# Petition — Artarian v. Artar

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0115%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1980
- **Citation:** 449 U.S. 872

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0115%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.