Petition — Artarian v. Artar

No

In the Supreme Court

OF THE

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

ARTIN ARTARIAN, Petitioner,

VS.

KAREN M. ArTAR, Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

ARTIN ARTARIAN

Petitioner, Pro Se

P.O. Box 602

Olney, Maryland 20832

Phone (301) 948-7010

>

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether a litigant’s admission or rejection has any bearing

on the validity of foreign couniries judgments in the U.S.A.

regardless of the fact that, operation of such a decree would do

wrong to U.S. Citizens and cause injury to their Constitutional

Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Public Policy and Laws of

the State, morality and Rights to Property, without due process

of law and in view of U.S. Cases cited and specificially when,

Ex-parte Divorces, are well known to be unconstitutional; Eps-

tein v. Epstein 193 Md. 164, 170 Sherrer v. Sherrer 334 U.S.

343, 349.

2. Whether the Maryland State Courts were entitled to deny,

R(29), Petitioner’s Cross and Counter-Claims R(12), against

foreign Sovereign, where Denmark was the Initial Suitor;

Et Ve Balik Kurumu v. B.N.S. Int. Sales Corp.,

204 N.Y.S. 2d 971, 980, 981

and

Denmark waived immunity:

a. By not alleging Sovereign Immunity

directly; Subpoena R(15); or

b. By the silence of the U.S. State

Department.

Victory Transport Inc. v. Commissaria Gen.,

336 F.2d 354, 357, 360

3. Whether Petitioner’s Case should have been removed on

Jurisdictional Grounds as per U.S. Const. Art. III, sect. 2, in

addition to controversies exceeding the Jurisdictional amount

and diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.A. §1331, 1332,

where Maryland Courts of Equity had Jurisdiction over Peti-

tioner’s U.S. child removed from the Maryland State to foreign

Country, pursuant to Art. 16-§66 of Annotated Code of

Maryland, when the Judgment of the foreign country’s court

carried the custody of Petitioner’s child, removed from the ~

State, but prayed relief in equitable property?

to

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented ....... se ha sc hw ork 6 gacw Sa i

a Sh sa Saka 5% wise Co's ocd « Pee ON UPR ee |

a Re IN le ee. obi ads ee ees 08 1

ES i 2

Respondent’s Unclean Hands ...................0000. 7

The Merits of Petitioner’s Case Concisely Stated........ 8

Jurisdiction of Maryland State Courts of Equity

Over Child Removed From the State, to

I CSCC iis aie ven scecccsace di 9

Lower and Trial Court Proceedings .................. 11

Service of Pleadings, Proof of Service................ 12

Respondent’s Contempt of Court.................... 12

ac ls acc wav dwestecdeuececde 13

Reasons for Granting the Writ ..................0..c00e. 13

a re Oe, ha Sues mene os chee edieu ees 14

Appendices:

A. Opinion, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland...... A-l

B. Opinion, Court of Appeals of Maryland............ A-6

C. Summary Judgment, Maryland State Circuit Court... A-7

ED ad's podelciewsececcsbeteeche A-8

*F

Table of Authorities Cited

Cases Page

Wagenberg v. Wagenberg 214 Md. 154, 215 A2d 812......... 4

Bombala v. Bombala 33 N.E. 2d 845 ..............0 cee eee 2

Epstein v. Epstein 193 Md. 164, 170............... cee eeees 4

Hansen v. Hansen 8 N.Y.S. 2d 655, 656... ............0005. 3

Hilton v. Guyot 16 S.Ct. 139, 159 U.S. 113............... a

Martens v. Martens 20 N.Y.S. 2d 206....... ‘en Mik Bath abie'eh inte 3

Sherrer v. Sherrer 334 U.S. 343, 349... 0... .. cece cece eee ees 3

ND. V. POI FP WF 6 AUN PO os vac vccwccciwcvctccces 7

LE sh coc eei st cck vende ase cadavers 3

Civil Rights:

Application of Gault v. Gault 387 U.S. 1, 19, 20,21 ......... 9

Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 496, (1965)........... 9

Marshall v. Sawyer 301 F.2 639 (9th Cir. (1969) ............. 9

Meyer v. Nebraska Supra 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) .......... 9

Morrison v. Jones 6 FLR 2022 (9th Cir. (1979) .............. 9

Screws v. United States 325 U.S. 91, 138, 159 ............... 9

Skinner v. Oklahoma Supra 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) ........ 9

