(D:\refer\violationsn_California_judges)
List Of California and federal laws and constitutional protections that were repeatedly Violated by California (and then Federal judges[1]) Acting In Unison, As Part Of A Scheme To Block Reporting Of Criminal & Subversive Activities
California Judges Acting Without Personal Jurisdiction Associated With Motion To Quash
1) Rule of court 1230(a)(2).[2] Special appearance challenging the court’s personal jurisdiction by motion to quash based upon a prior divorce judgment terminating the marriage 20 years earlier.
2) Rule of Court 1234.[3] Motion to quash specifically intended in Family Law Act proceedings when there is a prior divorce and no marital status.
3) Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10.[4] Provides for motion to quash challenging the court’s absence of personal jurisdiction, during which time the court has no jurisdiction over the party.
California Judges Acting Without Personal Jurisdiction For the Cause Of Action Filed Under the Family Law Act On Basis Of No Family Law Relationship
1) Rule 1201(c)[5](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).
2) Rule 1211[6] (limits parties in Family Law Act proceedings to existing wife and husband). There was no husband and wife relationship, based upon five divorce judgments.
3) Rule 1212[7] (limits cause of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated in the Rule 1281 petition form and 1282 response form, which do not include attacks on prior judgments).[8]
4) Rule 1215[9] (limits causes of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated on the Rule 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form).
5) Rule 1222[10] (limit jurisdiction under Family Law Act to altering a marital status not previously terminated, as provided on form 1281).
6) Rule 1229(a)[11] (which 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, and which contains no provisions for attacking prior judgments).
List of legal and constitutional violations by California judges.
2
7) Rule 1230(a)(2)[12] (which deprives court of jurisdiction of personal and subject matter jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment).
8) Rule 1234[13] (motion to quash summons under Family Law Act).
9) Rule 1239(a)(2)[14] (Motion to quash responsive relief on basis of prior judgment).
10) Rule 1281[15] (petition for dissolution of marriage form, limiting causes of action to those stated on the form--which does not include attacks upon prior judgments).
11) Rule 1282[16] (response form, limiting response to the statements on the form, which provides no provision to answer cause of action attacking prior judgments).
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).
Absence of jurisdiction over separate property under the Family Law Act Proceedings
14) Civil Code § 5102.[19] (If, for argument, there had been a marriage, all of Stich’s properties were separate and outside the jurisdiction of a judge under a Family Law Act proceeding. Section 5102 provides that neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other. All of Stich’s properties were separate.)
15) Civil Code § 5103.[20](Provides for acquiring property as separate property.)
16) Civil Code § 5108.[21] (Provides for separate property transfers.)
17) Civil Code § 5110.720.[22] (Provides for conveying community to separate property status, as was done before the 1966 divorce.)
18) Civil Code § 5118.[23] (Provides that property acquired while living separate becomes separate property. All of Stich’s properties were acquired while living separate before the 1966 divorce and again, after the 1966 divorce.)
Statutes Requiring Recognition of the Five Prior Judgments
19) Civil Code §§ 4554.[24] Effect of final judgment constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties.
20) Civil Code § 5004.[25] 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.
21) Civil Code § 5164.[26] Filing of divorce judgment from another state must be accepted as judgment of the state of California.
22) Code of Civil Procedure § 1699(b).[27] Foreign support order must be treated in the same manner as one rendered by a California court.
23) Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.1.[28] Foreign state judgments must be recognized as local judgments.
24) Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.3.[29] Defines “foreign judgment” as a judgment of another nation.
25) Code of Civil Procedure § 1908.[30] Effect of foreign state or sister state judgment must be recognized as a local judgment.
26) Code of Civil Procedure § 1910.[31] Parties to the prior divorce judgment are precluded from attacking the judgment (as is also stated in the 1966 judgment).
27) Code of Civil Procedure § 1913.[32] Conclusiveness of sister state judgment the same as a local judgment. This conclusiveness is extended to foreign nation judgment by Civil Code §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915.
28) Code of Civil Procedure § 1915.[33] Final judgment of a foreign country has the same effect as final judgment rendered in California.
List of legal and constitutional violations by California judges.
2
Additional Statutes Requiring Recognition of the Prior Divorce judgments Entered as Local Judgments in Five Different States
29) Civil Code § 5004.[34] Requires full faith and credit be given to the six judgments entered as local judgments in Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.
30) Civil Code § 4554.[35] Entry of prior judgment constitutes final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties.
31) Civil Code § 5164.[36] Filing of custody decree of another state shall be treated as custody decree of local judgment.
32) Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.[37] Prior judgment is conclusive between the parties, and this is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; civil Code § 5165.
33) Code of Civil Procedure § 1908.[38] Conclusiveness of prior California divorce judgment, and extended to sister state and foreign country judgments by other statutes, including Civil Code § 5172 and Code of Civil Procedure §§1653(j) and 1713.3.
