1
2
3
RODNEY F. STICH
P.O. Box 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 415-820-7250
(brieffed\declare.rem)
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
RODNEY F. STICH,
12
DECLARATORY
Plaintiff,
JURISDICTION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDERS
v.
PROPERTY
2201
STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
SUPERIOR COURT, SOLANO
RESTRAINING ORDER
COUNTY; CALIFORNIA
COURT OF APPEALS; JUDGES
PROPERTIES
DENNIS BUNTING,
)
)
Nr.________________________
COMPLAINT
FOR
)
JUDGMENT;
)
BY STATE JUDGE TO RENDER
)
JUDGMENTS
)
RIGHTS, DUE TO TITLE 28 USC
)
)
§§
EMMA STICH; FRIEDMAN, SLOAN,
AND ROSS, P.C.;
TRIAL ON
)
ACTION ON
Defendants.
)
_____________________________
ABSENCE
OF
DESTROYING
)
)
FRCivP 57, REMOVAL;
EMERGENCY
)
)
HALTING ALL MATTERS
AFFECTING
THESE
IN CHAPTER 11, FEDERAL, &
STATE COURTS; TITLE 28 U.S.C.
)
)
2201, 2202, FRCIVp 57
REQUEST
FOR
JURY
JURY MATTERS; PRIORITY OF
CIVIL CALENDAR
)
25
26
27
28
1. This court has jurisdiction under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
1
1
2
3
4
U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and FRCivP 57, and under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to declare rights
and legal relationships under void judgments/orders rendered by California judges during the time
that a California action was removed to federal court. These void orders adversely affects plaintiff's
rights and legal obligations, and are causing plaintiff to suffer great and irreparable harms.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2. The state action (Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, Number 83472),
in which orders/judgments were rendered that inflicted great and irreparable harms upon plaintiff,
was removed to federal court (E.D.Cal. Nr. C 86-0715 MLS) on June 17, 1986, where it still
remains as of January 30, 1991. This removal deprived the state judges of jurisdiction (in addition
to the absence arising from other causes) to render the orders/judgments that they rendered. The
removal is shown by the attached certified copy of the clerk's transcript. (Exhibit "A.") Plaintiff
requests that this court take judicial notice of the removal.
13
14
15
3. During the time that the California action was removed to federal court, California
judges/justices rendered the following orders, knowing that they lacked jurisdiction arising from the
removal:
16
A. December 15, 1987 Order appointing a receiver. California judge John
17
DeRonde rendered an order appointing a receiver over Stich's multi-million dollar
18
personal and corporate assets. (December 15, 1987.) The motion for the order was
19
filed on April 2, 1987.
20
B. July 28, 1988 order seizing plaintiff's business, properties and assets.
21
California judge Dennis Bunting rendered a July 28, 1988 order purporting to be a
22
dissolution of marriage judgment;1 in a purported dissolution of marriage action;2
23
24
25
26
27
28
Five divorce judgments showed the parties as legally divorced in 1966 following a bilateral
consent divorce proceeding, and adjudicating all personal and property rights.
2
The cause of action was an attack upon the five prior divorce judgments, seeking to void the
judgments that must be recognized under state and federal law; seeking to remarry Stich to a Texas
resident from whom he had been legally divorced for the prior 22 years (and beyond the court's
1
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
purporting to divide community properties; and ordering payment of $2500 monthly
purported to be spousal support.
C. May 14, 1990 order denying plaintiff's appeal of the July 28, 1988 judgment,
holding that it was frivolous to file the appeal, and ordering plaintiff to pay $90,000
financial sanctions in retaliation for exercising such remedies. In retaliation for
filing an appeal3 of the July 28, 1988 judgment rendered while the state action was
removed to federal court, California Court of Appeal justices4 rendered an order for
plaintiff to pay $90,000 to the State of California and to the San Francisco law firm
of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. The basis for this huge financial sanction was that
plaintiff allegedly filed a frivolous appeal! Plaintiff appealed the July 28, 1988
judgment on the basis:
(a) that the state judges lacked jurisdiction on the basis of removal;
(b) The court lacked jurisdiction under California law on that basis that the
California Family Law Act provided no jurisdiction to attack and void any of the five
prior divorce judgments;
(c) on the basis that over a dozen California statutes barred the cause of action;
(d) on the basis that U.S. Supreme Court decisions required recognizing each of the
five prior judgments.
