911_lawsuit_information_frameset

<body> Lawsuits to Report Corruption Primarily Responsible For the Conditions Enabling the 9/11 Hijackings For those who have an interest and a need for far more insider information, the following statements relate to the novel use of legal remedies to circumvent the standard cover-ups of government officials, seeking to report corrupt and criminal activities that have for many years inflicted great harm upon major national issues, including aviation disasters. Stich and his group of other former government agents had repeatedly attempted to report tragedy-related major criminal and even subversive activities to members of Congress and to Justice Department personnel, and were blocked. Stich sought to circumvent these blocks by making reports to a federal judge via a court filing, thereby making a record of the charges. The criminal activities that Stich sought to report were initially those that he discovered as a federal aviation safety agent, holding safety responsibilities for the most senior program at the world's largest airline, and after he was given the assignment to correct the conditions causing and enabling the worst series of airline crashes in the nation's history. Exercising a Citizen's Mandatory Responsibility And Rights as a Responsible Citizen All Citizens Have Two Major Responsibilities When Aware of Corruption in Government Offices. One responsibility falls under the federal crime reporting statute: Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Another federal statute that gives any citizen the right to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A responsible citizen had a responsibility to report criminal activities using this statute: Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. In the first of such filings, Justice Department lawyers filed motions to block these reports, claiming Stich lacked standing to make them. This was preposterous, as everyone who knows of a federal crime has standing, and if he or she doesn't exercise it, that person has committed the crime of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4. Thousands of people have been sent to federal prison for this offense, including such offenses as failure to report one side of a telephone conversation related to drug smuggling. Federal judges then dismissed the filing, preventing the criminal activities from being reported, and continuing the harm to major national issues, including national security. As Stich discovered other areas of criminal activities, the action of obstruction of justice was compounded by even more judicial misconduct. These tactics, which are well documented in many court filings, included: Dismissing every filing, often shortly after they were filed and before any subsequent actions could be taken. Issuing unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently terminating Stich's rights to file papers in any district of appellate court. These orders concurrently terminated for Stich the defenses guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. Federal judges and Justice Department lawyers charged Stich with criminal contempt of court when Stich filed papers in the U.S. district court at Sacramento, California, seeking to report criminal activities in addition to those in the government's aviation safety offices. He was denied a jury trial and sentenced to six months in federal prison. This prison sentence was carried out shortly after undergoing major coronary bypass surgery and at the age of 67. While in federal prison, federal judges issues issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders seizing and liquidating the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of the corruption in government offices (including that of federal judges). These unlawful orders seizing Stich's assets were further compounded by issuing orders barring him from exercising federal defenses. When Stich exercised the right to object, the objection was unfiled, and Stich was charged with criminal contempt of court for exercising that right and again sentenced to federal prison. Supreme Court Justices were fully aware of these judicial violations of criminal and civil provisions, and repeatedly covered up for them, thereby becoming criminally implicated. These matters are detailed in the books that Stich had written, with input from former agents of the FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, FAA, CIA, and former drug smugglers working for government personnel, and former Mafia figures. Federal Action Filed in New York Reporting Criminal Activities Implicated in Conditions Resulting in 9/11 Hijackings Lawsuit submitted on August 15, 2002, for filing in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York by former federal agent Rodney Stich. The purpose of the lawsuit was to report and expose the corrupt activities that created the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners, and the misconduct adversely affecting major national issues, including national security. That lawsuit also addressed the massive civil rights violations that were part of the parallel efforts to block the reports of these crimes against the United States. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter dated September 11, 2003, sent to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Southern District of New York, where most of the 9/11 lawsuits have been filed, with copies to each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, lawyers representing plaintiffs and defendants, and others. The letters (a) charges that major deep-seated corruption and criminal activities in the government's aviation safety offices prevented the known preventative actions being taken against the hijackings occurring during the past 50 years; (b) government agents who attempted to expose these federal offenses; (c) federal judges repeatedly blocked these reports being made and compounded their obstruction of justice with felony retaliation against government agents for trying to report the criminal activities; (d) the continued cover-ups by every known government and non-government check and balance--just as in the past. The lawyers receiving copies of that letter included lawyers who years earlier had admitted to Stich in writing that the charges Stich were making were very serious, who then covered up for the offenses, and added to the long list of people whose cover-up made possible the conditions culminating in 3,000 deaths (besides the many other deadly consequences that did not receive the publicity as the events of 9/11. