RODNEY F. STICH
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 OF MOTION TO DECLARE VOID ORDERS SEIZING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTIES
Plaintiff moves and requests this court to apply controlling law and declare void the orders rendered by defendant Chapter 11 judge Robert Jones that seized Plaintiff’s properties. Also, that all orders rendered on the basis of those void orders be also declared void. This motion relies upon decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that:
·
Orders taking a citizens’ properties, rendered without jurisdiction, are void.·
Orders taking citizens’ properties in violation of constitutional due process are also void.·
That such orders are permanently void and not made valid by the passage of time.·
That void orders are not made valid by appellate court affirmance.·
Orders rendered on the basis of such prior void orders are void.·
In addition, the continuous pattern of constitutional due process violations before, during, and after the taking of Plaintiff’s assets also affect void nature of unlawfully and unconstitutionally rendered orders. These matters contain material matters of facts and law that have never before been the subject of appellate review. Further, material facts require fact finding by a jury.This motion is based in part on this motion and related points and authorities, on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the exhibit filed with this lawsuit (third edition of Defrauding America), and Plaintiff’s subsequent filings. Plaintiff seeks an order under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and in accordance with federal laws, the constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, holding that the orders taking Plaintiff’s assets—which funded his exposure of major corruption and criminal activities in key government offices—are void and a return to Plaintiff of these seized properties.
Void Orders Taking the Assets That Funded Plaintiff’s Exposure Of Criminal Activities
As stated in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and related filings, Plaintiff was forced to seek refuge in Chapter 11 against the onslaught of record-setting civil rights violations perpetrated by the defendant California judges in a sham lawsuit that was barred by not one, but dozens of California and federal laws and constitutional protections.
Plaintiff’s assets were in excellent financial condition when he made such filing. He sought to force a Chapter 11 judge to perform the duties abdicated by a series of U.S. district court judges. Plaintiff sought to have a Chapter 11 judge render an order under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201) declaring the validity of seven judgments that established the property rights being unlawfully taken by defendant California judges in a sham lawsuit in which the judges lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction and who violated over three dozen California statutes and rules of court, federal laws and multiple constitutional protections. He also sought, under the Civil Rights Act, a halt to the record setting civil and constitutional violations inflicted upon him under color of state law.
Carrying Out the Intent Of the Sham California Lawsuit
The two Chapter 11 cases were assigned to Las Vegas Chapter 11 judge, defendant Robert Jones, who initially provided partial relief by ordering, during a September 11, 1987 hearing, the removal of the illegally placed lis pendens on all of Plaintiff’s California properties. That relief suddenly changed.
On October 8, 1987, in chambers, defendant Jones signed orders (Exhibit "A") seizing Plaintiff’s properties, his businesses, his home, and his assets, that were in his personal and in corporate Chapter 11 cases. The orders turned the assets over to trustee Charles Duck. Duck, who had been repeatedly charged with embezzlement of cases assigned to him. Working with Duck was the law firm of Goldberg, Stinnett and Macdonald, defendants in this lawsuit. While liquidating Plaintiff’s once healthy estate, media publicity concerning Duck’s rampant embezzlement caused the Justice Department to reach a quick plea bargain with Duck. Justice Department prosecutors then claimed that the rampant corruption in Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts, which they had known about and protected for years, had been stopped with Duck’s arrest. Duck was only one small part of the overall bankruptcy court corruption, as detailed in the third edition of Defrauding America.
Openly Violated Constitutional Due Process Requirements
Defendant Jones openly violated major constitutional due process protections as he signed orders taking Plaintiff’s assets:
·
There was never any notice of any hearing in the personal or the corporate Chapter 11 cases relating to the taking of Plaintiff’s assets in the personal or corporate cases.·
There was never any court hearing in either of the two cases at which Plaintiff could defend.·
There were never any facts or proofs submitted that justified the taking of the home, businesses, and properties that Plaintiff had acquired during years of hard work. The court’s docket sheet (Exhibit "C") supports these statements.·
These material constitutional due process violations made the orders void.Compounding the Constitutional Due Process Violations
Another constitutional due process violation affected the taking of Plaintiff’s assets that also made the orders void. Defendant Jones had rendered a verbal order on September 11, 1987, refusing to accept jurisdiction over both Chapter 11 cases and ordered that the cases be dismissed in 60 days, giving Plaintiff time to refinance loans that had come due. These loans could not be refinanced due to the lis pendens placed upon them in the sham California action. Jones had included in his verbal order the removal of these lis pendens filed by the Friedman, Sloan and Ross law firm and attorneys, and it was these lis pendens that forced Plaintiff to seek refuge in Chapter 11.