D. April 9, 1988 order by Judge Clinton Peterson ordering Stich to pay financial
sanctions for a purported frivolous motion. Plaintiff's motion was based upon the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
jurisdiction to do); seeking to void the property rights established in the five divorce judgments;
seeking to void the property rights acquired during 22 years of divorced status and void the state and
federal property right, due process, equal protection rights.
3
The retaliation for exercising rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the
United States violated, inter alia, criminal statute Title 18 U.S.C. § 241, which makes it a crime
for two or more people to threaten or harm a citizen for having exercised rights and protections under
the laws and Constitution of the United States.
4
Justices King, Low, Haning.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
absence of jurisdiction due to removal and the other bases for absence of jurisdiction
and barring the sham action.
E. December 1, 1986 order placing Stich into default and depriving him of even the
right to object. California judges then commenced conducting hearings and rendering
orders without notifying Stich, while stripped of jurisdiction as a result of the
removal to federal court.
F. May 2, 1987 motion to seize Stich's assets via receiver, filed by the law firm of
Friedman, Sloan and Ross. This motion, the suspension of all state and federal due
process protections by California and federal judges and justices, forced plaintiff to
seek refuge in Chapter 11.
G. May 29, 1987 order seizing plaintiff's 5-year-old grandson to keep the scheme
going. Sealed order relating to the seizure of five year old son from plaintiff's
daughter, and granting custody to Friedman's 67 year old Texas client, as a bribe to
prevent her from dismissing the sham attack on the prior divorce judgments.
H. May 16, 1987 bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest. Judge Clinton Peterson
rendered a bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest, based upon plaintiff's inability to pay
void money orders after California judges and the Friedman law firm halted
plaintiff's income since the 1982 filing of California action seeking to void plaintiff's
property rights and divorced status.
I. Dozens of lis pendens filed by law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in 1987.
J. December 4, 1987 order, ordering plaintiff into default, and barring plaintiff
from defending against the taking of his life's assets, business, and human rights.
Plaintiff was no longer notified of any hearings or allowed to defend. Default ordered
by Judge Harold Wolters.
K. December 4, 1986 attorney fees, rendered by Judge William Jensen.
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
4
1
L. December 1, 1986 spousal support order, without a marriage for supporting the
2
order, and without jurisdiction under state and federal laws. Order to pay $1,000
3
monthly spousal support. Five prior divorce judgments showed no spousal support
4
rights or obligations.
5
M. December 1, 1987 order to pay $ 155,000 attorney fees, by Judge William Jensen.
6
7
8
4. The orders, judgments, and other acts, rendered without jurisdiction due to removal of the
action to federal court, inflicted severe and in many cases irrevocable harms upon plaintiff. A partial
list of these harms is attached as Exhibit "B."
9
10
11
5. Upon declaring that all orders/judgments rendered by California judges during removal
are void, provide plaintiff, under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202, the opportunity to obtain injunctive relief
and other federal remedies.
12
13
14
6. Order that all state and federal proceedings based upon the alleged voidness of the 1966
divorce judgment be reinstated in such manner as to protect plaintiff's interests. These interests now
exist in Chapter 11 proceedings.5
15
16
7. Immediately render an injunctive order halting all proceedings, trustee sales, payments to
others than plaintiff, in Chapter 11 (Oakland Bankruptcy Court, Nrs. 487-05974J and 05975J)
17
8. That the proceedings have priority on the court calendar, as provided by FRCivP 57.
18
9. That plaintiff recovers his costs.
19
Dated: February 1, 1991.
20
________________________________
21
Rodney F. Stich
22
23
DECLARATION
24
I declare that the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Declared
25
26
27
28
5
Oakland, numbers 487-05974J and 487-05975J.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
5
1
2
3
4
this first day of February, 1991, in the county of Contra Costa, State of California.
___________________________________
Rodney F. Stich
Plaintiff in pro per
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
6
1
2
3
RODNEY F. STICH
P.O. Box 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 415-820-7250
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
RODNEY F. STICH,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
IN
v.
)
)
Nr.__________________________________
Plaintiff,
)
)
POINTS
)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; CALIFORNIA COURT
OF APPEALS; JUDGES DENNIS
BUNTING; EMMA STICH;
FRIEDMAN, SLOAN, AND ROSS.
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________
)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
AND
AUTHORITIES
SUPPORT OF DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Table of Cases and Other Authorities................................................................. i
3
Introduction
.......................................................................... 1
4
Discussion
.......................................................................... 3
5
I.
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO
DECLARE RIGHTS AND PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS
BETWEEN PARTIES WHEN THE FEDERALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK.................... 3
II.