Stanley v. Illinois 405 U.S. 645, 651, 652 (1972) ............. 9

** Amendments

U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment . . 1

U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment .............. |

**Treaties

Private International Law, The Hague Convention

2A Wine tks Bane By SONA 1, ISTO. os ewe b cba i ves 3

(**) For additional Cases Cited, please see, petitioner’s Brief filed in the

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 3 copies of which are submitted

to the clerk of this Court, for review

-%

: Table of Authorities Cited Cases Continued

Page

eee Fee is ee wre 3

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ............... 3

Codes

ey aa), acs 5 ocu.8 0 08h bie odie Kearse

ee CR OU EOD, oy on pc diy'siccnwcesbeceseas we

**State Laws

Annotated Code of Maryland Art. 16, Sect. 3-6A

Pe a i he ee td. Bip.’ aia-e eed

Annotated code of Maryland Art. 16 § 66(1)(2)(3)........ 10

Jurisdiction of courts of Equity on Child Custody........ 9

Pe een te ED, VOR, OUD aici ks cic ccc cc py obecccs 11

U.S. Constitution

U.S. Const. Art. IV, Cl. 1, Full Faith and Credit............

Eee GOEL ee OP Re ew ONE. . Saks cee csenccocccees

ee IS ee a hese ecaeenwaes

Sovereign Immunity:

Et Ve Balik Kurumu v. B.N.S. Int. Sales Corp. (Turkish

Govt.) 204 N.Y.S. 2d 971, 980, 981 (1960). ............... i

Victory Transport, Inc. v. Comisaria Generai 336 F.2d

Pots CET TT es PUN MD on soak cc Whe ca cecuctcess i

OPINION BELOW

The Court of SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

rendered Decision on March 26, 1980, copy of which is attached

to this Petition as Appendix ‘‘A’’. The Decision was appealed

to THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND and was

denied on April 21, 1980. Copy of which is attached as Appen-

dix ‘‘B’’. Summary Judgment entered by the CIRCUIT

COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. dated July 18,

1979 is attached as Appendix ‘‘C’’.

Sworn AFFIDAVIT of Witness, Attorney Mr. Thomas L.

Beight of Maryland, relating to the UNCLEAN HANDS of

Respondent subject is appended to this petition as Appendix D.

Petitioner prays that, this Hon. Court will review the

judgments above in conjunction with AFFIDA VIT Appendix D

invoking the following Jurisdictional Grounds of the Court.

JURISDICTION

The statutory provisions conferring Jurisdiction of this

Honorable Court are:

42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1738

28 U.S.C. § 1257(3), 2241, 2242 and 2403

The other grounds upon which jurisdiction of this court is in-

voked, involve violations of constituitional amendments and ar-

ticles namely, the First, Fifth, Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments;

Article III, Sect. 2, Article IV, Cl. 1, full faith and credit; Arti-

cle VI, Cl. 2 — treaties — Supreme Law of Land.

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. When Petitioner’s ANSWER to Respondent’s Bill of

Complaint, filed on Grounds of a foreign Danish Divorce

Decree, carrying the Custody of Petitioner’s child, removed

from the State of Maryland, impeached the Foreign Decree and

introduced to the State Circuit Court a foreign Turkish Divorce

Decree, having filing Priority and International Jurisdiction of

the Case, assumed by Petitioner, The Circuit Court of Mont-

gomery County stood between two foreign Judgments, over

same Cause and Parties.

As a General Rule and as decided in the Case of Bombala v.

Bombala, 33 N.E. 2d 845 —

‘*A Judgment of a Foreign Court, which does

not have Jurisdiction of the subject matter is

void, notwithstanding Consent of Parties to

Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction.-’’

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738 and Art. IV, Cl. 1, FULL

FAITH AND CREDIT Clause of the U.S. Constitution,

Judgments of Foreign Countries Courts are NOT RECOGNIZ-

ED UPON COMITY, IN PRESENCE OF INTERNATIONAL

TREATIES, THAT ARE SUPREME LAW OF LAND, pur-

suant to U.S.C.A. CONST Art. 6, Cl. 2.

During the only Pretrial Hearing held on pending MOTIONS

the Trial Judge, acknowledged the above Constitutional Provi-

sions and instructed the Respondent’s Attorney, on March 8,

1979 as follows:

**T(15), LINE 17 and B(32):

THE COURT: Well, somewhere along the line You are

(**) Designations R (--) used in this Petition denote the State Circuit Court

Records, E Exhibits, B (--) Brief Submitted to the Clerk and T (--), Record of

Transcript made during PRETRIAL HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS,

R)1)—R(12), Dated March 8, 1979, the only hearing held in the Circuit Court.

3

going to have to address the issue of comity as

between foreign Powers and Jurisdiction, pro-

per Procedures under International Treaties or

Conventions to acquire Jurisdiction or fall back

to other decree, the Turkish decree.

