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)

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 | | ili QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued presented is as follows: Whether all defendants have ; immunity and or judicial immunity under 42 US.C. § 1983? (5) Congress has provided that the federal employee retirement benefits shall be paid to another person only if expressly provided for in any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation. 5 U.S.C. § 8467(a)(1). The 09-14-2006 final judgment did not include the FERS annuity supplement because it did not exist at the time of the 09-14-2006 final judgment, because the petitioner had previously resigned, and was not an employee. The apportionment of the annuity supplement was not incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation. The question presented is as follows: Does the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) apportionment of Annuity Supplements absent an express court order incident to di| vorce requiring such apportionment inconsistent with | Sections 8421 and 8467. Does the court and OPM failure to follow Sections 8421 and 8467 constitutes an action that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in | violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)? | (6) Congress has provided a retiree the federal em} ployee retirement benefit, upon retirement. § 838.236 Court orders barring payment of annuities. The ques-tion presented is as follows: Whether the State court | can order a federal employee, to not retire and not touch their pension? |