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS RENDERED WITHOUT
JURISDICTION, WHICH ARE VOID AS A
MATTER OF LAW, ARE BEING RECOGNIZED AS
VALID BY THE DEFENDANTS, CAUSING
PLAINTIFF TO SUFFER GREAT HARMS TO
HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS ...... 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
III. VOID ORDERS ARE FOREVER VOID, AS ARE
ORDERS SEEKING SUPPORT IN SUCH VOID
ORDERS
.......................................................................... 7
13
IV.
14
15
16
SHOCKING NUMBERS AND SEVERITY OF HARMS
INFLICTED BY CALIFORNIA JUDGES WHILE
CONCURRENTLY VIOLATING FEDERALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS ............................................................. 12
SUMMARY
........................................................................ 14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
i
1
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES
2
FEDERAL CASES:
3
Bailey v. Hinsley 308 F.2d 840 ........................................................................ 7
4
Buchold v. Ortiz, 401 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1968 ................................................. 12
5
Dykes v. Hoseman, 743 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1984) .......................................... 9
6
Forrester v. White (1988) 98 L.Ed. 2d 555 ...................................................... 9
7
G & M, Inc. v. Newbrun 488 F.2d 742 .............................................................
8
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800....................................................... 9
9
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701 (6th Cir. 1974) .............................................. 7
10
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 U.S. 433.......................................................... 9
11
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 U.S. 714.............................................................. 7
12
Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980) .............................................. 9
13
Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
514 F.2d 492 (1975) .......................................................................... 7
Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608 .............................................. 7
United States v. Holtzman 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................... 7
FEDERAL STATUTES:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1446
.......................................................................... 8
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447
.......................................................................... 8
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201
.......................................................................... 4
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202
.......................................................................... 4
FRCivP 57
.......................................................................... 4
OTHER LAW
Bache v. Wallace, 102 Minn. 169 [112 N.W. 366]............................................. 8
Barrett v. Southern Ry. (D SC 1975) 68 FRD 413 ........................................ 8
In re Rimmons, 62 Ala 416, .......................................................................... 8
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
ii
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 10010
Exhibit "A": Clerk's docket sheet showing removed state action
in federal court from June 17, 1986, through January
30, 1991.
Exhibit "B": Copy of California judgment purporting to be a
dissolution of marriage judgment, rendered during
removal of the state action to federal court.
Exhibit "C": List of law violated during removal.
Exhibit "D": List of harm inflicted upon plaintiff during removal.
Exhibit "E": Entry and confirmation of 1966 judgment as California judgment.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is an action to declare rights and legal obligations arising from state orders and
judgments rendered by judges lacking jurisdiction due to a Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 removal to
federal court. (E.D. Cal. Nr. 86-0715 MLS.) The state action was an attack upon the validity of
five prior divorce judgments,6 upon plaintiff's divorced status, upon property rights adjudicated and
established in the five judgments, and upon negative spousal support and obligations. These rights
were adjudicated in 1966.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The California law suit attacked the validity of the five prior judgments that had adjudicated
plaintiff's property rights and divorced status 23 years ago, on the legally preposterous and
prohibited argument that California judges will not recognize any of the five prior divorce judgments
due to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the 1966 court on (the universally recognized) residence
basis. The action argued, and California judges/justices held, that unless the 1966 court required
domicile determination to exercise personal jurisdiction (which had been held unconstitutional by the
U.S. Supreme Court7 for the past 45 years and barred by California statutory and case law),
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(List of divorce judgments showing divorced status and property rights final and conclusive as
of January 31, 1966. (1) Initial 1966 divorce judgment following a bilateral consent divorce
proceeding, rendered by jurisdiction of residence for five months, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, No.
189723, authenticated by U.S. Consul; (2) Registration and confirmation of the 1966 divorce
judgment in the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, action number 251773, under C.C.P. §
1699(b) and C.C. § 5164; (3) Registration of the Contra Costa divorce judgment confirmation in the
Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, action 91929; (4) Judicial entry of the Contra
Costa county confirmed judgment into the Nevada courts, Second Judicial District of Nevada,
County of Washoe, case number 85-5391 and into foreign judgment registry, number 31; (5)
Registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, Case number FD-86-5870; (6) Registration of the Contra Costa confirmed
judgment in the Civil Courts of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page 78, Foreign
Judgment Register.