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Federal Judge Mukasey Illegally Blocked Filing for 12 Months Dismissal order by Chief Judge Mukasey, New York District Court, received by Stich before he even received notice that his Complaint had been filed. That order blocked a former federal agent from reporting federal crimes under the federal crime reporting statute, which was a federal crime under various federal criminal statutes, including those relating to obstruction of justice. The dismissal order was riddled with misstatements of facts and of law, and acted to protect the many federal judges who were implicated in the felony cover-ups, while also protecting the people in government involved in the corruption. This cover-up, as those in the past, insures that the corruption and the catastrophic consequences will continue. In clear violation of federal filing requirements, the chief judge blocked the required filing of that lawsuit for over 12 months. The lawsuit that should have been filed upon receipt was finally filed on on September 22, 2003. It wasn't until Stich sent letters to each of the Justices of the Supreme Court complaining about the latest action by federal judges blocking the reports of criminal activities that the lawsuit was finally filed. Simultaneous with the filing, Judge Mukasey filed a five-page order dismissing it. Stich then filed a notice of appeal. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Allegations in Complaint Must be Recognized as True Federal law requires that federal judges recognize the allegations stated in the complaint as true, in opposing dismissal. Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true.”) Obstruction of Justice by Court of Appeals Judges The court of appeals issued a scheduling order for filing appeal briefs for Stich and the U.S. attorney (the same U.S. attorney prosecuting Martha Stewart for so-called obstruction of justice). Stich submitted his Appellant brief on January 3, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That appeal brief was received by the court on January 7, 2004, but filing was blocked, as was done in the district court. Stich then wrote letters complaining of the refusal to file the brief. January 21, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) In response to those letters, the federal court of appeals finally filed the brief on January 29, 2004. To disguise the filing irregularity, the filing date was back-dated to January 7, 2004. (The postmark on the envelope sending the filed appeal brief to Stich had a January 29, 2004 date.) DOJ Lawyers Failed to File Their Appeal Brief The scheduling order required the U.S. attorney to file their brief by February 12, 2004. It wasn't filed. Stich then filed a motion for a court order forcing the U.S. attorney to file the overdue brief and for sanctions, March 8, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF), A declaration of filing irregularities was submitted by Stich, February 23, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) U.S. Attorney Finally Filed the Brief The U.S. attorney's office filed their brief on May 24, 2004, upholding the actions by the district court judge that blocked the reporting of criminal activities, some of which played key roles in the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners on 9/11, upholding the massive violations of federally protected rights that were part of parallel legal actions blocking Stich and h is group of other former government agents from reporting criminal activities that they initially discovered as part of their official government duties. Stich then filed Appellant's Reply Brief on June 8, 2004, responding to the false statements and deceptions stated in the Justice Department's brief. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Oral Argument Before Court of Appeals, New York City The appellate courts rarely provide for oral arguments after filing of the written briefs, and especially when a pro se appellant has filed the appeal. It is interesting that: Lawyers for almost every lawsuit related to the 9/11 attacks, with lawsuits in those same courts, were aware of Stich's filings and the serious allegations stated in that action. Media sources routinely examine lawsuits filed in federal courts, and especially in court of appeals, and they were aware of the serious allegations. Oral arguments were heard on August 24, 2004, before Judges Jose A. Cabranes; Chester J. Straub, and Richard C. Wesley. Stich presented a ten-minute oral argument highlighting matters of fact and law. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Included in the issues raised in Stich's appellate brief were: An order holding as void the numerous orders issued by federal district and appellate judges permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. The intent, and certainly the effect, of these unlawful and unconstitutional orders were to block Stich from attempting to report the criminal activities, and block Stich from exercising federal defenses against the judicial orders inflicting great personal and financial harm upon him. Ironically, the same federal judges entrusted to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States were criminally misusing their positions and the courts to obstruct justice, to inflict great personal and financial harm upon Stich, and then misusing their power to terminate the defenses guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. Even the Mafia doesn't have it that good! An order holding as void, the orders seizing Stich's $10 million in assets that were issued without the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legally recognized cause. These were the assets that funded Stich's extensive exposure activities of the criminal activities in government offices. Under the Supreme Court's void