On September 28, 1987, Judge Jones signed the order (Exhibit "B") that he had earlier rendered from the bench (but which omitted the removal of the lis pendens). The orders taking Plaintiff’s properties were signed in chambers by defendant Jones, fraudulently stating that there had been court hearings on both Chapter 11 cases on that date. The fraudulent nature of that statement is shown by the court’s docket sheet that shows that there was no hearing on that date, or any other date, for either Chapter 11 cases, to take Plaintiff’s assets. Also, there were no notices of any such hearings. Further, there had never been any notice of hearing, or hearing to regain jurisdiction.
Steady and Continuous Documented Series of Constitutional Due Process Violations
A steady and continuous series of judicially inflicted constitutional due process violations occurred prior to and after the signing of the October 8, 1987 orders taking Plaintiff’s assets. They all played a role in the taking of Plaintiff’s assets. These are described in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and in related filings, including the Exhibit filed with this lawsuit, the third edition of Defrauding America.
Attorney Fraud Upon the Court and Upon Plaintiff
During that September 28, 1987 hearing for removal of the automatic stay on plaintiff’s personal Chapter 11 case (which did not contain the $10 million in real estate), the court’s audio tapes and transcripts show plaintiff’s attorney, Joshua Landish, aggressively sabotaging plaintiff as he argued to defendant Jones that Plaintiff’s assets be seized and liquidated. In an extreme example of attorney fraud against his client, Landish acted to support plaintiff’s adversaries, including the Friedman law firm, by urging Judge Jones to rescind the prior order of relief and to seize and liquidate plaintiff’s assets in the personal and corporate cases. This glaring fraud by an attorney sabotaging his own client encountered no admonishment from the court.
"Stich Will Be Disappointed"
As Judge Jones listened to defendant Landish sabotaging his own client, defendant Jones admitted that plaintiff was unaware of the hearing and the proposed taking of plaintiff’s assets. The court transcripts and audiotapes reveal Judge Jones stating, "Stich will be disappointed by finding his assets turned over to a trustee." It could be assumed that any person would be disappointed about having his life’s assets taken in such a corrupt manner in a court of law.
Signing the Verbal Order Refusing To Accept Jurisdiction
Landish never carried out his duty to prepare for Judge Jones’ signature the verbal order rendered on September 11, 1987 removing the lis pendens from plaintiff’s personal and corporate properties, the refusal to accept jurisdiction, and the order dismissing the two chapter 11 cases. If he had prepared the order that included the removal of the lis pendens, it would have undermined the primary tactic Friedman used in the California lawsuit to separate plaintiff from his assets. Plaintiff’s attorney was corruptly aiding and abetting the same people whose civil rights violations forced Plaintiff to seek refuge in Chapter 11.
Preparing that order for defendant Jones’ signature during that September 28th hearing was Las Vegas attorney Rene Feinstein, representing defendant Friedman, Sloan and Ross. Feinstein omitted reference to the removal of the lis pendens, which was the main reason Plaintiff sought relief in Chapter 11. In addition to the onslaught of civil and constitutional violations Plaintiff had endured for the prior five years, he now had defendant Jones, defendant Landish, and defendant Feinstein, working in unison with defendant Friedman, Sloan, and Ross. The written order presented to Judge Jones stated:
Having reviewed the pleadings on file herein and heard the arguments of counsel, it is the determination of this Court that it should abstain from hearing the above-captioned bankruptcy cases and therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 305, an order dismissing the cases will be entered within 60 days of the hearing.
Signing the Orders Refusing To Accept Jurisdiction
As long as that order existed, Judge Jones lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff and the personal and corporate cases, and could not order the taking of plaintiff’s assets.