7
(Constitutional requirements to recognize the prior divorce judgments and personal and
property rights). Violated Fourteenth Amendment due process, equal protection, property, liberty,
freedom rights; Privileges and Immunity Clause rights under Article IV, § 1, and under the 14th
Amendment (depriving right to obtain divorce on universally recognized residence basis, and right to
change residence); right to unabridged interstate travel, without losing rights and privileges acquired
in prior jurisdictions of residence; Article IV, § 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause, and Title 28
6
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
California judges refused to recognize the property rights and divorced status adjudicated by courts
foreign to California over residents of such foreign jurisdictions.
Within 30 days of rendering another order inflicting great and irreparable harm upon
plaintiff, and unable to obtain the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the State
of California and of the United States, and on the basis of record-setting civil right violations,
plaintiff removed the state action to federal court (E.D. Cal. Nr. CV-S-86-0715 MLS) on June
17, 1986. This removal immediately deprived the California judges of jurisdiction due to removal,
which continued until there was a certified remand (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)) by the district court
to the state court.
The district court rendered an order remanding the state action to the federal court, but the
remand was stayed by plaintiff's filing of an appeal. The Ninth Circuit turned down the appeal in
1989 (CA Nr. 86-2261), and remanded the case to the district court. But the district court refused to
remand the case to the state court.
During this removal period California judges rendered orders as if the removal had never
occurred, and as if they still had jurisdiction (assuming momentarily that they ever had jurisdiction,
which they did not have under the California Family Law Act). These orders converted plaintiff from
a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty; caused him to lose his home, his business, his quality of life,
creating an environment of chaos. Plaintiff is now in the final stages of destruction, being ordered
out of his home, deprived of his livelihood, and facing a bleak future. Many federal officials
contributed to this condition.
Plaintiff comes to the court, exercising the remedies guaranteed by the First and Fifth
Amendments, and statutory law, for:
A. Declaratory relief under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and FRCivP 57, declaring
24
25
26
27
28
U.S.C. § 1738, requiring 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.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
2
1
that all orders rendered by California courts in the removed action, during the
2
removal period, are void, and should be vacated.
3
B. All orders rendered by any federal court, including in the Chapter 11
4
proceedings,8 which are related in any way9 to the California orders, are to be vacated
5
and plaintiff returned to as near the exact position he held at the time that changes
6
were made.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
After declaring the orders void, permit plaintiff to present arguments under Title 28 U.S.C.
§ 2202 seeking injunctive and other relief from the effects of the unlawful orders.
DISCUSSION
I.FEDERAL COURTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO DECLARE
RIGHTS AND PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN
PARTIES WHEN THE FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
ARE UNDER ATTACK
There are no legal responsibilities arising from orders/judgments rendered without
jurisdiction. This absence of jurisdiction arose, inter alia, from the removal of the state action to
federal court for the past four years.
1.Declaratory Judgment Is A Federal Remedy When Rights and Legal
Responsibilities Are Violated By State Judges
The orders rendered by California judges in the action attacking the divorced status and
property rights established in five prior divorce judgments which under state and federal laws and
Constitutions, must be recognized. The orders rendered without jurisdiction, which are void orders
as a matter of law, have gravely damaged plaintiff's human rights, his personal and property rights,
and demand a meaningful response from the federal judges who swore to uphold the laws and
Constitution of the United States.
22
Federal law invokes mandatory federal court jurisdiction and relief to declare rights and legal
23
24
Oakland Bankruptcy Court, In re Rodney F. Stich (487-05974J) and Western Diablo
Enterprises (487-05975J).
9
Plaintiff sought refuge in Chapter 11 from the great harms inflicted upon him by orders
rendered in the California action after the action had been removed to federal court.
8
25
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
3
1
2
3
4
5
obligations. (Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201;10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57)11 After declaring the
state orders as void, provide further relief declaring rights and legal obligations under federal law.
This court is empowered to provide such relief. (Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202)12 Declaration of the
voidness of the orders and judgments rendered without jurisdiction would remove the primary basis
for the harms inflicted upon plaintiff by state judges acting in de facto conspiracy with the defendants.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Declaratory judgment remedy is alternative or cumulative and not exclusive or extraordinary.
Declaratory judgment may be granted "whether or not further relief is or could be prayed."
Declaratory judgment often involves only an issue of law on undisputed or relatively undisputed
facts, and this is especially true in the instant declaratory judgment action. The primary question is,
"Did state judges render orders or judgments during the time that the state action was removed to
federal court?" The answer is obvious by taking judicial notice of the orders and of the removal docket
sheet.