34) Evidence Code § 622.[39] Recitals in prior judgment are presumed to be true between the parties, including the recital of proper exercise of jurisdiction.
35) Evidence Code § 665.[40] The parties to the prior divorce proceeding in 1965-1966 are presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of their voluntary act.
36) Evidence Code § 666.[41] States that any court of California or of a foreign nation is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.
Due Process Procedural Protections Violated By California Judges
37) Refused to recognize Stich’s special appearance status and absence of personal jurisdiction.
38) Refused to conduct a hearing on the Rule 1230 Motion to quash. California judges refused to conduct a hearing on the court's challenged jurisdiction in response to a motion to quash, and four years later, converted the limited hearing on the motion to quash to a full blown hearing relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court.
List of legal and constitutional violations by California judges.
2
39) Refused to recognize the absence of personal and absence of subject matter jurisdiction under the Family Law Act.
40) Repeatedly refused to issue mandatory findings of facts and conclusions of law when timely requested. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 632[42] and 634.[43] Rule 23.[44]
41) Appeal briefs were repeatedly dismissed without addressing the issues.
42) Retaliated against Stich for exercising due process remedies, a criminal offense under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.[45]
43) Each subsequent judge violated their duty to halt the violations of Stich’s civil rights, violating, inter alia, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986.[46]
Federal Law Violated By California Judges
44) Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1738.[47]
45) Article IV, § 1[48] (Full Faith and Credit Clause), requires recognition of the personal and property rights in the California divorce judgment, its entry for recognition as local judgments in the courts of Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas.
46) Fourteenth Amendment[49] due process, equal protection, property, liberty, freedom rights, by denying to Stich due process, equal protection, and the protections of California and federal law.
47) Privileges and Immunity Clause rights under Article IV, § 2,[50] and under the 14th Amendment (depriving right to obtain divorce on universally recognized residence basis, and right to change residence).
48) The right to unabridged interstate travel,[51] under the Commerce Clause, without losing rights and privileges acquired in prior jurisdictions of residence.
List of legal and constitutional violations by California judges.
2
Violated Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
49) Violated rights established in 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).
Federal Judges Aiding and Abetting Of These Violations Of Federally Protected Rights
50) Federal judges systematically aided and abetted the record-setting civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by the California judges. Starting in 1983 and continuing to this date, federal district and appellate judges aided and abetted these record-setting violations of state laws and federally protected rights even though they had a duty of trust to uphold and enforce the laws being violated. They immediately dismissed each and every attempt by Stich to obtain relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 18 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202 and FRCivP 47)
51) Federal judges violated their duty to provide a federal court forum. In Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 117 S.Ct. 2238, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997), the Court held what was plainly stated in the statutes: “Congress has implemented the Constitution’s grant of federal question jurisdiction by authorizing federal courts to enforce rights arising under the Constitution and federal law. The federal courts have an obligation to exercise that jurisdiction, ....”
52) Federal judges violated Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331.[52] which requires federal judges to provide a federal court forum to a person for civil actions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which included the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
53) Federal judges violated Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343,[53] which requires district court judges to provide a federal court form for anyone whose civil rights had been violated.
List of legal and constitutional violations by California judges.
2
54) Federal judges violated Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201,[54] Declaratory Judgment Act, to “declare the rights and other legal relations” adjudicated and stated in seven divorce judgments. These personal and property rights were being taken by California judges acting without personal jurisdiction, acting without subject matter jurisdiction, and violating dozens of California and federal statutes, rules of court, and fundamental constitutional rights. If any of the federal judges had exercised their responsibilities under this statute, the onslaught of civil rights violations would have immediately halted.
55) Federal judges violated Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Further relief. “Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.”
56) Federal judges violated Rule 57 Declaratory Judgments. The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 shall be in accordance with these rules, and the right to trial by jury may be demanded under the circumstances and in the manner provided in Rules 38 and 39. The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar.
57) Federal judges violated Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983-1986,[55] Civil Rights Act, for the unprecedented numbers of violations occurring in the California courts, and the violations of federally protected rights by every preceding federal judge.
58) Federal judges violated Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986.[56] Federal judges are liable to Stich for damages under the clear all-encompassing wording of this statute.
59) Federal judges violated case law [57] that barred dismissal of the multiple lawsuits when facts are alleged that stated federal causes of actions.
60) Federal judges violated FRCivP65 injunctions. Rendered unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from federal court access and voiding all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.[58] These injunctive orders violated every requirement for such orders. They:
a) Protected the parties perpetrating the unlawful acts instead of protecting the victim.
b) Insured the continuation of the civil and constitutional violations instead of halting them.
c) Instead of protecting public interests, these reversals harmed the public interests.