Fraudulent Taking Of Plaintiff’s Life’s Assets
Ten days later, on October 8, 1987, in chambers and without the legal and constitutional due process requirements of a noticed hearing, a hearing, and legally-recognized cause, Judge Jones signed the order (Exhibit "A") taking plaintiff’s life’s assets as the first step in their liquidation. The orders stated:
In the case of Rodney Frank Stich (BK-S-87-1376) and in the case of Western Diablo Enterprises, Inc. (BK-S-87-2067).
Order Appointing Trustee
Pursuant to the hearing on October 8, 1987,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CHARLES DUCK be appointed Trustee in the above-entitled bankruptcy.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a bond shall be obtained for an amount equal to funds held by the trustee.
DATED this 8th day of October 1987.
ROBERT CLIVE JONES, Chief Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court
*********************************
Never-Ending Judicial Fraud
Court records show that there was no hearing on that date for either of plaintiff’s two Chapter 11 cases, or on any other date. After seizing Plaintiff’s assets, defendant Jones ordered the two cases transferred to the Oakland bankruptcy court at the request of defendant law firm, Friedman, Sloan and Ross. The cases were then assigned to Chapter 11 judge Edward Jellen, who is a defendant in this lawsuit.
Continuing Constitutional Due Process Violations
Defendant Jellen continued and escalated the continuing series of constitutional due process violations. Jellen ordered the liquidation of Plaintiff’s once thriving real estate enterprise and Plaintiff’s home. Jellen rendered an order (Exhibit "D") barring Plaintiff from filing any objections to the constitutional due process violations that took and liquidated his assets.
Jellen’s order eliminating a major constitutional due process protection duplicated what had been rendered by numerous district court judges, including those listed as defendants in this lawsuit. Such orders were, of course, unlawful and unconstitutional, and a key part of the series of constitutional due process violations involved in the orders taking Plaintiff’s assets. The series of constitutional due process violations commenced five years prior to the taking of plaintiff’s assets, and continued for over five thereafter.
Combining Constitutional Due Process Violations with A Felony
Plaintiff exercised his constitutional due process rights and filed objections. Jellen responded with further constitutional due process violations. He ordered the objections unfilled, and the charged Plaintiff with criminal contempt of court for exercising this constitutional due process right. It is a felony to retaliate against a citizen for exercising constitutional due process. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Judicial Fraud To Support the Unlawful and Unconstitutional Taking
Of His Constitutional RightsFederal judges repeatedly fabricated a sham excuse to "support" their taking of every relevant protection under our form of government. They placed a frivolous label on the lawsuits Plaintiff filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act and Civil Rights Act. Each of these lawsuits stated facts invoking mandatory court jurisdiction and relief. Plaintiff showed that personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments, that must be recognized under law, were being taken by California judges acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction while violating not one, but dozens of California and federal laws and constitutional protections. Federal judges had a legislated duty to provide a federal court forum and relief. All they had to do was to apply the overwhelming law and render an order upholding the validity of those judgments. Instead, they refused to perform this duty.
Simultaneously, the violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections associated with the violations occurring in the sham California lawsuit, were hard-core civil rights violations occurring under color of state law, invoking jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act. Prima facie evidence of these violations existed; it was only necessary to take judicial notice of what was being done in the California lawsuit.
In a continuous pattern California judges, in unison with federal judges, placed a frivolous label on the lawsuits that stated multiple federal causes of action, called Plaintiff a vexatious litigant for his repeated exercise of constitutional due process for the escalating civil and constitutional violations. And then had the audacity to charge Plaintiff with delaying tactics, when in essence, the absolute reverse existed. This conduct reveals a serious and fraudulent culture among the California and federal judges, making them unfit to hold their judicial positions.
The United States Supreme Court defined the legal definition of frivolous in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738: An appeal [or complaint] is not frivolous if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ..." A halfway intelligent person can recognize that the repeated violations of dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections by state judges acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction might conceivable constitute a violation of law. None of the judicial and officer-of-the-court defendants named in this lawsuit seem to understand that "difficult-to-understand" matter! Or are they committing fraud upon this court and making a fool of the court?
