Reimbursement for your legal costs

Desiree:

By the way, a US court has no authority or power to compel me to 
reimburse you for any legal expenses (even though you're attempting to 
obtain such an order).  Do you know why?  Because in order for my 
previous perjury and false claim of US citizenship convictions to stand, 
the US District Court had to enter a finding that I am not a US citizen; 
and under the doctrine of res judicata, no court in the US can perform 
any action which would contradict the findings of another court when an 
order has been entered.  Therefore, as long as those two convictions are 
not vacated then no US government agency or court may exercise ANY 
authority over me unless I am physically present in the US.  The US has 
no authority over foreign nationals who are outside the US.  The fact 
that I *AM* a US citizen is irrelevant because of those two 
convictions.  Technically, I'm required to report my income from sources 
here in Canada, to the IRS - because I am actually a US citizen, but 
there's absolutely nothing the IRS can do about it as long as those 
convictions remain.

But getting back to the point at hand: The Arizona court *can* enter an 
order for me to reimburse you but there's absolutely nothing they can do 
to enforce such an order.

And you're probably wondering why I didn't bother to call in to the 
hearing on the 20th.  I considered it but:
1) I couldn't be bothered.  Having our marriage annulled benefits me in 
a number of ways, which I'll inform you of after it's done.
2) The issue of my name would likely have come up and the court would 
have asked my legal name and I would be under oath so I'd have to 
answer, then the court would probably enter an order to change the name 
on the case, which would result in there being a publicly accessible 
link between you and I, and I couldn't risk that.  It would be bad for 
my reputation for people to find out I was married to someone like you.
3) I never actually filed a response with the court, raising the 
question of jurisdiction, however you were kind enough to raise the 
issue in your response to my response.  So now that it is officially on 
the record (thanks to you), it provides grounds for an appeal.

So, by not appearing I avoided the name issue, and I also created a 
situation where the court would grant you a default order - which I 
could later appeal or move to vacate based on lack of jurisdiction. And 
as you recall I have mentioned previously, the appellate moves much more 
slowly then the Superior court.

Cheers,
Fox

P.S. The US District Court's finding of fact that I am not a US citizen 
was based solely on a birth certificate from Canada (you know the one), 
and a passport.  But there was nothing that actually established I was 
the person represented by those documents.  By simply remaining silent 
and not objecting to that "evidence" we allowed the jury to "assume" 
they were mine and I was the person named thereon.  There is no official 
record anywhere of me actually claiming to be that person.  Isn't the US 
legal system great?