A PERSON’S CHARACTER DETERMINES THEIR FATE.
Twenty years ago, my husband was targeted, “pathologically stalked” and/or inappropriately “pursued” by a depraved, sociopathic behaving woman. She harassed, followed and threatened him for many years before she resorted to her blackmailing and “extortion” maneuvering. FYI — The bunny-boiling-agitator was married to another man during this timeframe.
His initial mistake was thinking he could negotiate with the escalating menace of the calculating sperm-stalker. Everything went downhill through the rabbit hole of insanity after he was “cozened” with false promises to secretly “gift” his then, 48-year-old sperm to an account set up by her at a local California Cyrobank.
He thought she would just go away after the veiled “property transaction”. Wrong. He was tricked. She subsequently declared that the genetic material was “no-good” for her reproductive processing plans, but yet, she refused to destroy it. And then, abhorrently, she demanded $60,000 as a ransom.
We found out years later she was simultaneously, trying to transfer the sperm to another bank and complaining to the staff about (fake) threats being made against her. They became sympathetic to her plight, when she said she didn’t want to destroy the sperm, which the donor had demanded the bank to do, because she might want future siblings. So much for the pernicious lies made to the donor that his sperm was not viable.
All of this subterfuge and stalking was equivalent to “domestic relationship terrorism”. Even worse was finding out that she was maliciously telling others that she was effectively the sperm donor’s “undocumented wife”.
Unfortunately, her “inappropriate conception” scheme and vile delusions got thwarted when I got wind of her evil shenanigans. Suddenly, she was faced with the uncomfortable fact that her 37 year old, biological clock or “shelf-life” would soon be expiring. Which lead to her becoming even more desperately sick and reckless in her terroristic, macro-ggressions.
She told the “inappropriately” interfering wife, that if she wanted a war, she would get one. Her gaslighting tactics came straight out of a some Alinsky-inspired, hoor playbook. There was no end to her campaign to insult, besmirch, and to damage the wife’s interests, or her sensibilities. The unscrupulous end game was to meant to inflict untold suffering or stress, or to destroy the wife’s “peace of mind”.
When that didn’t work as planned, she decided to file frivolous lawsuits smearing and defaming the donor and his nasty, bitch wife. Preposterously she claimed some “reverse” inappropriate behavior of harassment and stalking, that was not supported by any evidence. But you know its always about the “seriousness of the charge” to enrage the judge. Much to her chagrin, her unsupported allegations were challenged and dismissed.
This piece of schiff, ( POS ) wannabe sidepork even had the unmitigated gall to seek me out in a public place to confront me. Having no moral qualms, she audaciously screamed at me that (QUOTE) —“[she] was not going to let my jealousy interfere with her [meretricious] –association, —- or whatever was perceived in her disgruntled mind as some [unrecognizable] long-term-interactions, or albeit, illicit, alleged, “relations-POS” with my disloyal husband.
Aghast at her unnerving and insulting verbal assaults or her mindfucking, I decided to contact her MIA husband, (who lived in another county) to discuss her bizarre and sinister, semantic “insinuations”.
YOU CAN NOT MAKE UP THIS KIND OF MIND MELTING MUCK
Now, according to HURRICANE STALKINGER’s, Stockholm-Syndromed, conflicted husband, —who proudly asserted that he fully supported his beloved wife’s actions and/or “career moves”, —they were still married. He claimed he was a SWABIAN, and still, willingly paid for her lifestyle and adulterous mothering “choices”. He reluctantly admitted that she had started coming up with plausible excuses to distance herself from him soon after they were “conveniently” married. Then astoundingly he told me their apparently, “open marriage” was done in exchange for him paying off her college debt. ( Which he claimed was about $175,000 in value. ) WHAT a sad 😢 dope.
His attitude was beyond baffling. Even after I contacted him to expose his wife’s behaviors, he chose to stay in this emotionally abusive, gaslighting marriage for almost 14 years. It was unbelievable how he pathetically continued to defend his wife’s whoremongering, —as if, —it all was somehow his fault.
There could be no doubting that this pathological exploiter was dangerously obsessed with my husband. After all, everyone told me, she had been professionally stalking him for years. She was constantly plotting to place herself in his business orbit whenever possible, ever since she had met him. My husband finally told me that without his knowledge or consent, she had been unexpectedly showing up, uninvited, at his business related events, always stroking his ego and asking him to be her “mentor”.
By all accounts from many different sources, she had misrepresented her toxic stalking or her “associating” with my husband as some “LURVE AFFAIR TO REMEMBER”. She literally crossed mountains, continents and oceans to throw herself at him. There was nothing she was not above or below doing to get her targeted prize. Or “by any means necessary”. The whole, surreal, Kalfesque nightmare was like some pathetically sick or twisted, sad, greek tragedy.