judgment doctrine, orders rendered without due process are forever void orders, and can be addressed at any time in any court. Other causes of actions were associated with the massive numbers of civil and constitutional violations inflicted upon Stich as part of parallel efforts to block him and his group of other former government agents from reporting the criminal activities in the three branches of government. These criminal activities are detailed in the various books authored by Stich with the input from many former and present government agents, former drug smugglers acting under orders of government personnel, and former Mafia figures. Federal remedies for these violations existed under the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, Declaratory Judgment statutes, RICO, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. For the Appellate court judges to receive the information and evidence of criminal activities, as required by the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Appellate court responsibilities. Mandatory Responsibilities of Federal Appellate Judges Under federal statutes, case law, and rules of court, appellate judges must examine the complaint filed by Stich de novo (from the beginning), and must accept the allegations stated in the complaint as true for opposing dismissal. If a single federal cause of action is stated in the complaint, the dismissal by the lower court judge must be reversed. Further, the federal crime reporting statute requires any federal judge to receive the information on a federal crime offered by any party, and surely former federal agents meet that definition! History of Appellate Judges Complicity In Judicial Corruption and Tragedies Two days after oral argument, the three-judge appellate panel entered their decision, upholding each of the violations of criminal and civil due process provisions by Judge Mukasey, continuing the long history of judicial cover-ups and judicial violations. In this way the appellate judges enabled to continue the criminal and subversive activities and the long line of catastrophic consequences. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Stich submitted (September 7, 2004) for filing a petition for rehearing en banc to the court of appeals in New York City. Such a petition requires that every judge in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals must be made aware of the petition and enter a decision as to whether it will be heard. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Four months later, on December 16, 2004, an order was filed showing that every judge on the Second Circuit court of appeals refused to hear the case. Making Supreme Court Justices Again Aware of the Criminal Activities in Their Area of Supervisory Responsibility On January 5, 2005, Stich submitted his petition for writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues stated in that submission were extremely sensitive. The filing of the petition was due to the judges in the Second Circuit court of appeals in New York City refusing to overturn the decision by U.S. district judges Mukasey. That decision supported the obstruction of justice by Judge Mukasey as the judge blocked Stich and his group of other former government agents from reporting criminal and subversive activities in government offices that they had discovered during their official duties. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The issues raised in that submission, under the petition for writ of certiorari and writ of mandate included: Latest in a series of repeated blocks by federal judges to receiving evidence of criminal activities which federal judges (and Supreme Court Justices) must receive, when offered by anyone having knowledge of a federal crime, as required by the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4--and their moral responsibilities. (Supreme Court Justices have been repeatedly made aware of this felony obstruction of justice since the early 1980s.) The unlawful and unconstitutional orders by federal judges--and the recognition of those void orders by the latest federal judges--that permanently barred Stich from filing any papers in the federal courts. The effect (and surely the intent) of these orders was to: Block Stich and a group of other former government agents from reporting the criminal and even subversive activities that they had initially discovered as part of their official government duties. To deny to Stich the federal defenses against the great personal and financial harm suffered from a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders that started with the filing of a sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan, and Ross in San Francisco. To protect the criminal involvement of prior federal judges, and the large number of lawyers who aided and abetted the schemes to silence Stich's exposure activities. Whether intentional or not, protected the criminal activities and the government personnel involved in them that Stich and his group of other government sought to report. Stich then sent on January 24, 2004, several dozen letters to each of the members of the Senate and House judiciary committees informing them of the corruption in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Despite the great harm for the United States if even a fraction of the charges stated in the letter and attached petition were true, not a one will make a meaningful response. For over 40 years Stich and other present and former government agents have reported criminal and subversive activities in government offices, often involving White House politicians, and in almost every case, that information was sequestered, making members of Congress complicit in the crimes and the consequences. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Never once during many years of offering to provide members of Congress testimony and evidence of criminal and even subversive activities was a meaningful response ever received. It is a combination of the refusal to act by those in control of various government checks and balances, and the complicity of most personnel in the media, and the public's lack of outrage and lack of reaction by most members of the public, that has enabled this combination of tragic effects to escalate for decades. Now will be no different! The petition was surely the last thing the Justices wanted to receive. It was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that the Justices denied Stich's petitions for writ of certiorari's that they refused to act upon, making possible the explosion of corruption in government offices and the series of otherwise preventable airline disasters. These justices were then implicated in the catastrophic consequences that followed their complicity of cover-up. In subsequent years, as Stich filed other similar petitions addressing the even more serious criminal activities and the corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional actions by federal judges to silence Stich, the Supreme Court repeatedly blocked the petitions from being filed. They used such excuses as the spacing between the lines in the petitions did not meet Supreme Court requirements (though unrecognizable by the naked eye), that the petitions were not timely received (when they were timely submitted), and other sham excuses. Filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court can be a costly and time-consuming procedure. The cover-up by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court can be expected to continue. Long Involvement and Complicity of Supreme Court Justices Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were continually informed of these judicial acts through legal filings and certified letters, starting in the late 1970s with the filing of lawsuits against the FAA and NTSB. In each case the justices refused to act, despite their supervisory responsibilities over the federal judges involved in the misconduct and their responsibilities to receive reports of criminal activities as defined in the federal crime reporting statute. The legal right to file these lawsuits arose from the federal crime reporting statute that requires anyone who knows of a possible federal crime to promptly report it to a federal court. Also, the statute that permits any citizen to seek a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful conduct. Initially, district court judges in the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco admitted the gravity of Stich's charges. But after Justice Department lawyers moved to dismiss the lawsuits, the judges refused to receive the evidence and ordered dismissal of the lawsuits. The federal crime reporting statute required that federal judges receive information offered by anyone relating to a federal offense as part of the judge's administrative duties. Refusing to receive the information was not in their judicial decision making authority and amount to obstruction of justice. Notices of appeal were then filed. During oral argument before Ninth Circuit court of appeal judges on the first of these appeals, the gravity of Stich's charges was acknowledged by the judges. One court of appeal judge stated that these were serious charges but they were matters for Congress to investigate. Although that was true, federal statutes clearly required federal judges to receive the information (not to investigate) and also receive information related to seeking a judicial order for a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful or corrupt acts. In one lawsuit to obtain a court order requiring the NTSB to admit material evidence into the hearing record involving a PSA crash into San Diego, the assistant U.S. attorney admitted to Stich during a phone conversation that he was recommending to his superiors in Washington that the Justice Department support Stich's lawsuit. However, the assistant U.S. attorney was unaware of the earlier Justice Department coverups. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. attorney filed a motion to dismiss, thereby blocking Stich from providing evidence of the conditions that continued to result in major airline disasters. In later years as Stich sought to report criminal activities that he had discovered, and had learned from other former government agents, and filed petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court, they fabricated excuses to prevent the filings. In one case, the Supreme Court clerk stated the spacing between the double-space lines were not proper. In another case, the clerk falsely stated the petition was not timely, when it was well within the time. Still other excuses were made. Additional Information on History of Legal Tactics Used to Block Exposing Criminal Activities Beginning in 1986, other former and present government agents started providing information and evidence of criminal activities in other government offices to Rodney Stich. As part of the requirement under federal crime statutes and his right as a citizen, Stich again sought to report these criminal activities to federal judges. The first judge to hear the lawsuit was U.S. district judge Milton Schwartz at Sacramento. He initially acknowledged the gravity of the charges, but that suddenly changed when a week later as he issued an order dismissing the lawsuit. Although admitting the serious of the charges and the consequences, Schwartz entered an order permanently barring Stich from federal court. That order was clearly unlawful and unconstitutional, and criminal on the basis that it blocked Stich from reporting federal crimes. It also terminated for Stich all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States--and barred him from reporting criminal activities to a federal court as required to be reported under the federal crime reporting statute. The order was obviously to silence him. This practice of judicial blocks continued and escalated thereafter. Further information on the judicial misconduct blocking the reporting of these corrupt activities can be found in other federal lawsuits. Last Attempt Prior to 9/11 To Report The Corruption That Made 9/11 Possible Prior to 9/11, the last attempt to report the criminal activities responsible for the conditions enabling the 9/11 hijackings to occur was a lawsuit filed in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada (April 24, 2000). That lawsuit sought to report multiple areas of corruption, including in the aviation and intelligence sectors of government. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) During the attempt to provide these reports, the events of 9/11 occurred. A declaration was filed in that lawsuit related to the blame for 9/11, emphasizing the need for the judge to receive reports of the criminal activities (that he had been blocking). (MS Word) (Adobe pdf) That declaration was ignored by federal judges at Sacramento and in the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. That lawsuit also sought relief from massive civil rights violations that were part of the scheme to halt Stich's exposure activities. That scheme consisted of a sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco. That and related lawsuits violated huge numbers of state and federal laws for which multiple federal remedies existed. For the CIA-front to succeed, California and federal judges repeated violated the protections in law. Possibly never in history were so many laws repeatedly violated and then followed by the violation of every relevant procedural due process defense. Parallel Post-9/11 Judicial Obstruction of Justice In Washington, D.C. Courts An attempt to report the corrupt activities related to the events of 9/11 occurred by filing a lawsuit in the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Again, the practice of federal judges blocking these reports occurred. U.S. district judge Henry H. Kennedy, jr. dismissed the lawsuit shortly after it was filed, without notice, which violated numerous criminal and civil due process statutes. In response to that dismissal, Stich filed a notice of appeal, and prepared for later filing a draft of issues to raise in his appeal brief. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Continuing the years of blocking reports of criminal activities and denying to Stich every due process rights, judges Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, and R. Raymond Randolph, refused to allow an appeal brief to be filed. They sought to support blocking the reports of criminal activities related to 9-11 and the denial of federal remedies to Stich on the basis of an unlawful and unconstitutional order issued in 1991 by judge Stanley Sporkin. That order, and nearly a dozen like it, permanently barred Stich from access to the federal courts. That unlawful and unconstitutional order by Sporkin (former CIA legal counsel) was upheld by the most powerful appellate court in the United States, despite its obvious action of blocking reports of criminal activities and corruptly terminating important civil and constitutional protections. The 1991 lawsuit that Sporkin blocked from proceeding addressed the the lawsuit in which Stich filed against members of Congress for their cover-ups of criminal activities. If the reports of corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, and in the intelligence community, had not been blocked by Sporkin and the appellate judges in 1991, it is probable that the conditions enabling four groups of hijackers to seize four airliners would have been addressed, as well as conditions also causing great harm upon national security and the lives of people affected by the corruption in other areas. 3,000 Deaths--and Flashback! The gravity of the misconduct by people in government who played major corrupt and arrogant roles in the conditions that enabled the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11 requires that extra efforts be taken to convey these problems to the people. This misconduct has been implicated in many prior tragedies, and the present cover-ups insures the continuation of the arrogance and the consequences. Visualize the form of deaths these people experienced, and then lashback to: The arrogant and corrupt actions of people in the government's aviation safety offices that blocked the preventative measures that would have prevented terrorists from hijacking four airliners. This misconduct is far beyond simple stupidity, and is well documented, and well described in Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America, written by former government agent Rodney Stich. The members of Congress who knew of the misconduct and the continuing series of preventable airline disasters and who either actively or passively coverer up. The Justice Department lawyers and federal judges who repeatedly blocked federal agents from reporting these tragedy-related federal offenses. And who corruptly misused government offices and government power to inflict great personal and financial harm upon former government agents seeking to report and halt these tragedies. And the many people who knew of these attempts to report and correct the misconduct and who did nothing. What will you do to help expose these matters? Prior Lawsuits in early 1990s in NYC and Washington Courts Making the judicial obstruction of justice even more serious, lawsuits were filed in the early 1990s in the New York and Washington, D.C. courts, reporting similar corruption and obstruction of justice. In every case, the lawsuits were dismissed, preventing the reporting of the criminal activities that were at that time responsible for serious national consequences, including deaths, and harm to national security. Authorityand Responsibility To Report Criminal Activities to a Federal Judge All Citizens Have Two Major Responsibilities When Aware of Corruption in Government Offices. One responsibility falls under the federal crime reporting statute: Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Another federal statute that gives any citizen the right to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A responsible citizen had a responsibility to report criminal activities using this statute: Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. Criminal Statutes Repeatedly Violated By Federal Judges and Justices Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony). "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both; This felony occurred several times as federal judges retaliated against Stich for reporting, as required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, criminal activities which he and his group of several dozen present and former government agents discovered, federal judges retaliated against him. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This criminal act occurred several times as federal judges retaliated against Stich for making the reports. Title 18 U.S.C § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation. (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This criminal statute occurred as federal judges refused to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of government insiders sought to report. Federal judges refused to receive the evidence, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and then rendered orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. In this way, Stich was unable to report the federal crimes (and also unable to use federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to– (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to– (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from– (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or (4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation preceding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (e) For the purposes of this section– (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege. Federal judges, and directly Sacramento district judge Milton Schwartz and San Francisco district judge Marilyn Patel, aided by other judges, retaliated against Stich when he exercised the mandatory responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, to report federal crimes "to a federal judge." In this manner they were guilty of criminal acts under several criminal statutes. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ..." Retaliation by Federal Judges andDOJ Prosecutors Were Criminal Acts with Deadly Consequences Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense Title 18 U.S.C. § 111. Impeding certain officers or employees. Whoever ... intimidates, or interferes with any person ... while engaged in ... the performance of his official duties shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... Title 18 U.S.C. § 35. Imparting or conveying false information (b) Whoever willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 11 of this tile--shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [Aircraft and motor vehicles chapter.] Title 18 U.S.C. § 34. Penalty when death results Whoever is convicted of any crime prohibited by this chapter, which has resulted in the death of any person, shall be subject also to the death penalty or to imprisonment for life ... Many deaths did occur, repeatedly, due to the violations of federal air safety and criminal statutes and regulations. Because of the fraud involved, the statute of limitations for anyone to sue United Airlines and the federal government has not yet started to run and won't start until the public has this information. Both parties can be sued even though prior lawsuits were settled, but settled without the knowledge of the fraud involved, which would justify huge punitive damages. Stich has the government documents that would justify the lawsuits. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... Title 18 U.S.C. § 1621. Perjury generally. Whoever (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal ... willfully and contrary to such oath states ... any material matter which he does not believe to be true, he shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... These criminal offenses repeatedly occurred in the various federal proceedings described in the books and various lawsuits. Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Federal judges repeatedly committed these criminal offenses by becoming accomplices as they blocked the reporting of the criminal activities, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and shielded those who perpetrated criminal acts in court proceedings. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Federal judges repeatedly became accessory after the fact as they protected the guilty through the cover-ups, obstruction of justice, retaliating against witnesses. Title 18 U.S.C. § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined ... or imprisoned. The United States has been and continues to be defrauded in many ways by the conduct of the federal judges (and others). Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Frauds and swindles. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, .... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined ... or imprisoned .... or both. These criminal violations occurred in the schemes to take Stich's assets to halt his expensive exposing of criminal and subversive activities of government officials. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Telephones were used in carrying out the schemes. Title 18 U.S.C. § 245. Federally protected activities. (b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with–(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons [whistleblowers against corruption in government] from–(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States. All of the judicial acts taken against Stich arose from his attempts to expose criminal activities implicating people in key government offices and criminal activities in covert operations. Title 18 U.S.C. § 246. Deprivation of relief benefits. Whoever directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation [whistleblower] ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against [civil] rights. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years. Record setting violations were inflicted upon Stich during the 17-year period in the California and federal courts, primarily by judges acting to insure the success of the CIA-front law firm. Title 18 U.S.C. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or ..., shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; These violations were directly perpetrated by the CIA-front law firm and California judges, and then indirectly aided and abetted by federal judges. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy. Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 U.S.C. § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; Federal judges were the main people who had the power to prevent the civil rights violations. Instead, they escalated them. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Creation of remedy. In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such. This remedy was denied to Stich by federal judges, compounding the denial of the Civil Rights Act remedy. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Further relief. Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment. This remedy was also denied to Stich by federal judges, compounding the denial of the Civil Rights Act remedy. Several methods were used to block Stich's reporting of the criminal activities, using a sham lawsuit filed by a CIA-front law firm and other tactics. Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person shall ... be deprived of ... liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Throughout the 20-year pattern of continuing judicial proceedings, record-setting substantive and procedural due process violations occurred in both the California and the federal courts. Stich's life's assets consisting of $10 million in real estate were taken from him while violating statutory and constitutional protections of a noticed hearing, a hearing, legally recognized cause, and then covered up by falsifying records. He repeatedly suffered retaliation from California judges when he exercised procedural due process rights. California judges continuously violated during a six-year span record numbers of state and federal statutes, rules of court, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections. California judges acted without personal and subject matter jurisdiction. In the federal courts, federal judges repeatedly refused to perform their duty under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act that was invoked by the unprecedented numbers of violations of federally protected rights. Federal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising federal due process remedies for these record-setting violations of federally protected rights. Federal judges, instead of upholding and enforcing the laws and Constitution of the United States, repeatedly violated them, encouraged others to escalate their violations of these protections. Federal judges combined their sabotage of federal civil liberties and civil rights protections with criminal acts, as stated in the lawsuit and in the books mentioned here. Federal judges misused their judicial positions and the courts as a corrupt arm of government, obstructing justice, inflicting great harm upon the rule of law, upon what integrity remained in the federal judiciary, and overall inflicted great harm upon the internal security of the United States. 14th Amendment. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. All of these rights and protections were repeatedly violated by California judges in the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm. Federal judges then aided and abetted these violations, rewarding those who perpetrated these violations. Treasonous Conduct The definition of treason includes criminal attempts to destroy the lawful existence of government offices; a breach of allegiance, such as the allegiance to support the laws and Constitution of the United States. Subversive Conduct Subversive conduct is conduct that undermines and overthrows established authority of the government. Undermining the foundation of government. The judicial conduct that subverts the laws and Constitution of the United States, that obstructs justice, that aids and abets criminal activities, meet this definition. Severity of Criminal Activities Provides for Longer Prison Sentences Federal sentencing guidelines require that anyone--and that includes federal judges and Justice Department lawyers--who in any way impedes the prosecution of criminal offenses shall have their length of imprisonment increased. The additional prison time depends entirely upon the severity of the criminal activities that their actions prevent from being reported or prosecuted. The refusal to receive the reports and evidence of criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute, the unlawful and unconstitutional judicial orders barring access to the federal courts and thereby block the reporting of these criminal activities, the judicial and Justice Department retaliation for the federal filing seeking to report the crimes, and the retaliatory taking of Stich's assets, are all a part of the widespread judicial obstruction of justice for which the law requires much longer prison sentences based upon the enormity of the criminal acts being protected. Many people sentenced to federal prison have committed offenses that had far less impact than the federal crimes perpetrated by federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, DOJ prosecutors, and those who assisted, such as ACLU lawyers. Heavy Involvement of ACLU Lawyers in Cover-Ups That Made Possible Catastrophic Events For forty years, starting when Stich contacted ACLU lawyers seeking assistance as a federal investigator to address the ongoing corruption related to a series of air disasters, ACLU lawyers repeatedly covered up for the criminal and related civil rights violations. This misconduct is shown by numerous letters to and from the ACLU. Lawsuits Threatened Those Implicated in the Criminal Activities and Cover-Ups There is a great danger to those in control of key government offices--the system--if citizens are allowed to circumvent the frequent cover-ups by people in the Department of Justice and are allowed to report the crimes to a federal court. This reporting, mandatory under the federal crime reporting statute, makes a record of the criminal activities--such as CIA involvement in drug trafficking to name only one of many criminal activities that could be reported. For that reason alone, it was important to destroy Stich's ability to succeed in that approach. Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. Consider making your purchases of any item sold by or through amazon.com by going through the following links. This adds nothing to the cost, and helps fund out continuing efforts to expose corruption in the three branches of government. RETURN TO TOP </body>