13
14
Declaratory judgment frequently operates as a summary proceeding, justifying docketing the
case for early hearing.
15
16
17
Declaratory judgment is proper to establish federally protected rights that have been violated
while the state judges lack jurisdiction due to removal. It is of interest that there now exists a July
28, 1988 California judgment, among others, that contradicts every relevant personal and property
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Creation of remedy. (a) In a case of actual controversy within its
jurisdiction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare
the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not
further relief is or could be such. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
11
Rule 57. Declaratory judgment. 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.
12
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.
10
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
matter established in the five divorce judgments showing the parties as divorced on January 31,
1966, and all personal and property matters final and conclusive. The July 28, 1988 judgment
purported to terminate an existing marriage (that five judgments show didn't exist for the past 22
years); purporting to be a dissolution of marriage action (when the California Family Law Act
provides no jurisdiction for such a cause of action under the California Family Law Act); that held
that all properties owned by plaintiff was community (when under California law the properties are
separate, were adjudicated to be separate 22 years earlier, and acquired years after the 1964
separation and 1966 divorce.
II.ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
RENDERED
WITHOUT
JURISDICTION, WHICH ARE VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW,
ARE
BEING
RECOGNIZED
AS
VALID
BY
THE
DEFENDANTS, CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO SUFFER GREAT
HARMS TO HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHTS
Disregarding the massive numbers state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards, and
absence of jurisdiction under California law, that barred the state action, this declaratory judgment
addresses the absence of jurisdiction and voidness of state orders rendered during the time that the
state action was removed to the district court in the Eastern District of California. (E.D. Cal. Nr. C
86-0715 MLS.) The California action was removed to federal court on June 17, 1986, where it
still remains nearly five years later, on January 1, 1991. (Attached certified copy of the district court
clerk's docket sheet of the removed action, Exhibit "A.") Until the district court clerk makes a
certified remand (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)),13 which he has not made, the removed action remains
in district court, and the California judges/justices rendering orders/judgments knowingly render
them knowing they are void as a matter of law, and knowing that they are concurrently inflicting
grave harms upon plaintiff. The same applies to any federal judge/justice who knows of the
violations of rights protected by federal laws, and are engaging in a complicity of silence or worse.
Included in the void orders knowingly rendered without jurisdiction due to removal are the following:
25
26
27
28
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by its clerk
to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereafter proceed with such case.
13
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A. December 15, 1987 Order appointing a receiver.
B. July 28, 1988 order seizing plaintiff's business, properties and assets.
C. May 14, 1990 order denying plaintiff's appeal of the July 28, 1988 judgment,
holding that it was frivolous to file the appeal, and ordering plaintiff to pay $90,000
financial sanctions in retaliation for exercising such remedies.
D. April 9, 1988 order by Judge Clinton Peterson ordering Stich to pay financial
sanctions for a purported frivolous motion.
E. December 1, 1986 order placing Stich into default and depriving him of even the
right to object.
F. May 2, 1987 motion to seize Stich's assets via receiver, filed by the law firm of
Friedman, Sloan and Ross.
G. May 29, 1987 order seizing plaintiff's 5-year-old grandson to keep the scheme
going.
H. May 16, 1987 bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest.
I. Dozens of lis pendens filed by law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in 1987.
J. December 4, 1987 order, ordering plaintiff into default, and barring plaintiff
from defending against the taking of his life's assets, business, and human rights.
K. December 4, 1986 attorney fees, rendered by Judge William Jensen.
L. December 1, 1986 spousal support order.
M. December 1, 1987 order to pay $ 155,000 attorney fees, by Judge William Jensen.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III.VOID ORDERS ARE FOREVER VOID, AS ARE ORDERS
SEEKING SUPPORT IN SUCH VOID ORDERS
The effect of illegally rendered orders is addressed in Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 514 F.2d 492 (1975) the Court held as follows:
[S]ince no mandate had yet been issued from this Court to the District Court, the various
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
orders ... and all other actions taken by the Trial Judge at these proceedings are a
complete nullity. Until we issue our mandate the District Court lacks jurisdiction
over these cases. See G & M, Inc. v. Newbrun, 488 F.2d 742. Also see, Bailey v.
Hinsley 308 F.2d 840.
A VOID JUDGMENT CAN BE DISREGARDED
A void judgment, or proceedings founded on void judgments, are void. 30A Am Jur
Judgments §§ 43, 44, 45.
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 ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are
themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments §§ 44, 45.
In Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) the court held:
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 party cannot
be precluded from raising the issue of voidness in a direct or collateral attack because
of the failure to object prior to, or at the time of, entry of the judgment. ... a court must
vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction.
In U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985), the court held:
16
Portion of judgment directing defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining
approval ... was not appropriately limited in duration and, thus, district court abused
its discretion by not vacating it as being prospectively inequitable." Id at 722.
17
The Supreme Court held in Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 (1963), violation of due protection
18
of the laws required reversal of contempt order. An order that exceeds the judge's jurisdiction is a
19
void order, or voidable, and can be either ignored, or attacked in any proceeding in any court where the
20
validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608;
21
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457,
22
21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917)
23
243 US 90, 37 S ct 343, 61 L ed 608. The district court had no authority to suspend for a
24
whistleblower seeking to report threats to our national aviation security, and which were repeatedly
25
causing and permitting air tragedies to occur.
ORDERS EXCEEDING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION, OR
SUSPENDING CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
7
1
ARE VOID ORDERS
2
In U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985), the court continued:
3
7
It has been held that the mere fact that the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of an
action does not justify an exercise of a power not authorized by law, or a grant of
relief to one of the parties the law declares shall not be granted ... Although every
exercise of power not possessed by a court will not necessarily render its action a
nullity, it is clear that every final act, in the form of a judgment or decree, granting
relief the law declares shall not be granted, is void, even when collaterally called in
question. [a federal court has] the power to enjoin otherwise lawful activity when
necessary and appropriate in the public interest to correct or dissipate the evil effects of
past unlawful conduct." Id at 724.
8
In Ritchie v. Seyers, cited in Michel v. Williams (Id. at 200), the court stated that a judgment
9
exceeding the court's jurisdiction, violating the law, was not a valid judgment:
[T]he question is, did it have jurisdiction to enter the particular decree and judgment that it
did enter? ... it is a well settled principle that, although a court may have jurisdiction
of a case, yet, if it appears from the record that it did not have jurisdiction to enter the
particular decree and judgment, it may be collaterally attacked.
4
5
6
10
11
12
UTTERLY VOID
13
In Bache v. Wallace, 102 Minn. 169 [112 N.W. 366], the court said: "Proceedings [or orders]
14
outside the authority of the court, or in violation or contravention of statutory prohibitions, whether
15
the court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of the action or proceedings, or not, are
16
utterly void. (In re Rimmons, 62 Ala 416, 417; In re Gibson, 31 Cal.619 [91 Am. Dee. 546];
17
Bartow v. Saunders, 16 Or. 51 [8 Ass. St. Rep. 261].
18
Where federal court had removal, a state court judgment was null and void. Barrett v.
19
Southern Ry. (D SC 1975) 68 FRD 413. A void judgment does not create any binding obliga-
20
tion. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940)
21
308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370.
22
LOSS OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
23
The loss of immunity from illegal acts by those otherwise protected by qualified
24
immunity──including state and federal judges──is addressed when they violate clear and settled law.
25
(See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988); Anderson v. Creighton, 97 L.Ed.2d 53
26
(1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) ("Government officials performing
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discretionary functions ... generally are shield from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct
does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.");
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. ("when the want of jurisdiction is known to the
judge, no excuse is permissible"); Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 95 (5th Cir.
1980) (Stump is consistent with the view that "a clearly inordinate exercise of
unconferred jurisdiction by a judge──one so crass as to establish that he embarked on
it either knowingly or recklessly──subjects him to personal liability").
In Dykes v. Hoseman, 743 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1984):
We also agree with the Rankin court that immunity for judicial acts in the clear absence of
jurisdiction is lost ... if the judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face
of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction.
Other cases addressing void judgments include Jordan v. Gilligan (CA6th, 1974) 500 F2d 701, 18
FR Serv2d 1280, cert denied 421 US 991, 95 S Ct 1996, 44 Led 2d 481; Wyman v. Newhouse
(CA2d, 1937) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460, cert denied (1938) 303 US 664, 58 S Ct 831, 82 L ed
1122; Bass v. Hoagland (CA5th, 1949) 172 F2d 205 (1949) 338 US 816; Graciette v. Star
Guidance, Inc. (SD NY 1975) 66 FRD 424, 19 FR Serv2d 1429, citing Treatise.
LACK OF JURISDICTION TO VIOLATE THE LAW
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. ("when the want of jurisdiction is known to the
judge, no excuse is permissible"); Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 95 (5th Cir.