THE FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD DOW
Once her frauds, deceits and crimes of moral turpitude were exposed she went ballistic. Her hair was on fire in her disdain and contempt for her enemies. She naturally, resorted to a vicious smear campaign to cover up her felony wrongdoings and material lies.
Like the wicked witch of the west, she and her “flying-monkey”-sycophants conspired to manufacture fake talking points or perjurious allegations.
Her legal contentions had no basis in law. Her meritless posturing was unsupported by any material or relevant facts.
There was no end to her unethical attorney’s misrepresentations of law and the dishonest parroting of her client’s misleading and false statements to further her hoaxes or legal charades upon four separate courts, as well as upon several governmental agencies, in two different countries.
Her disinformation scam was scandalous. Her deceitful propaganda was inspired by pure evil. She was a sociopathic bully, manipulating others to corrupt and subvert due process rights, and to violate other legal prerequisites.
All of the fraudulent documents filed by the sperm-stalker in her improper complaints demonstrated her unlawful, deceits and wrongdoing. Her crimes had “the appearance” of a conspiracy. Her dishonest pleadings lacked any shred of any justifying predication facts for any court to proceed. When there is the “wrongful, unclean hands, invoking” of a court’s limited jurisdiction, the law commands dismissal. There are no rights for any hearings, no matter how salacious or intriguing.
As a threshold, prerequisite matter, there was no “subject matter jurisdiction over the defective parties.” Thus there was no legal right for the unauthorized court to grant any reliefs, which are illegal or forbidden, as a matter of law.
In other words, there was no “good cause” for the State to intervene, or to act, because there was NO compelling state or relevant private interests proven first to be “at issue”.
Because the parties presented were prohibited parties the parties lacked “standing”. Moreover, because these issues were challenged at the commencement of the case, there could be “no controversy to adjudicate.”
Furthermore, the fabricated, inapplicable or “specious” contentions were not even “colorable” claims, in spite of the insufferable plaintiff ‘s hypocritical and hysterical howls of protest.
Each of her false equivalency legal positions created mandatory legal estoppels. TheRe was no proper notice or joinder of necessary parties for the cort to have fundamental jurisdiction. The biased, obviously obtuse or confused court acted beyond its authority. The preliminary decision showed how the court subsequently misunderstood or conflated distinguishable legal matters. That are otherwise completely separate or apart issues. No joinder notice means the court can not adjudicate anything. Or issue any binding orders, that are void for all purposes. PAST PRESENT or FUTURE.
The incompetent court did not want to see the forest, for all the flying rotten fruit thrown from poisonous trees.
NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE LUDICROUS ALLEGATIONS :
The merits of the pleadings were completely disproven. Which is supported by the courts own determinations of undisputed facts. Thus, “as a matter of law,” the court had a mandatory, legal duty to dismiss the case, after the very first hearing. ( See Cal. Family Codes, 3428, 3425, 3429, 7630(a), 7645 et seq.) The plaintiff had unclean hands and committed frauds upon the court.
Because the plaintiff had asked for specific custody reliefs, the jurisdiction prerequisite threshold was not satisfied. The facts precluded any further, UCCJEA restricted hearings. Because there was no standing, there was no further subject matter jurisdiction, “over the “defective parties” or a legal basis for the court to act, at all.
This fact renders all orders or all of the ensuing, illegal proceedings unconstitutional, and thus every order or ruling was null and legally invalid, and/or void, “on its face.”
The court can not confer subject matter “Jurisdiction” upon itself , merely by the presence of prohibited parties. (SEE IRMO JENSEN (2003) ; and IRMO Nurie (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 484, 490-492, 512.)
The applicable law only recognizes the mother’s ex-husband as already being the only, “legally- presumed- father”.
Because he was not ever properly joined or named as a litigant, as a required, necessary adverse party , nor was he ever given any required notice or service of process, —-the court could not hear the “inappropriate petitions” or the unauthorized hearings. Again, because of all the notice/ joinder violations, all of the rendered adjudications or proceedings violated due process and thus were unconstitutional and equally “VOID”.
THE COURT’S ABJECT LEGAL FAILURES
The so called “decisions” of the court were forbidden by law, non-binding in their nature, and were the product of frauds, bias and collusive acts.
The law clearly mandates that “no liberty interest” exists to untimely bastardize a marital child.
There are no “legal distinctions” between the circumstannces of the case with those that were at issue in the similar 1998 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT case, Dawn D. vs. Superior Court [ 17 Cal. App. 4th 932 ]. See also Neil S. v. Mary L. (2011) 199 CA 4th 240,249-255.); and W.S. v. S.T. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 132.