The lower and Trial Court both denied to follow the above

self-imposed Jurisdictional Powers under International

Treaties, by setting off such Treaties enumerated and Questions

raised by petitioner through his several motions filed in the Trial

Court as well as in his Brief filed in the lower Court, concerning

3 international treaties.

In his Brief, on pages 14 through 30 Petitioner IMPEACHED

THE FOREIGN DANISH DECREE:

A. IN ABSENCE OF TREATIES

BY CITATION OF CASES: Hilton v. Guyot 16S Ct 139

Weil v. Weil - 26 N.Y.S. 2d 467, Hansen v. Hansen - 255

App. Div. 1016, 8 N.Y.S. 2d 655, Martens v. Martens - 20

N.Y.S. 2d 206;31 N.E. 2d 206.

B . UNDER PROVISIONS OF TREATIES AND

CONVENTIONS

BY CITATION OF JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS OF

THE DANISH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, B

(21), NORDIC CONVENTION B(24), PAST DANISH

CASE/LAWS B(27), HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION

B(29), SERVICE CONVENTION B(30), AND VIENNA

CONVENTION B(35).

The lower Court’s contention was that, Petitioner did not at-

tack the Turkish Decree and admission of which was enough to

enter a judgment and no further evidence was necessary.

4

The significant question here is whether a litigant’s admission

or rejection has any bearing on the validity **of foreign coun-

tries judgments in the U.S.A. regardless of the fact that, opera-

tion of such a decree would do wrong to U.S. Citizen and cause

injury to their Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, Human

Rights, Public Policy and Laws of the State, morality and

Rights to Property, without due process of law and in view of

U.S. Cases cited specifically when, Ex-parte Divorces, that were

obtained in Mass. Court, In Turkish and Danish Courts, are

well known to be unconstitutional; Epstein v. Epstein 193 Md.

164, 170, Sherrer v. Sherrer 334 U.S. 343, 349.

2. The lower Court Judgment (Appendix A) was in error

several times, when it stated,

‘*Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to

which Appellant filed no written response. At the Hearing

on the Motion appellant appearing pro se, argued his op-

pos.tion to the Motion.”’

A .THE APPARENT TRUTH IS THAT:

(1) NO SUCH A HEARING FOR THE MOTION ON

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TOOK PLACE.

(2) A TRANSCRIPT FOR A HEARING ON THE MO-

TION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOES NOT EXIST

AND THE TRIAL COURT RECORDS, DOCKET EN-

TRIES SHALL REVEAL THE TRUTH.

( ** Wagenberg v. Wagenberg 241 Md. 154, 215 A2d 812

2. Judgment § 818(1)

Jurisdiction of foreign court rendering judgment upon which suit

is brought in another state is open to judicial inquiry. U.S.C.A.

Const. art. 4, § 1;28 U.S.C.A. § 1738.

7

5

B . APPARENT REASON FOR LOWER COURT’S ERROR

(1) Was derived from typewritten form, Appendix C, for

order on Summary Judgment, Record No. 47, dated July

18, 1979 prepared by respondent’s attorney in such a man-

ner, that would give the reader the impression, that an oral

hearing on the Summary Judgment was held.

(2) Four different Trial Judges on and off the Case and

handling written proceedings, did not realize the truth.

. THE GROUNDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

ENTERED WAS NOT A HEARING ON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BUT:

(1) THE CONTENT OF RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY, JUDGMENT, R(40) DATED MAY 9,

1979, THAT WITH THE PRODUCTION OF A

FOREIGN DANISH HIGH COURT DOCUMENT, EX-

HIBIT NO. 530, ALLEGED the Danish Decree final

stating that, NO file on Petitioner’s Danish Appeal existed.

(2) In fact the court advised the Respondent for Produc-

tion of such a document through local Danish Consulate,

demanding translation of it, T(16) Line 16 thru 25, in ap-

parent prejudice to Petitioner.

. COURT’S ABOVE ADVICE VIOLATED ITS OWN

DOCTRINE FOR EXAMINATION OF JURISDICTION,

PROPER PROCEDURES UNDER INTERNATIONAL

TREATIES, converting the entire issue into production of

a Foreign Court Judgment, in apparent violation of 28

U.S.C.A. § 1738, and U.S. Const. Art. IV, Cl. 1 Art. VI,

Cl. 2 - Treaties - Supreme law of land.

°*

|

6

CONTRARY TO LOWER COURT’S STATEMENT

PETITIONER FILED A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

R-(41).

