Judicial Tactics Blocking Reports Of High Corruption Related To Catastrophic Events
During the period 1978 to 1982, former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report the culture and corruption within the government's aviation safety offices that enabled to occur a long list of airline disasters. Stich filed these actions in the U.S. District Court at San Francisco, which were then dismissed without receiving the evidence.
The statutory authority requiring criminal activities to be reported to a federal court (or other federal officer), and the mandatory responsibility of any federal judge to receive the information and evidence, arises under the mandatory crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and the right under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
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.
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.
Each of the filings were blocked by motions filed by Department of Justice lawyers, and then dismissed by federal judges. (Details of these lawsuits in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries and Defrauding America.
Court filings in the lawsuit against the FAA, in 1974 and 1975, revealing the corruption and related deaths over a period of years.
Stich then filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. That filing made the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court aware of the crimes against the United States and the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities.
Federal law requires that federal judges recognize the allegations stated in the complaint as true, in opposing dismissal. Every court filing had multiple allegations constituting federal causes of actions, in addition to reporting federal crimes.
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.”)
Last Attempt Prior to 9/11 to Report Corruption Related to OngoingCatastrophic Events
One of the bests descriptions of what followed can be found in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices repeatedly blocked every attempt to report the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4). These facts are detailed in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. April 24, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
After the 9/11 hijackings occurred, made possible by the corruption that were being reported to the federal judge, Stich filed a declaration that became part of the judicial record. January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Despite the gravity of the facts stated and the relationship to 3,000 deaths in just the latest consequences, and in only one of the areas affected by the corruption. Judge Reed blocked the action and dismissed it. That dismissal violated the crime reporting statute that required him to receive the information, which then violated other obstruction of justice statutes. Further, the dismissal violated the federal laws that required that he provide a federal court form, provide relief, and order a halt to the violations of federally protected rights.
Continuing the pattern of federal judges blocking the reporting of the criminal activities adversely affecting national security, Judge Reed dismissed that lawsuit.
Stich then filed a timely notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco--the same court of appeal judges that had been blocking the reporting of criminal activities for many prior years. Federal appellate judges refused to allow Stich to file an appeal brief, claiming that a 1984 order permanently terminated his legal and constitutional right to federal court access. This unlawful and unconstitutional order knowingly blocked Stich from reporting the criminal activities. May 15, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Dismissing Judges Named as Defendants, Immune From Consequences Of Their Criminal Acts
U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., Reno, Nevada, signed an order (July 26, 2000) dismissing all defendant federal judges from the lawsuit holding that the "judges are absolutely immune ... even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly."
Allegations Stated in the Complaint Must be Accepted As True
The allegations in the Amended Complaint, which under law must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceedings, revealed federal judges acting in a conspiracy to undermine the laws and Constitution of the United States, aiding and abetting criminal and subversive acts by blocking their reports, and engaging in other crimes. The complaint included such charges as federal judges:
Obstructed justice by blocking the reports of criminal activities in government offices, which judges must receive as part of the mandatory administrative duties. They were guilty of obstruction of justice felonies.
Acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as they rendered orders taking Stich's $10 million in assets−which had funded his investigative and exposure activities into high-level corruption in government.
Blocking the reporting of criminal activities in government which Stich--a former federal agent and his group of government agents−sought to report to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. These obstruction of justice tactics violated various criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 3, and 4.
Retaliated against Stich, a former federal agent and witness, for seeking to report the criminal activities in key government offices (as detailed in Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America). These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513.
Engaged in long continuing conspiracy that violated large numbers of federal laws and constitutional protections as part of a long-continuing scheme to block the reporting of these criminal activities.
And much more, revealing a literal judicial anarchy that has become the culture in the federal courts and is subverting the protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States, converting the courts into a corrupt arm of government, and which protects criminal activities in government. The sequence of these proceedings reveals a pattern of corruption in the federal courts that includes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and which is responsible for continuation of corrupt activities that have inflicted great harm upon the United States, the American people, and specific men and women.
Dismissed the defendant California judges despite their federal offenses under the Civil Rights Act, on the basis of the orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, that violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, violated federal statutes, violated Supreme Court holdings, and violated numerous constitutional protections. These deliberate violations inflicted grave personal and financial harm upon Stich.