1980) (Stump is consistent with the view that "a clearly inordinate exercise of
unconferred jurisdiction by a judge──one so crass as to establish that he embarked on
it either knowingly or recklessly──subjects him to personal liability").
If a command, writ, or any order is beyond the power of the court, or in excess of jurisdiction, the
order is void. A federal judge has no authority to punish for any contempt of its unauthorized
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
requirements. Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861. The injunctive order
illegally deprived appellants of rights and protections under federal law and constitutional protections.
A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment
roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which
should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16
Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. "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.)
VOIDNESS OF ORDERS FROM LACK OF JURISDICTION
8
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) the Court addressed the absence of
9
effect of illegal orders and their liability, holding that "government officials ... [are liable for civil
10
damages if for damages if] ... their conduct violate[s] established statutory or constitutional rights of
11
which a reasonable person would have known."
12
An illegal order is forever void. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or
13
voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes
14
into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95
15
US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v.
16
McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343,
17
61 L ed 608.
18
19
CALIFORNIA LAW RELATING TO ORDERS ILLEGALLY RENDERED
20
California law, as well as rights and protections under federal and Constitutional law, holds
21
that an order rendered in violation of law, or without jurisdiction, is a nullity. Forbes v. Hyde 31 C.
22
343; People v. Greene, 74 C.400; In re Estate of Pusey, 180 C.368, 181 P 648; Lang v. Lang,
23
182 C. 764, 190 P 181; Carter v. Carter, 148 CA2d 845, 307 P2d 630; Sato v. Hall 191 C. 510,
24
217 P 520; a void judgment is not rendered valid by a mere affirmance on appeal. Pioneer Land Co.
25
v. Maddux, 109 C.633, 42 P 295; Where the record shows that a judgment was rendered without
26
personal or subject matter jurisdiction it is void and subject to collateral attack. Armstrong v.
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Armstrong, 15 C.3d 942, 126 Cal.Rptr 805, 544 P2d 941; If a court grants relief it has no
authority to grant under any circumstances, its judgment to that extent is void. People v. Good, 223
CA2d 298, 35 Cal.Rptr 825; A personal judgment in an action in which no jurisdiction over the
person has been acquired is void and ineffective. Brown v. Campbell, 100 C.635, 35 P 433; 1st
Natl. Bank v. Eastman, 144 C. 487, 77 P. 1043.
Other cases addressing void judgments include Jordan v. Gilligan (CA6th, 1974) 500 F2d
701, 18 FR Serv 2d 1280, cert denied 421 US 991, 95 S Ct 1996, 44 L ed 2d 481; Wyman v.
Newhouse (CA2d, 1937) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460, cert denied (1938) 303 US 664, 58 S Ct
831, 82 L ed 1122; Bass v. Hoagland (CA5th, 1949) 172 F2d 205 (1949) 338 US 816; Graciette
v. Star Guidance, Inc. (SD NY 1975) 66 FRD 424, 19 FR Serv2d 1429, citing Treatise. A
void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court
judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370.
An order that exceeds the judge's jurisdiction is a void order, or voidable, and can be either
ignored, or 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.
IV.SHOCKING NUMBERS AND SEVERITY OF HARMS
INFLICTED
BY
CALIFORNIA
JUDGES
WHILE
CONCURRENTLY VIOLATING FEDERALLY PROTECTED
RIGHTS
Attached Exhibit "D" is a partial list of the harms inflicted upon plaintiff by the state judges
knowingly rendering orders/judgments while lacking jurisdiction (and knowingly violating
wholesale numbers of state and federal statutes, case laws, and constitutional protections). Briefly,
these harms include:
1. Stoppage of income since 1983. Plaintiff has subsisted since that time at a poverty level,
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
11
1
2
off the liquidation of his assets. This halting of income will continue for the remainder of plaintiff's
life, unless a federal judge exercises his responsibilities under law.
3
4
5
2. Business that plaintiff developed through 20 years of hard work has been destroyed.
Plaintiff's real estate investment business had come to a halt in 1983. The business is now
shattered, and in imminent total destruction.
6
7
8
9
3. Ten million dollars in assets are almost totally gone, and will never be regained, unless
federal judges exercise their lawful responsibilities. Unless the orders making the losses possible
are vacated upon the basis of their unlawful and unconstitutional nature, plaintiff will have been
converted by judicial outrages from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty.
10
11
4. Destruction of credit-worthiness built up over two decades are is now destroyed, and
will remain so for the remainder of plaintiff's life.