If one has no standing under the UPA, or if the qualifying facts do not apply to an alleged party, as specified in the restricted provisions of California Family Code, section 7611, or 7630(a)., …there can be no “controversy” or litigation issues for any hearings.
In other words, any potential, separate, bifurcation issue rebuttals of a husbands presumed parentage, that might arise under section 7612 is a separate jurisdiction case. The provisions can not apply to statutory prohibited parties.
Simply put, there can be no judicial interventions where there is no actual controversy. There was no legal justification or predicates proven first, to hear the case. The case constituted a prohibited or “an inappropriate action”. The case was a fraud upon the court. The malicious prosecution of a case wrongly perpetrated against my husband, who had no standing was a miscarriage of justice and a legal nullity.
It was chilling, and stunningly alarming the sheer backdoor corruption or rank judicial incompetence, malfeasance and collusive acts at issue. Somehow the malcontent players were able to illegally bootstrap themselves into unauthorized hearings to advance her frauds upon the court. Even through it is evident that her original pleadings were defeated. Her allegations were clearly unproven, under the burdens of proof.
This “shockinger” travesty of injustices is regrettably similar to what happened in the corrupted General Michael Flynn case. It is just another example of the reckless and callous abuses of court process by unscrupulous persons, aided and abetted by a biased court refusing to even obey the applicable rules of law.
These “Compromised” or corrupted judges are unwilling to do their mandatory, legal duties. All the confusion is by design, meant to impoverish the victim and to unjustly enrich the exploiting lawyers. Like sharks summoned to fake, chummed, bloody waters.
Another ignored or constantly overlooked fatal jurisdictional error in this legal disaster was that the record shows there were. “no required filings” submitted to the court. Which is a legal requirement, for verifying the papers. ( See CRC , RULE 5.24 ) Which must occur “before “ any preliminary hearings can even happen.
The incompetent court missed that stop 🛑 light too !!!!
At every turn in this legal train wreck there was a complete lack of any fundamental jurisdiction “over the parties”— for the court to render in a legal vacuum any preposterous or precipitous bogus “adjudications”. ( See the newest CAL. Supreme Court case, Bianka M. v. Superior Court, Issued 8/16/2018, case # S233757.)
THERE CAN BE ONLY “ONE “ PRESUMED LEGAL FATHER THAT IS SUBJECT TO A FAMILY COURT’S JURISDICTION. …
There can be only “one presumed father”. A sperm donor is not legally equivalent to a presumed parent, so the complaining party, mother, had no legal entitlement, or the “capacity to sue” a prohibited party, or a an alleged father, who otherwise is a legal stranger, or someone who has NO standing or no legal status.
Moreover, such a legal stranger lacks any standing under the UCCJEA or the UPA to displace the presumed legal father, who in this case is still the marital husband. The court only had limited authority or jurisdiction under Family code section 7666 to give an alleged, bio contributor “notice”.
If a mere “alleged father” wants no part of the case, or if he claims that he has “no interests” for the wrongfully invoked hearings, he has no standing. A court can not confer subject matter jurisdiction over an uninterested party. ( IRMO NURIE)
The record clearly showed that the alleged sperm donor challenged the underlying merits of the case, and asked “to be dismissed”. The court utterly failed to grasp this critical, fatally jurisdictional, distinction or the defective parties fact.
The mother’s own absurd and obstructionist requests to quash any discovery requests under privacy and marital immunity provisions during the initial case proceedings “eviscerated her legal claims”. ( See Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) at pp. 937-944 and Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1510-1514. ; H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502. ) She can’t claim two opposite positions. Or that there is no presumed father/husband at issue, and then scream marital privileges apply or privacy immunities apply to preclude any discovery affecting the very issues she untimely raised.
THE LAW IS CLEAR
A California court as a matter of law, has NO “declaratory discretion” to act or to intervene against estoppel preclusions. ( See Librers v. Black (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 114,124. ; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 974, 983 ; Neil S. v. Mary L. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 240, 249 [ lack of standing means no compelling state interests arise for further marital interests scrutiny.].)
The record shows clearly the “manifest injustices” or the judicial malfeasance where the court granted specific reliefs without having any legal powers or the jurisdiction to do so. The violations of due process where in direct violation of specific, statutory restrictions or governing, statutes of limitations. ( SEE new, Kent v. Kent (2019) 35 Cal. App. 5th 487, 496 ; IRMO Jackson (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 890. ; Bianka M. v. Superior Court (2018) CAL. SUPREME COURT case S233757. ) All the orders and proceedings were VOID . “ A void judgment is in legal effect, NO JUDGMENT.” ( Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1131, 1135.)