Dismissed each of the attorneys and law firms that committed acts that constitute violations of Stich's civil and constitutional rights under color of state law and under color of federal law, which invoked federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act and under the Bivens doctrine. Federal law bars the dismissal of any defendant, or the lawsuit, if the allegations state one or more federal causes of actions for which federal relief is available.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing Stich's personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments, and the validity of those judgments, that had been taken by the defendant California and federal judges. This federal remedy is provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and falls within the mandatory duty of federal judges. Reed refused to address that issue, claiming that since he dismissed the defendant California judges there was no jurisdiction to address these matters. That legally bankrupt argument was contradicted by the fact that the naming of the judges who rendered the unlawful and unconstitutional orders taking personal and property rights established in seven judgments did not require naming the judges as defendants to have these rights declared. It was the taking of these previously adjudicated rights that served as the basis for 20 years of judicial attacks upon Stich and the basis for taking the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of government and judicial corruption.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing the void orders by federal judges that seized Stich's $10 million in assets that violated legal and constitutional requirements for a notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally required cause. Supreme Court decisions hold that such orders are void and remain void forever.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment declaring the series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders as void that barred Stich for the remain of his life from access to federal courts that voided for him all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. These injunctive orders blocked Stich from reporting to a federal court the corrupt and criminal activities that he and his group of former government agents had discovered, and voided for Stich the due process protections in federal laws and the Constitution against the judicially inflicted personal and financial harm arising from the unlawful and unconstitutional orders continuously rendered without interruption for 20 years.
Voided Stich's rights under the Civil Rights Act and the Bivens doctrine, among other law, to get financial damages against the defendant attorneys, law firms, and California and federal judges, whose documented series of unlawful and unconstitutional acts justified damages under these federal civil rights remedies.
Continued the judicial refusal to receive information and evidence of the corrupt and criminal activities that Stich and his group of other former federal agents had sought to report to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. This refusal to receive the evidence constitutes obstruction of justice under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.
Orders Stich to pay over $3300 to the State of California for naming California judges in the lawsuit. That order was a continuation of the judicial retaliation for exercising legal and constitutional due process against record-setting violations of federally protected rights. These are the judges who knowingly and repeatedly issued orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, who violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, who violated federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections, causing Stich to suffer horrendous personal and financial harm that will continue until Stich dies. California attorney general Bill Lockyer aided and abetted these judicial violations and in March 2001 demand that Stich pays the $3300 to the State of California.
During the proceedings which sought to expose the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, in the FBI, and elsewhere, terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, 2001. The conditions that made it easy for 19 terrorists to simultaneously hijack four airliners on 9/11 were corrupt activities in primarily the government's aviation safety offices and employees of the FBI-DOJ. Briefly described here.
Stich then filed a declaration, dated January 23, 2002, putting the judge on notice of the catastrophic consequences of what the defendants made possible, and which were further enabled by the judge's block to reporting the corrupt activities. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
After receiving that declaration, Judge Reed dismissed the attempts to report these matters, insuring that the same causative conditions would continue, along with the
consequences.
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/judicial_tactics_obstruct_justice.html
During the period 1978 to 1982, former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report the culture and corruption within the government's aviation safety offices that enabled to occur a long list of airline disasters. Stich filed these actions in the U.S. District Court at San Francisco, which were then dismissed without receiving the evidence.
The statutory authority requiring criminal activities to be reported to a federal court (or other federal officer), and the mandatory responsibility of any federal judge to receive the information and evidence, arises under the mandatory crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and the right under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
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.
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.
Each of the filings were blocked by motions filed by Department of Justice lawyers, and then dismissed by federal judges. (Details of these lawsuits in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries and Defrauding America.
Court filings in the lawsuit against the FAA, in 1974 and 1975, revealing the corruption and related deaths over a period of years.
Stich then filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. That filing made the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court aware of the crimes against the United States and the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities.
Federal law requires that federal judges recognize the allegations stated in the complaint as true, in opposing dismissal. Every court filing had multiple allegations constituting federal causes of actions, in addition to reporting federal crimes.