(1) IN FACT WITH HIS COUNTER MOTION, OPPOS-

ING TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT with, R(41) dated May 15,

1979 Petitioner showed the Trial Court that, the Danish judicial

document E 530, should not be given Credit:

F

(a) The Danish Judgment was not final, since Petitioner

filed an Appeal in the Danish High Court, Appeal was

Registered under V.L. 1745/1978, E 420 A (Danish Original

E 420).

(b) Following Danish High Court’s instruction Peti-

tioner filed a second Appeal, by permission of the Turkish

Embassy, Exhibit No. 437, pursuant to Art. 16 of Service

Convention. Both lower Courts set off the evidence and

entered Judgment against Petitioner without (rial,

WITHOUT a hearing on motion for Summary Judgment as

erroneously stated by both Courts, in violation of Amend.

14, Amend. 5, of the U.S. Constitution, resulting Civil

rights violations, rights to property.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Respondent’s attorney well aware of his misconduct during Court

proceedings, on Petitioner’s Appeal from Trial Court decision to the

lower Court, on Oct. 19, 1979 filed a MOTION TO DISMISS; a

copy of which he failed to serve Petitioner and wherein he stated:

“NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER APPOINTING

TRUSTEE EVEN THOUGH A COURT GIVES AN ER-

RONEOUS REASON FOR ITS ACTION.”

*F

7

RESPONDENT’S “UNCLEAN HANDS”

The Lower Court erred in its Judgment and the Trial Court failed to

respond to Petitioner’s allegations regarding Respondent subject’s

UNCLEAN HANDS.

(1) Witness, Attorney Thomas L. Beight, Esq., on March 8,

1979 during the hearing on pending pretrial motions with personal

appearance sworn in presence of the Trial Judge stated that the

AFFIDAVIT, marked as E 148, Appendix D, showing

UNCLEAN HANDS of Respondent subject, was written by him,

a copy of which he handed to Respondent’s attorney.

(2) On March 20, 1979, R(24), Petitioner submitted to the Trial

court, the said witness AFFIDAVIT and a copy of the libel suit fil-

ed against Respondent, in the State of Mass. for her UNCLEAN

HANDS, EXHIBIT “‘C’”’ and on grounds of Respondent’s

cruelties against Petitioner on several occasions.

(3) Answering to Petitioner’s AFFIDAVIT, Respondent on

March 27, 1979, R(26) filed a motion Ne Recipiatur.

(4) The Trial Court failed to rule on Respondent’s motion, that

means court’s acknowledgment of the Respondent’s UNCLEAN

HANDS.

(5) As a General Rule, and as cited in the Case of Turman v

Turman - 99 S.W. 2d 947 the Judgments of Foreign Countries

Courts are not recognized in the United States, if validity of same

would cause injury to U.S. Citizens. In Turman’s Case the Texas

Court stated:

19. Divorce - § 332

‘**Texas court was not required to recognize or

give validity to husband’s Mexican divorce judg-

ment carrying with it the custody of minor

children, where husband had fled Texas for Mex-

ico with minor children and nearly all movable

Further, as a General Rule, the Merits of the Case are concisely

described and nothing has been hidden no matter how damaging

facts have to be.

8

THE MERITS OF PETITIONER’S CASE STATED

IN CONCISE WORDS ARE DESCRIBED

AS BELOW:

(a) Respondent, Wife in Aug. 1973 fled the State of

Maryland for Denmark, with minor children.

(b) Respondent subject took with her nearly all

valuable, movable, equitable property.

(c) In 1973, she acquired in the State of Mass. a new

residential and second property, for the purpose of bona

fide domicile, AFFIDAVIT E 148, but still fled to Den-

mark, taking along, undeserved half of Petitioner’s Funds,

through sale of Mass. home sold under duress and heavy

loss, despite Respondent never having lived in said proper-

ty.

(d) In 1977, Denmark put Petitioner in jail, for kid-

napping his minor U.S. child, kidnapped from Maryland.

(e) In April 1980, all Maryland State Courts put Peti-

tioner’s last residential home up for sale by auction, selling

it for half its worth and putting petitioner and minor child

Tina in his Custody on the street, in violation of civil

rights, human rights and in violation of Art. 16 Sect.

3-6A-06 of Annotated Code of Maryland that states:

Sec. 3-6-A-06. Family home.

(4.) The authority conferred by this section shall be

exercised to permit the children of the family to

continue to live in the environment and community

which is familiar to them and to permit the con-

tinued occupancy of the family home and posses-

sion ...

(f) On April 29, 1980, address unknown Phillip

Rubin Threatened Petitioner in writing to evict him from

his home unless Petitioner followed his instructions. Peti-

tioner’s Mortgage Bank verified the threat, E 711, 712.

