(1) The Congress recognized, during passage of the 1986 FERSA, that a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account that has a zero balance is not subject to court orders under the terms of the legislation that specifically directed that accounts that are at a zero balance, the courts have no jurisdiction. Comparing the facts with the legal requirements under regulations prescribed by the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) that makes it unlawful for the court to acquire jurisdiction for a "closed account" 5 CFR § 1653.2(b)(1). The question presented is as follows: Whether the state court's 09-14-2006 TSP final judgment divorce decree violated The Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335,100 Stat. 514 and 5 CFR § 1653.2(b)(1)?

(2) When the parties divorced in 2006 and their property was divided, petitioner was not an employee but a separated non-employee who had previously resigned at the age of 40 and there was no property to divide. Due to Petitioner resignation, he was ineligible for the FERS immediate annuity and FERS annuity supplement at the time of divorce and thereafter. Separately and unpredictably, Petitioner years later, was hired post-divorce in an entirely different job and different job classification with the BOP, while a resident of a different state. The family court ordered 12 years later, petitioner's future nonmarital separate property to indemnify respondent for the amount of that reduction from the previous 2006 divorce decree. The question presented is as follows: Whether the state court's 09-14-2006 final judgment divorce decree violated 5 U.S.C. § 8412's jurisdiction, and whether 5 U.S.C. § 8421 was also prohibited and unconstitutional under the supremacy clause at the time of the 09-14-2006 final judgment. (See The Retirement System Act of 1986)?

(3) Under the U.S. Constitution, due process, a trial court's final judgment takes effect from the day it is actually rendered by the trial court or after weeks or months when it is formally written, signed, and entered by the trial judge? Does the effects of an entry of a final judgment entered weeks or months thereafter, prejudice the petitioner? In other words, the proper credit of days doesn't vest until they are actually formally written, signed, and entered by the judge. The question presented is as follows: Does the court's "lapse of time" for petitioner's rights to receive proper credit of days from the date the decision was rendered violate petitioner's due process rights? The final judgment "start date" should be the date the final judgment was rendered, not the date signed by the judge.

(4) The State of California, County of Santa Barbara, Judge Timothy Staffel, Judge Jed Beebe, and Attorney Roger Hubbard is being sued for violations of the Federal Employees' Retirement Systems Act of 1986 ("FERSA"), Pub. L. No. 99-335,100 Stat. 514, § 1653.2(b)(1) for the lack of jurisdiction for a zero balance and a closed account under 5 CFR § 1653.2(b)(1). The question presented is as follows: Whether all defendants have immunity and or judicial immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

(5) Congress has provided that

Whether the state court's 09-14-2006 TSP final judgment divorce decree violated The Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514 and 5 CFR § 1653.2(b)(1)