdiction
The third basis for absence of jurisdiction arises under the absence of jurisdiction over separate property under the Family Law Act. Disregarding the fact that there was no marriage, and that the cause of action was barred under the Family Law Act, California law deprives California judges of jurisdiction over separate property in Family Law Act proceedings.
Piggyback Violations of Federally Protected Rights
These violations would automatically bring about the violations of other federally protected rights, including, for instance, violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Further Contempt For Federally Protected Rights and Their Own State Law
Defendant California judges King, Low and Hanning rendered a decision and ordered it published, thumbing their nose at major federally protected rights. In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 226. They mocked broad spectrums of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards, and then mocked Plaintiff, and retaliated against him, for exercising constitutional due process rights. It is a felony under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 for two or more people to retaliate against a person for exercising constitutional due process remedies.
The California 1988 "Divorce" Judgment Is Void As A Matter Of Law
In addition to the record-setting violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, the absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, making the judgment rendered by short-time judge Dennis Bunting void, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court also establish the void nature of that 1988 judgment purporting to end the marriage that hadn’t existed for 22 years.
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) "A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).).
A judge acts without jurisdiction if he violates clearly and settled statutory or case law. In Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1980) the Ninth Circuit held:
[W]hen a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 351.
Passage Of Time Does Not Validate Void Judgments
Passage of time does not affect the validity or invalidity of a judgment. Taylor v. Miles, 5 Kan 498. State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. 63 Nev 249, 167 P2d 648.
ENDNOTES
Title 28 United States Code § 1738: State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; 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.
[1]. Article IV, § 1. Full Faith and Credit. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings.
[2]. 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.
[3].
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.
[4]. 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.]
[5]. 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.
[6]. 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.
[7]. 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.
[8]. 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, ...
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.]
[9]. 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.
[10]. 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.
[11]. 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.
[12]. 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. (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).
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.
[13]. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment. Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against the relitigation and collateral attack being prior divorce judgments.]
[14]. Civil Code Section 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk--Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.
[15]. Code of Civil Procedure section 1713.3. Conclusiveness of Foreign Judgment: "A foreign judgment ... is conclusive between the parties ..." (This protection is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; Civil Code ' 5164; Civil Code section 5164 provides that the registration of the 1966 divorce judgment with the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, and Superior Court, Solano County, shall provide not only the same recognition and protection against collateral attacks and relitigation (See e.g., Civil Code Section 4554) as is granted to California divorce judgments, but also enforcement of the judgments: A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.
Code of Civil Procedure 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, ...
[16]. Code of Civil Procedure section 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.]
[17]. Prohibiting attacks upon prior divorce judgments on refusal to recognize residence, or for any other basis:
Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796 ("it must be presumed that the foreign court had jurisdiction and that its recital thereof is true ... is not subject to collateral attack on a showing of error in the exercise of that jurisdiction ... The validity of a divorce decree cannot be contested by a party who ... aided another to procure the decree.";
Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249 ("There should be no implication ... 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 have jurisdiction, according to the laws of such country, to pronounce the judgment, shall have the same effect as in the country where rendered, and also the same effect as final judgments as final judgments rendered in this state [which are final and conclusive of the rights and obligations of the parties--C.C. § 4554]";
Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498 C.2d 210 ("The principle of estoppel is applicable [when] the divorce decree was alleged to be invalid for lack of jurisdiction ... The validity of a divorce decree cannot be contested by a party ... who aided another to procure the decree ...");
Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656 ("When both parties to a divorce action are before the court ... it is questionable whether domicile is an indispensable prerequisite for jurisdiction. ... the prerequisite of domicile may be easily avoided at the trial by parties wishing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court, with little fear in most instances that the judgment will be less effective than if a valid domicile in fact existed.").
[18]. 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.
[19]. 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.
[20]. 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.
[21]. Rule 1211. Parties to Proceeding. (a) ... the only persons permitted to be parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife.
[22]. 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.
[23]. 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 assets to his funds on the argument that these were community properties.
[24]. Rule 1215. Pleadings. (b) The only pleadings permitted by a petitioner is the petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281.
[25]. Rule 1219. Lis Pendens. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, either party may record a notice of pendency of the proceeding under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 409 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[26]. 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.
[27]. 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.
[28]. Rule 1230(a)(4). A party waives the matters set forth above if they are not raised by filing a motion to quash pursuant to this rule within the time permitted to file a response.
[29]. 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.
[30].
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 ...
[31]. 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.
[32]. 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;
The purpose of the sham divorce action was to strip Rodney Stich of the assets that funded his attempts to expose corruption in government offices.
List of print and e-books, written by and with the input of dozens of government agents and others insiders, detail and document decades of corrupt activities that continue to inflict great harm upon the people and the country.
Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. No extra charges are incurred.