9

JURISDICTION OF MARYLAND STATE COURTS

OF EQUITY OVER CHILD, REMOVED FROM THE

STATE TO FOREIGN COUNTRY

(1) The lower Court erred in its judgment by refusing to

exercise Jurisdiction over petitioner’s U.S. child removed

from the State with statement below: Appendix A, last page)

‘**.. NOR WAS THE CHILD A RESIDENT OF OR

DOMICILED IN THE COUNTY ...”’

(2) The trial Court was also in error by denying to exercise

Jurisdiction over the U.S. child removed from the State to

Denmark, when it stated:

TRANECRIPT R(54) - T(6), lines 16-18

THE COURT: -the other courts, you can take care of the

custody matters in the other courts, but this

suit doesn’t involve custody.

JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY THE COURT BELOW AND

THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED ART. 16 § 66 of An-

notated Code of Maryland, Petitioner’s and older child

Tina’s Civil Rights, Familial Rights, under title 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1981, 1983, Basic Civil Rights of Man and Amendments

Ninth and Fourteenth, as decided by this Hon. Court, in the

following Civil Rights Cases:

Skinner v. Oklahmoa 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)

Meyer v. Nebraska supra 262 U.S. 390, 399

Griswold V. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 496 (1965)

Stanley vy. Illinois supra 405 U.S. 645, 651, 652 (1972)

Marshall v. Sawyer 301 F. 2d 639 (1969)

Morrison v. Jones 6 FLR 202 (1979)

Screws v. United States 325 U.S. 91, 138, 159

Application of Gault v. Gault 387 U.S. 1, 19, 20, 21.

+4

Jurisdiction of Maryland State Courts of Equity over

children removed from the State, is defined below:

7*>

a

10

Art. 16, § 66 ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND

(f) In all cases where one party to a marriage, existing or

pre-existing, removes or has removed a child or children of

the marriage from this State, the courts of equity of this State

shall exercise jurisdiction to determine custody or visitation

rights of the child or children so removed, if:

(1) Maryland was the matrimonial domicile of the parties

or the domicile where the marriage contract was last perform-

ed and

(2) Such court shall have obtained personal jurisdiction of

the party so removing the child or children: and

(3) One of the parties to said marriage shall have been at

the time of said removal, a resident of the State of Maryland

and shall continue to reside therein.

Pursuant to above Art. 16 § 66, subsection (f)(1)(2)(3) and

on following grounds, the State Courts of Maryland failed to

exercise Jurisdiction over Petitioner’s child removed from the

State:

In this Case at Bar

a. Maryland was the matrimonial domicile of the parties

b. The State Courts of Maryland obtained personal

Jurisdiction over Respondent, as Jnitial Suitor and the par-

ty removing the child from the State.

c. Respondent as party to said marriage was, at the time

of said removal, a resident of the State of Maryland, and

Petitioner as a party, continues to reside in the State of

Maryland.

Therefore Petitioner is entitled to pray this Hon Court take

up the matter of child custody on Jurisdictional grounds and

under provisions of Civil Rights Act and in addition to the true

facts that, Petitioner obtained same child’s custody; BY

ORDER OF

11

(1) The State Courts of Mass. Exhibit C, in files, that en-

joys FULL FAITH AND CREDIT under U.S. CONST. Art.

IV, Cl. 1, and Federal Statute 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, UNDER

THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

(2) The Courts of Sovereign Turkey, having International

Jurisdiction of the Case, under the rules of the Private Int.

Law, Service Convention, having filing priority and date of

final Judgments entered on Mar. 10, 1977, Exhibits 281,

189, 236 submitted in Vol. 3 and in clerk’s custody.

Petitioner’s children have Dual Nationality, U.S.A. and

Turkish valid under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1503 as cited under:

Peduzzi v. Brownell D.C. 113 F. Suppl. 419;

Acheson v. Naeneza 202 F.2d 453

Evidence to show respondent’s removal of U.S. child from

the State of Maryland and Montgomery County.

(1) AFFIDAVIT of Thomas L. Beight, Esq. Ap-

pendix D

(2) A fifty foot, 8mm, colored family movie

film, in clerk’s custody, showing family home dur-

ing construction, both children at play on

playground.

LOWER AND TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

SUMMARY JUDGMENT entered by the Trial Court in-

vokes rule 625 listed under Annotated Code of Maryland,

Vol.9B, that defines Revisory Power of the Court in case of

MISTAKE, FRAUD OR IRREGULARITY: Summary Judg-

ment (Appendix C) is obtained without DUE PROCESS and

without a HEARING: Trial Court Docket entries will verify the

same.