Orders Seizing Plaintiff’s Assets Are Void, and Forever Void
As a matter of controlling Supreme Court decisions, orders rendered without jurisdiction are void. Orders rendered that violate constitutional due process are void. Repeated major constitutional due process violations occurred prior to, during, and after the seizure of Plaintiff’s assets. The entire litany of such violations must be considered when recognizing the void nature of the orders that converted Plaintiff from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. This is the law relating to void orders:
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. A void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44, 45.
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)("a void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect.") Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."); U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985).
An illegal order is forever void. 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.
The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
Orders Based On Void Orders Are Void
A void judgment, or proceedings founded on void judgments, is void. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44, 45. A void judgment is a simulated one, or one apparently rendered, where some essential element, which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment, is lacking. Henderson v. Henderson, 232 NC 380, 100 SE2d 227. See Restatement, Judgments, ' 8.
Orders Rendered Without An Opportunity To Be Heard Are Void
It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court and an honest opportunity to be heard:
A Judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 US 261,31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
Pattern of Fraud Provides Another Element To the Void Orders
In Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 (1963), the court held:
The validity of a judgment may be affected by fraud in the obtainment thereof. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 26, 23 L Ed 286; Wyman v. Newhouse (CA2d) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460, cert den 303 US 664, 82 L Ed 1122, 58 S Ct 831; or by collusion between the parties. Branan v. Feldman, 158 Ga 377, 123 SE 710, especially where the complaining party was prevented from having his interest fairly presented or fully considered by the court, and the court was imposed upon. Harjo v. Johnston, 187 Okla 561, 104 P2d 985.
A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice. Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. See also Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b) and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
Orders violating due process protection of the laws requires reversal. Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 (1963).
Orders Based Upon Void Orders Are Also Void
Fraud Related To Rendering Orders or collusion in connection with the rendition of a judgment is regarded as rendering the judgment void:
League v. DeYoung US 11 How 184, 13 L Ed 657; Re Milliman's Estate 2 Ariz App 155, 406 P2d 873, 154 ALR 818, 831; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 26, 23 L Ed 286; Wyman v. Newhouse (CA2d) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460, cert den 303 US 664, 82 L Ed 1122, 58 S Ct 831. Collusion between the parties also renders orders or judgments void. Branan v. Feldman, 158 Ga 377. 123 SE 710, especially where the complaining party was prevented from having his interest fairly presented or fully considered by the court, and the court was imposed upon. Harjo v. Johnson, 187 Okla 561, 104 P2d 985. Fraud or collusion in connection with the rendition of a judgment is regarded as rendering the judgment void. League v. DeYoung US 11 How 184, 13 L Ed 657; Re Milliman’s Estate 2 Ariz App 155, 406 P2d 873, 154 ALR 818, 831.
California Law On Void Orders
California law holds that an order rendered in violation of law or without jurisdiction is a nullity.
Forbes v. Hyde 31 C. 343; People v. Greene, 74 C. 400; In re Estate of Pusey, 180 C 368; Lang v. Lang, 182 C 764. The 1988 judgment rendered by defendant California Judge Dennis Bunting, ordering the taking of Plaintiff’s properties on the sham holding that a marriage existed, which had been terminated 22 years earlier as shown by seven divorce judgments, clearly falls within this area.
Void Orders Remain Void Even When Confirmed By Appellate Courts
The general rule is that an order rendered in violation of law cannot be cured by subsequent proceedings. In Sato v. Hall 191 C. 510, 217 P 520, the court held that a void judgment is not rendered valid by a mere affirmance on appeal. See also Langston v. Nash, 192 Ga 417, 15 SE2d 481. Such a judgment cannot be validated by citing the parties against whom it was rendered, to show cause why it should not be declared valid. Jewett v. Iowa Land Co. 64 Minn 531 67 NW 639, or by an affirmance by an appellate court, at least if such affirmance is put upon grounds not touching the validity of the judgment. (See 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 935)
Unconstitutional Injunctive Orders Expanded On Previous Record-Setting
Constitutional Due Process ViolationsThe endless numbers of injunctions voiding constitutional protections shocks the conscience as they openly violated constitutional due process and showed hard-core contempt for the rights and protections guaranteed under the form of government in the United States, and indicates the gravity with which these judges recognized Plaintiff’s attempts to report the criminal activities and the gravity of the endless series of constitutional due process violations. These were major offenses against a former government agent and whistleblower, and major offenses against the United States. Such offenses, by large numbers of judges, had never before been exposed at the federal level.
