It's not just for taxes anymore...

[Omne]

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A10-1556
In re the Marriage of: Kelly Ann Rondeau, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Dal Christian Rondeau, Appellant.

Filed May 3, 2011

Affirmed
Randall, Judge

Wabasha County District Court
File No. 79-FA-10-92

Kristine L. Dicke, Ryan & Grinde, Ltd., Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

Dal Christian Rondeau, Harris, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

FACTS
Appellant-husband Dal Rondeau and respondent-wife Kelly Rondeau were married on December 25, 1987. On December 2, 2009, husband was personally served with the summons, petition for dissolution of marriage, and verification.

On December 22, 2009, husband sent wife‘s attorney the summons, petition, and verification. The summons was marked with handwritten comments such as "Received 12/2/09," "Timely Response," and "your offer to contract is refused." The comments are dated "12/18/2009" and appear to be signed by husband with the words "Grantor/Beneficiary Authorized representative" following the signature. Husband also sent a copy of the parties‘ application for a marriage license and their marriage certificate. On both documents, the following typed words appear: "Accepted for Assessed Value and Returned in Exchange for Closure and Settlement of this Accounting." The words are dated December 18, 2009, followed by husband‘s apparent signature and the words "Grantor/Beneficiary Authorized representative."

On January 13, 2010, wife filed the petition for dissolution of marriage with the district court.

On January 22, 2010, husband sent wife‘s attorney additional documents including: a "Counterclaim in Admiralty," and a copy of the summons, petition for dissolution, affidavit of service, verification, certificate of representation, and confidential information form. The pleadings were all marked with the following language: "Received 1-19-10," "Timely Response," "Accepted for Value exempt from levy," husband‘s apparent signature dated January 21, 2010, and "Exemption ID No. . . .Deposit to United States treasury and charge the same to [husband.]" In the "Counterclaim in Admiralty," husband alleged that he entered into a private marriage contract with wife and wife‘s attorney is interfering with the contract. Husband alleged damages of $100 million.
_________________________________________________________________

He got semi rational after that and lost on all points anyway.

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/cu ... 6-0503.pdf

[notorial dissent]

Just another of the everything is contracts crowd. I'm surprised they didn't scribble something on it with a red crayon. You usually see this more in traffic cases, but I have seen some marriage issues where it comes up, often listing the children of the marriage as property of one spouse or the other. From what I've seen, the family courts generally take a very dim view of this.

[ashlynne39]

Seems clear why wife is divorcing husband. . . . he's a nutjob sovereign. Perhaps she should have figured this out before the marriage.

[grixit]

She should just tell him that she convened a common law court at Sizzler and petitioned for a sovereign divorce-- which was granted on a vote of 12 rib platters.

[VinnyZ]

Sorry......there are no Sizzlers in MN.

[Gregg]

I was thinking Arbys!

[Pottapaug1938]

I was thinking of the parking lot at the local Wal-Mart, with the common-law jury consisting of the first twelve adults that she could induce to participate, and with the "courthouse flag" being the "flag of peace" sticker on the back of one guy's truck.

[The Observer]

I was wondering if he ever got around to declaring her a "strawwoman."

[.]

Sizzlers

Arby's

All fast-food and low-end restaurants mourn the passing of Clarkson as their hope that he might hold a meeting of stupid but hungry TPs at their establishment has been dashed.

[Gregg]

Sizzlers

Arby's

All fast-food and low-end restaurants mourn the passing of Clarkson as their hope that he might hold a meeting of stupid but hungry TPs at their establishment has been dashed.

Is that why the flags at both Perkins and Denny's are at half staff? Hell, forget the rubes in for the show, from what I hear Clarkson showing up alone was a reason for any restaurant manager to get a twinkle in his eye. (well, except where they have an all you can eat buffet)

[wserra]

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/cu ... 6-0503.pdf

That opinion has been moved from the "current" directory to the archive:

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archi ... 6-0503.pdf

[notyour*itch]

Seems clear why wife is divorcing husband. . . . he's a nutjob sovereign. Perhaps she should have figured this out before the marriage.