12

SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, PROOF OF SERVICE

Under rule 306 of same Maryland Code a typewritten proof of

service under a pleading, is an accepted procedure as a Cer-

tificate of Service.

Such methods of service and without a postal receipt of ser-

vice is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and caused severe injury to

petitioner, acting PRO SE.

On Nov. 6, 1979 Petitioner filed in lower court an Affidavit

for Lack of Service, in which he noted the fact that

Respondent’s attorney twice failed to serve copies of TWO im-

portant MOTIONS, where he was unable to take any action for

his defense.

RESPONDENT’S CONTEMPT OF COURT, FALSE

ADDRESS ON BILL OF COMPLAINT: RECEIPT AND

RETURN OF SUBPOENA BY IMPROPER PERSON

During trial court proceedings and in his answer to Bill of

complaint, R(5) p. 3 and R(8) p.1, Petitioner showed the trial

court and during oral argument in !ower court he stated that,

Respondent’s Bill of Complaint carried an untrue and false ad-

dress, that such an address confined Petitioner to jail term in

Denmark resulting in his criminal prosecution and deportation,

E 429.

Trial Court subpoena R(17) served upon Respondent subject,

in foreign jurisdiction, by registered mail with return receipt,

was returned to Trial Court files R(19) smudged, and was signed

by improper person.

Under provisions of the extradition treaty ratified between

Denmark and U.S.A. on July 18, 1974, 25 U.S.T. 1293: TIAS

7864(1974) and pursuant to Art. 3 (7)(12)(18)(23), the treaty

prohibits:

13

Obtaining of property by defrauding any Governmental

body, or any person by deceit, by use of mails, false statements

made before a court, incl. under UNITED STATES LAW

PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF INJURY WHICH

FALL:

Within Jurisdiction of Federal Statute under 18 U.S.C.A. §

1341 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 371.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED

PETITIONER SUBMITS A FIFTY FOOT 8mm, colored

MOVIE FILM, TO PROVE THAT, CONTRARY TO THE

ASSUMPTION OF THE COURT BELOW, PETITIONER’S

U.S. CHILD SYLVA WAS A RESIDENT OF MARYLAND,

AND LIVED IN THE SAME HOME SUBJECT TO THIS

CASE OF EQUITABLE PROPERTY. RESPONDENT

REMOVED THE CHILD AND FLED FOR DENMARK.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Petitioner being an innocent party, who devoted his life for

family and children was severely injured through the operation

of a foreign Country’s divorce decree, having NO jurisdiction

over cause and parties NO constitutional faith and credit, that

resulted in loss of homes in the State of Mass. and the family

home in the State of Maryland, in violation of Laws of

Maryland, further loss of his U.S. child removed from the

State, the courts of which sitting as courts of Equity denied to

14

exercise jurisdiction over the child removed from State and

County, in violation of Laws of Maryland, despite UNCLEAN

HANDS of foreign subject, proven with Trial Court records

and personal witness appearance.

Operation of foreign Danish decree violated further Constitu-

tional provisions and Federal Statues, evidenced with Inter-

national Treaties in force, between Governments of the United

States, Denmark and Turkey, summary of which is given on

previous pages as well as in Petitioner’s Brief filed in lower

Court, copies submitted to the clerk, for this court’s review.

CONCLUSION

Sale of last family home under above described cir-

cumstances, and following Summary Judgment entered by Trial

Court, without a trial and hearing on Summary Judgment, and

final Judgments entered by the court below inflicted painful in-

jury to Petitioner and his minor children, one at large in Den-

mark, the other in the U.S.A. In violation of State Laws of

Maryland, Treaties of the U.S.A, resulting inequitable relief.

For each and every one of the serious foregoing constitu-

tional issues, this Honorable Court should grant a hearing in

the lower court, preferably in federal courts due to the amount

of controversies exceeding the jurisdictional amount, Treaties

of U.S.A., Diversity of Citizenship, Civil Rights Act and

Federal Statues under consideration, where matters of child

custody should be taken up under the laws of the State of

Maryland, as presented.

Dated: July 21, 1980.