12
13
5. Quality of life has been destroyed, as his homes, his business, his privacy, his assets,
have been literally destroyed.
14
15
6. Constitutional privacy right has become a farce, and has been destroyed by California
judges, assisted by many co-conspirators.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7. Violations of wholesale numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards,
while arrogantly acting without jurisdiction due to removal, and while deliberately inflicting grave
harms upon a targeted citizen of the United States.
V.
SPECIFIC RELIEF NEEDED
Included in declaratory judgment relief are the following:
A. Declare all orders rendered by the California judges during the removal of the
state action to federal court to be void, as a matter of law.
B. That all state and federal actions relying upon such orders be vacated, and
plaintiff restored to the position that he held, as to his properties, and personal status,
on the date of the removal.
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C. That defendants return to plaintiff all moneys they received as a result of relying
upon the void money orders.
D. That all orders and proceedings occurring in the California courts, the Chapter 11
courts, in federal courts, arising in the California action purporting to be a
dissolution of marriage action, be vacated.
E. That the parties receiving such money return to plaintiff these amounts within 30
days, and pay interest at the rate of twenty percent from the date these funds were
received, to the date that the funds are tendered to plaintiff.
F. That a jury trial be held at which the issue of damages be litigated, to be paid by
defendants to the plaintiff, for all losses and harms incurred by plaintiff due to the
state and federal proceedings and orders occurring from June 17, 1986 to the present
date.
G. Halting all Chapter 11 proceedings in the Oakland Bankruptcy court (48705974J and 05975J), which were filed because of the effects of the unlawful and
unconstitutional acts in the California proceedings; that plaintiff's position be
reestablished to the date that he sought refuge in Chapter 11; and that financial
remedies be granted to plaintiff against those whose acts perpetrated the harms
suffered by plaintiff.
This declaratory judgment complaint does not address the rights and personal
responsibilities relating to the federal requirements to recognize the five prior judgments. This
declaratory judgment will be addressed in another proceeding.
VI.STATUTORY AND CONSTITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR THIS COURT TO ACT
This court has a responsibility under law to provide relief. These responsibilities arise
under, inter alia, the following:
A. Sworn duty to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States.
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
13
1
B. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343, to prevent the violations of any wrongs stated in Title
2
42 U.S.C. § 1985.
3
C. Felonies. The actions taken against plaintiff are part of a pattern of intrigue,
4
corruption, defrauding the United States.14 Any person is required by criminal
5
statutes to report such crimes to a federal court or other tribunal. Since Justice
6
Department officials are deeply implicated in these covert acts the responsibility lies
7
with federal courts, despite the fact that some federal judges/justices are implicated in
8
the overall pattern.
9
D. Massive violations of the Civil Rights Act; the RICO Act; criminal statutes,
10
including felony retaliation against plaintiff for exercising rights, responsibilities,
11
and protections, under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff is
12
prepared to leave to others his attempts to report federal crimes defrauding the United
13
States, if he can obtain declaratory relief from the harms and losses inflicted upon
14
him.
15
SUMMARY
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
There is a justiciable federal cause of action. State judges have deliberately rendered orders
inflicting grave harms upon plaintiff, knowing that they lacked jurisdiction on the basis of removal
(and upon wholesale violations of their own state laws and federally protected rights). This court has
a responsibility to declare void the orders rendered without jurisdiction due to removal. This court
has a responsibility under section 2202 to render orders returning plaintiff to the position he held
prior to the void orders. Defendant Chapter 11 courts have rendered orders based upon the void
California orders, knowing them to be void. Combined with other record-setting violations of state
and federal protections, the Chapter 11 defendants have destroyed a six million dollar equity estate,
under conditions far exceeding federal case law criteria for prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to
25
26
27
28
Described and documented in the Third Edition, The Real Unfriendly Skies──Saga of
Corruption, authored by plaintiff, and attached as Exhibit "E."
14
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
14
1
2
3
4
5
committ violations of federal civil right and criminal statutes. Obviously, this court has a greater
responsibility to intervene than the average citizen, many of whom have been sentenced to prison for
failure to report crimes that are a fraction of what are stated herein.
Dated: February 1, 1991.
_____________________________________
6
7
Plaintiff in pro se
Rodney F. Stich
8
9
10
11
12
DECLARATION
I, Rodney F. Stich, declare that these statements are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief. Executed this first day of February, 1991, in the county of Contra Costa, State of California.
__________________________________
Rodney F. Stich
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELIEF
15