Yes, it would seem it is quite clear to a lot of other people why I divorced him...it just wasn't clear to him.

We were young when I met and married him...he was always a drinker and pot smoker, but being young and naive I thought I could change him. Yes, yes, foolish me. He never changed, and he started getting into crack. For about 5 years I tried to get him to go to treatment and even took him for evaluations when he agreed that he couldn't do it on his own. But, according to him, I didn't try. He destroyed what was left in the house, sold it, or gave it away. We lost the house to foreclosure because I couldn't make enough money to pay for everything and he "worked on cars on the side," but it was just in exchange for drugs, and the money for the parts for these cars came out of my pocket.

The thing that you don't see in the opinion is that he put a whole lot of bullsh*t in the appeals court paperwork that he never brought up in district court. He had the nerve to say that I would get drunk and beat on him, and I used my gun in a "threatening manner." Funny thing is that I so rarely even have one drink and I never took my gun out and used it in a "threatening manner." In fact, he called me one night when I was at work (just before I left the home) and said that he noticed that I was taking my guns with me everywhere. That meant that he was looking for them and chances are that I was going to walk into a murder/suicide if I hadn't.

I would love to know; however, why this case even was of interest to anyone. Sorry, but I always question motives these days, especially since I am always concerned about him finding me and possibly trying to harm me.

[Omne]

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/cu ... 6-0503.pdf

That opinion has been moved from the "current" directory to the archive:

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archi ... 6-0503.pdf

Thanks for getting that, I didn't get a chance to swap it out.

[LPC]

Seems clear why wife is divorcing husband. . . . he's a nutjob sovereign. Perhaps she should have figured this out before the marriage.

Yes, it would seem it is quite clear to a lot of other people why I divorced him...it just wasn't clear to him.

Yes, that makes sense.

And welcome to Quatloos.

I would love to know; however, why this case even was of interest to anyone. Sorry, but I always question motives these days, especially since I am always concerned about him finding me and possibly trying to harm me.

I am quite sure that no one in this forum wants to harm you, and that no one will knowingly disclose anything that might help your ex-husband to find you.

And you needn't apologize for questioning motives. We do it here all the time.

The case is of interest to some of us only because your ex-husband used some pseudo-legal tactics that are common to tax nuts, "sovereign citizens," and other demented people trying to evade legal obligations. It has nothing to do with you, and nothing to do with why you're divorcing him. It's only about some legalistic gibberish that appears in the court opinion at the start of this thread. The speculation about the reasons for the divorce (and the reasons for the marriage) are incidental.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Yes, it would seem it is quite clear to a lot of other people why I divorced him...it just wasn't clear to him.
...
I would love to know; however, why this case even was of interest to anyone. Sorry, but I always question motives these days, especially since I am always concerned about him finding me and possibly trying to harm me.

As said before, welcome to Quatloos.

And try to realize there are sharp edges in this playground that don't get ground off or have padding put around them.

The interest for most of us is, IMHO, to understand the "how" the participant came to sublimate his or her rational, self-actualized being to a concept or a set of concepts that are intellectually as well as factually absurd.

Understand we have mentally-challenged people who come by and use gibberish to explain their positions and drive visits to their web sites, i.e., David Merrill Van Pelt. We also have scam promoters rant and rave and point to all manner of fraudulent representations when they encounter Quatloos exposing them.

But curiosity really boils down to where is the tipping point? Where is the nexus of absurdity that people like your ex-spouse gravitated to? Is it just them finding a charismatic charlatan or is there a magic-word secret message network out there who pass the keys from one person to another?

I don't recommend sharing on open forums such as this, but you'll find several old-timers actively engaged in trying to develop an understanding of the phenomenon. PM's with them should be considered confidential if the need to communicate arises.

[wserra]

I would love to know; however, why this case even was of interest to anyone. Sorry, but I always question motives these days, especially since I am always concerned about him finding me and possibly trying to harm me.