Respectfully submitted,

ARTIN ARTARIAN

PETITIONER PRO SE

P.O. Box 602, OLNEY, MARYLAND

20832

Appendices

Appendix A

In the Court of Special Appeals

of Maryland

September Term 1979

No. 1006

Karen Marie Artar, appellee, filed a Bill of Complaint in the

Circuit Court for Montgomery County for partition in lieu of

sale of certain real property which she and her husband

allegedly held as tenants in common. The complaint alleged

that appellee and appellant, Artin Artar (a/k/a Artarian) were

owners in fee simple as tenants in common of a certain piece of

real property located in Olney Acres, Montgomery County. Ti-

tle was originally acquired by the parties as tenants in the en-

tireties. It was further alleged that the parties were duly divorced

by the final decree of a Danish court. In accordance with the

allegation that the property was improved by a single family

residence and not capable of partition between the parties, the

appellee sought the appointment of a trustee to sell the property

in lieu of partition.

Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment to which ap-

pellant filed no written response. At the hearing on the motion

appellant, appearing pro se, argued his opposition to the mo-

tion. Following the hearing the trial court ordered that summary

judgment be entered in favor of appellee and that a trustee or

trustees be appointed to make a sale of the premises in lieu of

partition.

7%

A-2

On appeal, appellant raises a number of issues which pur-

portedly invalidate the Danish divorce decree which was filed

with appellee’s bill of complaint and motion for summary judg-

ment, and upon which the trial court, it is argued, relied in er-

roneously entering summary judgment in appellee’s favor. Ac-

cording to appellant, the Danish divorce should not have been

recognized by the trial court because it was not final and the

Danish court did not have jurisdiction to enter such a decree.

To a large extent the issues raised by appellant relative to the

Danish decree are irrelevant. The real concern here is whether

the parties were divorced, converting their interest in the pro-

perty from a tenancy by the entireties to a tenancy in common

which would be subject to a decree of partition under Md. Real

Prop. Code Ann. § 14-107 (1974). See DiTommasi v. DiTom-

masi, 27 Md. App. 241, 243, 340A. 2d 341 (1975), and cases

cited therein. The fact that the parties were divorced was

established by the appellant’s admission in his answer to the bill

of complaint, during his pro se argument on the motion for

summary judgment, and finally at oral argument on appeal. At

the beginning of his argument the chancellor asked appellant

whether he was married or divorced. He responded that he was

twice divorced and that he had filed another divorce case in

Massachusetts. The chancellor then asked if he was divorced

now, to which appellant answered:

*“*MR. ARTAR: Yes, I have two decrees

THE COURT: That is what I understand. You

therefore own this property as tenants

in common.’’

A-3

Appellant did not quarrel with the chancellor’s conclusion that

the property was owned as tenants in common. Apparently the

two decrees to which appellant alluded were the Danish decree

obtained by the wife and a Turkish decree which he had obtain-

ed. He made no attack on the Turkish decree but proceeded to

argue that the Danish decree was invalid. The chancellor seemed

mystified by this court of argument and again questioned ap-

pellant: :

*“‘THE COURT: I asked you if you were divorced and

you said you were.

MR. ARTAR: _ That is what they [appellee] claim. I

am not. They said [the Danish decree]

is [a] final decree. It is not, Your

Honor, because -

THE COURT: You got a decree yourself?

MR. ARTAR: _ Sure, that is when I am in this court.

That decree [the Turkish decree] says

the custody of both children is to be

given to me. ...”’

Appellant, proceeding as his own counsel, bound himself by

stating that he was divorced. We believe the same rules which

govern admissions by counsel should also apply to parties pro-

ceeding pro se. Thus, no further evidence was necessary on the

question. See Posko v. Climatic Control Corp., 198 Md. 578,

584, 84 A.2d 906. Additionally, appellant admitted in his

answer to the petition that the parties ‘‘were formerly husband

and wife’’ and alleged the validity of the Turkish decree. The

fact of the parties’ divorce was therefore not disputed and the

trial court properly entered summary judgment, ordering that

the property, since it was held as tenants in common, be sold in

lieu of partiition pursuant to Md. Real Prop. CodeAnn., §

14-107(a) (1974).

A-4

There are four other issues raised by appellant which can be

dealt with summarily. The first issue is whether the trial court

prejudiced appellant ‘‘by giving judicial advice to appellee’s at-

torney’’. The court, responding to appellee’s argument on the

motion for summary judgment, stated that he would take the

matter under advisement and that ‘‘You will hear from me in

writing.’’ The appellant obviously misunderstood the

chancellor’s remarks. The chancellor was not showing any

favoritism to appellee, rather he was advising both parties that

he would not rule on the motion immediately but would file a

memorandum at some later date which would be available to

both parties.

Appellant’s second issue is whether the trial court erred in de-

nying the appellant’s motion for removal of this case to the

federal court where another action, filed by appellant, was pen-

ding. The motion was properly denied because it was not timely

filed under Md. R. 323. Removal is a matter which should be

raised in a motion raising preliminary objection, and such a mo- |

tion must be filed before any other pleading. The record reveals

that appellant’s answer to the bill of complaint was filed well in

advance of the motion raising preliminary objection.