Violating Every Legal Criteria For Their Issuance
The injunctions violated every legal criteria required for their issuance, in addition to the overriding constitutional due process violations:
Instead of meeting the requirement to halt violations of laws and constitutional safeguards that were occurring, the injunctive orders insured that the violations would continue without judicial interference.
Instead of meeting the requirement to protect the person suffering harm from the unlawful acts, the injunctive orders deprived Plaintiff, who was suffering great harm from these violations, of the protection in law, while simultaneously protecting the parties perpetrating the violations.
Instead of meeting the legal requirement to protect public interests, the injunctions harmed these interests by subverting legal and constitutional protections and protecting the people perpetrating these interests.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law were necessary legal requirements for rendering an injunction, and this requirement was also violated. The law requires that the judge rendering an injunction make findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically addressing each of these requirements. This was never done. Rule 52(a) requires that the court granting or denying a preliminary injunction "shall set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action."
In Granny Good Foods, Inc. v. Bth=d of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County (1974) 415 US 423, 994 S Ct 1113, 39 L ed2d 435, the court held that where a temporary restraining order had been continued beyond the time limits permitted by Rule 65(b) and the required findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been set forth, the order is invalid); County of Nassau v. Cost of Living Council (Temporary Emergency Ct. of Appeals, 1974) 499 F2d 1340.
The Requirement of the Injunctions Were Also Unlawful and Unconstitutional
No one, certainly including a judge whose responsibility is protecting civil and constitutional rights, has the authority to subvert the protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The defendant federal judges compounded their series of prior unlawful and unconstitutional actions by rendering orders subverting the due process and equal protection arising under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In this manner, the primary federal defenses in the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Civil rights Act were denied to Plaintiff while the judges simultaneously protected the parties engaged in wholesale violations of large numbers of federally protected rights. The defendant federal judges misused their judicial offices and the courts to subvert the rule of law, the judicial process, and the courts, as proven by taking judicial notice of their judicial acts.
Other Reasons For the Injunctions
In addition to exercising constitutional due process seeking relief from the civil and constitutional violations, Plaintiff also sought to exercise his duty under federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, to report federal crimes to a federal judge under the judge’s administrative duties. Federal judges repeatedly refused to receive the reports and the evidence offered by the group of government insiders. The injunctive orders eliminated the obstruction of justice reaction when judges blocked these reports. Taking on a more sinister aspect—if that is possible in light of what was already documented—federal judges retaliated against Plaintiff for attempting to report these criminal activities. These were criminal offenses, retaliating against a former government agent and witness, for attempting to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, 35, 241; 111, 153, 241, 242, 245 (b)(1)(B); 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513 (b), 1515(a); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965.The obstruction of justice, the judicial retaliation for attempting to make such reports, provides further support to the evidence strongly indicating that the pattern of judicial acts commencing in the California courts, and the judicial violation of constitutional due process, and the fraud, were interrelated to halt Plaintiff’s exposure activities.
The Injunctions Were Void Orders
U.S. Supreme Court decisions made clear that judicial orders that violated constitutional due process were void orders.
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, 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).).
Evidence Strongly Indicates That Seizing Plaintiff’s Assets Was Part Of A Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice By Blocking Plaintiff’s Reports of Criminal Activities
The documented evidence in the sequence of events during the past 20 years, detailed in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the exhibit filed with the Complaint which is the third edition of Defrauding America, and subsequent filings, far exceed the legal requirements for prima facie evidence of a conspiracy by the defendants. Plaintiff, a former federal agent, sought to report and expose corrupt and criminal activities in key government positions that he and a group of other former and present government agents discovered. The evidence strongly indicates that the sham lawsuit that started in the California courts and which was aided and abetted in the federal courts was perpetrated to destroy the $10 million in assets that funded Plaintiff’s public-spirited activities. The intent of the original scheme in the California courts was to destroy the assets that funded Plaintiff’s exposure activities, and every single act by numerous federal judges was to support and insure the success of that scheme.