There is no doubt that the California court acting under the UCCJEA was fraudulently and “wrongfully invoked” by unjustified acts, or by unclean hands. The family court acted beyond its limited jurisdiction. It had had no “applicable” powers to grant any of the prohibited custody reliefs that were improperly requested by the dishonest reprobate, whose deceitful agenda was to illegally further her own government records and birth records frauds.
There was no legal basis or rational reason to entertain what was proven at the first hearing to be a fraudulent petition about an untimely and prohibited or an inappropriate action to effectively, “bastardize” an otherwise legitimate child, born into a valid marriage.
LACK OF STANDING IS A FATAL JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT
“Without standing, there is no actual controversy, and thus wrongfully invoked courts cannot entertain such cases.” ( see : In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 974, citing Clifford (1995) ; H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502. ; Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1510-1514.)
All of the allegations in the moving pleadings were unsubstantiated. Because the “ burdens of proof were not satisfied, the petitioner was not entitled to any further reliefs, or hearings, or to any “orders or adjudications” regarding restricted UCCJEA matters. ( West v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App.4th 302, 305 [ litigants can not avail themselves of restricted UCCJEA provisions ]).
Even more legally significant, in the unique circumstances presented, because there was “no proper service or notice” ever given to the only presumed father, who was the only allowed or a necessary party, the court also lacked any reasonable, “personal jurisdiction” over him under CRC Rule, 5.25(e). Thus CRC Rule 5.17 or under CCP section, 389 , the court could not render any (non-binding ) precipitous or prohibited orders, that were void on its face, orders. ( See CA. Family Code 3425, and Bianka M. v. Superior Court ; W.M. v. V.A. (12/13/2018) Cal. App.5th, # B287735.)
Yet this biased, obtuse California court was nevertheless, hell bent on getting an outcome that it wanted, regardless that its reckless acts and machinations constituted malice per se, and violated every substantive and due process right or law.
These structural errors were legal abuses ( or malfeasance) that resulted in a compounding miscarriage of justice. Such jurisdictional and unconstitutional, procedural defects violate due process and are reversible, per se. ( IRMO GODDARD (2005) Cal. Supreme Court, IRMO Jackson (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 980.)
If the court even wished to act on matters outside of the jurisdictionally defective pleadings, —it would need to first amend the pleadings and to mandatory joinder the proper or necessary parties before it could proceed to act on any alleged, separate, bifurcated issues. ( CCP 389 and CRC Rule 5.24(e); Bianka M. (2018) Cal. Supreme Court , S233757.)
The defectively named, sperm donor, “respondent”, had no recognized legal status, nor standing to be compelled to submit to the court’s limited authority. There was no rational reasoning, nor any applicable legal basis or theory to support any further hearings. The court improperly acted as a biased advocate, acting on issues not specified in the original pleadings. ( See new precedent case , In re G.B. ( issued 10/18/2018. [ 28 Cal. 5th , 475 ? ] .)
Parentage determinations can only be based upon the Legislative framework or the qualifications outlined strictly under the UPA (Uniform Parentage Act.) . Worthless determinations of non-binding, invalid “presumed parent status” can not based on subjective and improper, specious, or any best interest of the child considerations.
“Such an approach raises the repugnant specter of unwarranted governmental interference in matters implicating our most fundamental notions of privacy, and confuses concepts of parentage and custody. Logically, the determination of parentage must precede, and should not be dictated by, eventual custody decisions.” ( Johnson v. Calvert ( 1993) 5 Cal. 4th 84, fn. 10.)
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW PROVES LACK OF JURISDICTION:
Courts must always defer to the Uniform Parentage Act ( The UPA) to make any binding Parentage adjudications. —. ( Lisa I. v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 605, 620-622 , citing Dawn D. ) The UPA strictly restricts time limits and standing in parentage actions that seek to challenge the already established by law, “presumption” of the husband’s paternity. ( Lisa I. v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 605, 34 Cal. Rptr.3d 927, at pp. 930-931.)
The UPA is the only legal mechanism or means that may be used for “determining” any parentage facts, pursuant to the California Supreme Court ‘s binding case law. See Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal. App. 4th 932–through to the recent Bianka M. v. Superior Court (2018) S233757 [ if no joinder of presumed father, no standing or no Jurisdiction exists to make any adjudications.].)
Fundamentally, there can be only, one legal father. So if a legal stranger does not qualify for any recognizable “presumed parent status” in the first place, the court has no power to declare him to be a putative father, or to proceed against him, against law. ( H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502.)