Appellant also claims that the lower court erred in granting

summary judgment in appellee’s favor despite the ‘‘unclean

hands’’ of appellee. This argument was not raised by appellant

in the lower court and we will not respond to it here. Md. R.

1085.

A-5

Finally appellant argues that the chancellor erred in refusing

to determine custody of a minor child of the parties presently

residing with appellee and not residing or domiciled in

Maryland. We perceive no error here since even if this relief was

properly sought under the pleadings, the court would not have

jurisdiction. In Seidlitz v. Seidlitz, 23 Md. app. 327, 327 A.2d

779 (1974), we said in part:

**The equity courts of Maryland have jurisdiction

over the custody, guardianship, maintenance, and

support of children, and a court may from time

to time modify its decree or order concerning a

child.

wee

Before it may exercise this authority, however,

the Maryland court must have jurisdiction over

the children.”’

Id. at 335. It is patent from an examination of the record that

the Circuit Court for Montgomery County had not previously

granted custody of the child involved here to appellee, nor was

the child a resident of or domiciled in the county. Thus the court

Lad no jurisdiction over the child and no authority to determine

any change in its custody. See Zamaludin v. Ishoof, __.._Md.

App. 409 A. 2d 1141 (1980).

Lowe JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED.

Couch

Weant, COSTS TO BE PAID BY

JJ. APPELLANT.

Filed: March 26, 1980

*y

A-6

Appendix B

September Term, 1980

Petition Docket No. 61

(No. 1006, September Term, 1979 Court of Special Appeals)

Artin Artarian

v.

Karen Marie Artar

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari to

the Court of Special Appeals in the above entitled case, it is

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the

petition be, and it is hereby, denied as there has been no show-

ing that review by certiorari is desirable and in the public in-

terest.

/s/Robert C. Murphy

Chief Judge

April 21, 1980

A-7

Appendix C

In the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, Maryland

Sitting as a Court of Equity

KAREN MARIE ARTAR: R(47)

Plaintiff:

VS.:

ARTIN ARTAR: Equity No. 64911

Defendant:

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on her Bill of

Complaint for Partition Between Tenants in Common having

come on for hearing, having been read by the Court, and

counsel having been heard, it is this 17th day of July, 1979,

ORDERED by the Court:

1. Summary Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plainuff,

Karen Marie Artar;

2. And that a Trustee or Trustees be appoint to make a sale

of said premises in lieu of partition thereof.

Stanley B. Frosh

Judge; Circuit Court for

Montgomery County,

Maryland

Sitting as a Court of Equity

Filed: July 18, 1979

7%

Appendix D

E148

AFFIDAVIT

I, Thomas L. Beight, Esquire being of sound mind, compe-

tent to testify and over the age of 21 do hereby swear to the best

of my personal knowledge and belief that Karen Artar did in

fact desert her husband, Artin Artar on or about August 6,

1973 at which time the parties owned and occupied a house

located at 18105 Cashell Road in Olney, Maryland, U.S.A. I

further testify to the best of my personal knowledge and belief

that Mr. Artin Artar accepted employment in Boston,

Massachusetts with the firm of Stone and Webster Engineering

Corporation and did in fact make plans to move his family to

Boston. Prior to accepting this position in Boston, Mr. Artar

had an excellent job with the Bechtel Corporation on Shady

Grove Road in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

I further swear to the best of my personal knowledge and

belief that Mrs. Karen Artar purported to agree to this change

and even went so far as to participate in the purchase of a new

home in Framingham, Massachusetts, while harboring the

secret desire to leave the United States without Artin Artar’s

permission and did in fact go to Denmark. I further testify to

the best of my personal knowledge and belief that Mrs. Artar

executed a power of attorney authorizing Roger W. Titus as her

lawful attorney to represent her in the sale of the 18105 Cashell

Road, Olney, Maryland home; that I did thereafter assist Mr.

Artar in obtaining Mrs. Artar’s signature in order to sell the

house in Framingham, Massachusetts.

Thomas L. Beight

STATE OF MARYLAND

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY)ss:

A-9

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of March, 1976

before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State and County

aforesaid, personally appeared Thomas L. Beight, and made

oath in due form of law that he is competent to testify hereto,

that he has personal knowledge of the matters and things con-

tained herein and that the same are true and correct.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | hereunto set my hand and seal

the day and year first above written.

/s/Jim V. Dabelein

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires:

7/1/78