Plaintiff Was Also the Victim Of Trustee Embezzlement
In addition to the blatant corruption by California and federal judges, and even his own attorney, Plaintiff was further victimized by the embezzlement perpetrated by trustee Charles Duck, whose law firm was Goldberg, Stinnett and Macdonald, both of whom are defendants in this lawsuit. The attached Exhibit "E" is the first page of the Judgment and sentencing for Defendant Duck, who was charged with trustee embezzlement after looting assets from cases assigned to him, including embezzlement from Plaintiff’s cases. Plaintiff had complained of this embezzlement by Duck prior to his arrest, and the typical "canned" judicial response was that Plaintiff was a vexatious litigant.
Probably Requires Congressional Investigation
The gravity and the extent of the documented judicial misconduct in the Ninth Circuit courts, and the improbability that any judge will have the courage or integrity to provide relief that would also focus on the unprecedented judicial misconduct revealed by this lawsuit. Plaintiff will be seeking congressional investigations into these matters and publicizing the threat to all Americans via Internet sites and book publishing. Sooner or later, enough courageous people will speak out to force these matters into public view, after which, possibly, the proper punishment including impeachment will occur.
SUMMARY
The documented facts surrounding this sordid matter have undoubtedly never arisen before any published decision. The evidence shows a literal judicial anarchy in the federal courts cannot be denied. The evidence shows a willingness upon the part of large segments of the Ninth Circuit judges to openly subvert the laws and Constitution of the United States, to block the reporting of major criminal activities implicating people in control of key government positions, to felonious obstruct justice and to felonious attack a citizen for exercising constitutional due process, and to feloniously attack a former government agent in retaliation for exercising the responsibility to report federal crimes as required by the federal crime reporting statute. This are matters affecting the internal security of the United States and the foundations upon which this nation is founded.
A pattern of outright lying by federal judges and those acting in concert with them is documented. The taking of Plaintiff’s properties, in gross violations of the laws and Constitution of the United States, the before, during, and after constitutional due process violations associated with this taking, makes the orders taking Plaintiff’s life assets obviously void. But what judge has the courage, the integrity, or the willingness to meet his judicial responsibilities?
Plaintiff is prepared to provide the court with additional evidence, including court transcripts, court audio tapes of the proceedings, and other evidence to support the fraud and constitutional due process violations associated with the taking of the assets.
Plaintiffs requests the following relief:
·
An order holding that the October 8, 1987 orders by Chapter 11 judge Robert Jones be declared void. That the void nature of the order arose from his absence of jurisdiction following the signed order on September 28, 1987, and the violation of major and basic constitutional due process directly associated with that order and which preceded and following the rendering of the orders.·
Include in the order providing relief a holding that all subsequent orders and acts that relied upon those October 8, 1987 orders are also void, including the placement of liens or loan, deeds conveying the properties, be declared void, and that the properties are to be immediately turned over to Stich.·
Provide that the legal steps necessary to accomplish these orders and to return the properties to Plaintiff be performed by and paid by the following:o
Friedman, Sloan and Ross; their attorneys named as defendants in this law suit; trustees Charles Duck and his law firm of Goldberg, Stinnett and Macdonald; trustee Jerome Robertson and his law firm of Murray and Murray.o
That they will be financially responsible to Plaintiffs for any delays or losses sustained by their failure to promptly and properly bring about the release of such properties to Plaintiff.Date: September 30, 2000
____________________________________
Rodney F. Stich
Attached Exhibits:
Exhibit "A" October 8, 1987 orders seizing Plaintiff’s properties in the two cases.
Exhibit "B" September 28, 1987 order refusing to accept jurisdiction.
Exhibit "C" Court docket sheet showing no notice of hearing or hearing on either of the two cases relating to the taking of Plaintiff’s life assets.
Exhibit "D" Order by defendant Chapter 11 judge Edward Jellen barring Plaintiff from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation of Plaintiff’s assets.
Exhibit "E" Judgment against trustee Duck for embezzlement.
DECLARATION
I, Rodney Stich, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, declare that the statements made in this motion are true, partly from my own knowledge, and partly from knowledge and belief.
____________________________
Rodney F. Stich
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.