Also see other binding California Supreme Court authorities : People v. Sorenson (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 280, 287- 289, fn 1, [ which clearly states that “Regardless of any decrees made in any divorce action, the duty to support a child born during a marriage falls on the mother and her husband equally, because the husband is automatically the only “lawful father”, regardless of a lack of a genetic connection.] ; see also In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal. 4th 1410, 1412-1426 [ “UPA parents cannot limit or abrogate a child’s right to support.” Paternity may be established by remaining married to the mother or by promising to support the child in writing.”].
The California Supreme Court cases, Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal. App. 4th 932 and In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal. App. 4th 588 clearly state that “biological facts are irrelevant factors” when one does not qualify for any standing purposes. This means that a man who is merely only an alleged biological father, is unable to be made a party to an improper action which wishes to challenge the other, presumed marital-father’s paternity status.
It is obvious that in our improperly litigated case, the incompetent court unlawfully granted “reliefs” that the court had “no power” or statutory authority to grant. ( See Carlson v. Eassa (1998) 54 Cal. App. 4th 684, 696; County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1225-1229 ; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 974 ; H.S. v. Superior Court ( 2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502; Neil S. v. Mary L. (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 240; In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal. App. 4th 588; Bianka M. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) S233757. ; County of Santa Clara v. Perry (2018) 18 Cal. App.4th 432.
Thus all of its orders were “void on its face”.
Every subsequent ruling or any new orders issued, seeking to unfairly validate the court’s prior, unlawful orders were “equally void”. ( Rochin v. Pat Johnson Mauufacturing Co. ( 1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1239-1240. [ res-judicata claims do not apply against void orders. All proceedings are worthless, last, present and future.].)
Furthermore, “Family law can not apply to unmarried persons who are legal strangers for all purposes”. ( Marvin v. Marvin (1979) 18 Cal. 3d 660.) The rogue court had sanctioned my husband without proper subject matter jurisdiction to do so.
Repeating unsubstantiated, dubious or false claims that are not proven, does not make them facts.
Each subsequent judge in this case was required by law to vacate the proven void orders, and to correct the scandalous and materially falsified, California birth records. But they refused to do so.
A married woman must give birth records officials the name of her real husband and her real maiden name for vital record validity purposes, if any child should be born during her valid marriage. To not do so is a felony act. The rights of Legitimacy belong to the child. A court can not just undermine or subvert the law to “declare a man” who otherwise does not qualify as a presumed father under the UPA, to be a parent. It is a void act against law. ( H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502, [A court must correct such unlawful, corrupted, fraudulent or statutory invalid birth records, as a matter of law. ].) See also Pavan v. Smith (6/26/2017) US Supreme Court ; Title 18 USC 371 ; CA. Penal Codes 112, 115, 118, et seq. )
Unfortunately regardless of the fact that we could not ever get the obtuse court to comprehend or to recognize its own legal frauds with its compelling legal duties to rectify its own void and preposterous and insane rulings, its orders are all void. And thus we have the ongoing legal right to collaterally attack the patently “ void orders”, at any time and in any court.
Void acts can not stand. Void acts are worthless for all purposes, past present or future. The passage of time does not validate such worthless legal nullities. ( GORHAM)
ESCAPING DANTE’S PURGATORY
We finally see a light at the end of this fabricated farce. We know certain inconvenient truths and multiple California SUPREME COURT directives will always eviscerate any of the warped claims made by the unrepentant, ghoulish crone, who still can not seem to get any closure from her rejection.
Much to her chagrin, we are living our happily ever after.
To demonstrate how utterly irredeemable this alleged, penniless stalker from HELL is, we recently found out she was asked about when she last had any “contact” with my husband, —who allegedly was harassing her. She absurdly answered, “well, … I heard his voice over the phone in an unrelated court proceeding”, —that she herself initiated to harass him. This woman can’t let go of her contempt for us and is feverishly engaged in a new defamation smear campaign against us to cover up her felony crimes and malicious wrongdoings.
HURRICANE STALKINGER is a danger to anyone who gets in her path. Ironically she deserves some retribution lightening, winds and the wrath of a Cat. 5 hurricane to descend upon her briny breezy lair where she and her emotionally enmeshed, malcontent joke of an agitator, aka activist, son allege they maintain their undercover, trailer trash operations to save the planet.
Which deceitful pandering is beyond laughable because the woman has not even paid her garbage collection fees for the last four years !!!! ROFLMHO And of course, now they are asking people to donate to their “undivided” cause, — I assume because the child support scam has been eliminated. 🌪🌪⛈⛈⛈⚡️⚡️💨😱😱 OH MY ! ! !