In your position, "questioning motives" is quite understandable. Still, here you need not, and you can verify this by looking around the forum. As Dan and JRB have written, the sovereign/UCC/TP BS that leads off your ex's response is one of the main interests of this board. A frequent subtext concerns how people get involved in the nonsense - crack use strikes me as a symptom of the same underlying pathology. Finally, another common subtext is how the families of the idiots are those who frequently suffer most. If you feel like contributing to the general tilting at windmills, we would welcome it.

And try to realize there are sharp edges in this playground that don't get ground off or have padding put around them.

Written by the guy who gives every man a fair trial before he hangs him.

[Demosthenes]

Welcome to Quatloos, Kelly, and congratulations for digging yourself out of such a crappy situation.

We track a variety of financial schemes here on Quatloos, in an effort to figure out what makes the schemers tick. Your ex-'s antics put him in our favorite category of all - he's a sovereign citizen spouting "redemption" theory crap.

http://www.redcrayons.net/splc_kane.pdf

[Omne]

I would love to know; however, why this case even was of interest to anyone.

Hi and welcome to the forum.

I can explain why I thought it was interesting enough to post an excerpt here. I always review the Minnesota Appeals Court cases and ran across this one. Normally divorce cases don't catch my attention but the sovereign gibberish struck me as unusual in a divorce case. I've seen it frequently in tax cases, real property cases and some employment cases but this was the first divorce case I've run across. I thought it might be of interest for that reason only, which is why I only posted the first section that included it. I posted the location of the original court opinion simply because it's polite to provide a source.

I deal professionally with protesters and have spent the last 20+ years trying to figure out what makes them tick. I appreciate your comments since they provide some background behavior that seems to be common for a lot of them, substance abuse ( usually alcohol though).

I definitely apologize if you felt alarmed or insecure because of it, that was far from my intent. Rest assured nobody on here, that I know of, will be looking any deeper than the public document on the State Court webpage.

[notyour*itch]

I thank you all very much for your reassurances. If anyone has any questions, go ahead and ask. I will answer most, if not all, questions to help you to understand someone like him.

I can say that he has always thought that almost everything was a conspiracy against him. From what his mother told me once, even when he was a little boy he felt that the world should live by his rules, not he by the world's rules. I tried for years to change things. It doesn't work.

I probably would be much better at answering specific questions.

[notyour*itch]

On December 22, 2009, husband sent wife‘s attorney the summons, petition, and verification. The summons was marked with handwritten comments such as "Received 12/2/09," "Timely Response," and "your offer to contract is refused." The comments are dated "12/18/2009" and appear to be signed by husband with the words "Grantor/Beneficiary Authorized representative" following the signature. Husband also sent a copy of the parties‘ application for a marriage license and their marriage certificate. On both documents, the following typed words appear: "Accepted for Assessed Value and Returned in Exchange for Closure and Settlement of this Accounting." The words are dated December 18, 2009, followed by husband‘s apparent signature and the words "Grantor/Beneficiary Authorized representative."

On January 13, 2010, wife filed the petition for dissolution of marriage with the district court.

On January 22, 2010, husband sent wife‘s attorney additional documents including: a "Counterclaim in Admiralty," and a copy of the summons, petition for dissolution, affidavit of service, verification, certificate of representation, and confidential information form. The pleadings were all marked with the following language: "Received 1-19-10," "Timely Response," "Accepted for Value exempt from levy," husband‘s apparent signature dated January 21, 2010, and "Exemption ID No. . . .Deposit to United States treasury and charge the same to [husband.]" In the "Counterclaim in Admiralty," husband alleged that he entered into a private marriage contract with wife and wife‘s attorney is interfering with the contract. Husband alleged damages of $100 million.

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I have never quite understood all of the legal language that he had in his reply. Perhaps someone could explain in plain language what it all was "supposed" to mean. Law really has never been my area, although I do understand bits and pieces. I gathered that Admiralty Law bit has something to do with property. It all did rather look like he was trying to establish ownership.

I hope someone can explain it without thinking me too stupid.