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.”)
Last Attempt Prior to 9/11 to Report Corruption Related to OngoingCatastrophic Events
One of the bests descriptions of what followed can be found in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices repeatedly blocked every attempt to report the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4). These facts are detailed in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. April 24, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
After the 9/11 hijackings occurred, made possible by the corruption that were being reported to the federal judge, Stich filed a declaration that became part of the judicial record. January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Despite the gravity of the facts stated and the relationship to 3,000 deaths in just the latest consequences, and in only one of the areas affected by the corruption. Judge Reed blocked the action and dismissed it. That dismissal violated the crime reporting statute that required him to receive the information, which then violated other obstruction of justice statutes. Further, the dismissal violated the federal laws that required that he provide a federal court form, provide relief, and order a halt to the violations of federally protected rights.
Continuing the pattern of federal judges blocking the reporting of the criminal activities adversely affecting national security, Judge Reed dismissed that lawsuit.
Stich then filed a timely notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco--the same court of appeal judges that had been blocking the reporting of criminal activities for many prior years. Federal appellate judges refused to allow Stich to file an appeal brief, claiming that a 1984 order permanently terminated his legal and constitutional right to federal court access. This unlawful and unconstitutional order knowingly blocked Stich from reporting the criminal activities. May 15, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Dismissing Judges Named as Defendants, Immune From Consequences Of Their Criminal Acts
U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., Reno, Nevada, signed an order (July 26, 2000) dismissing all defendant federal judges from the lawsuit holding that the "judges are absolutely immune ... even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly."
Allegations Stated in the Complaint Must be Accepted As True
The allegations in the Amended Complaint, which under law must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceedings, revealed federal judges acting in a conspiracy to undermine the laws and Constitution of the United States, aiding and abetting criminal and subversive acts by blocking their reports, and engaging in other crimes. The complaint included such charges as federal judges:
Obstructed justice by blocking the reports of criminal activities in government offices, which judges must receive as part of the mandatory administrative duties. They were guilty of obstruction of justice felonies.
Acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as they rendered orders taking Stich's $10 million in assets−which had funded his investigative and exposure activities into high-level corruption in government.
Blocking the reporting of criminal activities in government which Stich--a former federal agent and his group of government agents−sought to report to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. These obstruction of justice tactics violated various criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 3, and 4.
Retaliated against Stich, a former federal agent and witness, for seeking to report the criminal activities in key government offices (as detailed in Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America). These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513.
Engaged in long continuing conspiracy that violated large numbers of federal laws and constitutional protections as part of a long-continuing scheme to block the reporting of these criminal activities.
And much more, revealing a literal judicial anarchy that has become the culture in the federal courts and is subverting the protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States, converting the courts into a corrupt arm of government, and which protects criminal activities in government. The sequence of these proceedings reveals a pattern of corruption in the federal courts that includes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and which is responsible for continuation of corrupt activities that have inflicted great harm upon the United States, the American people, and specific men and women.
Dismissed the defendant California judges despite their federal offenses under the Civil Rights Act, on the basis of the orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, that violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, violated federal statutes, violated Supreme Court holdings, and violated numerous constitutional protections. These deliberate violations inflicted grave personal and financial harm upon Stich.
Dismissed each of the attorneys and law firms that committed acts that constitute violations of Stich's civil and constitutional rights under color of state law and under color of federal law, which invoked federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act and under the Bivens doctrine. Federal law bars the dismissal of any defendant, or the lawsuit, if the allegations state one or more federal causes of actions for which federal relief is available.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing Stich's personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments, and the validity of those judgments, that had been taken by the defendant California and federal judges. This federal remedy is provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and falls within the mandatory duty of federal judges. Reed refused to address that issue, claiming that since he dismissed the defendant California judges there was no jurisdiction to address these matters. That legally bankrupt argument was contradicted by the fact that the naming of the judges who rendered the unlawful and unconstitutional orders taking personal and property rights established in seven judgments did not require naming the judges as defendants to have these rights declared. It was the taking of these previously adjudicated rights that served as the basis for 20 years of judicial attacks upon Stich and the basis for taking the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of government and judicial corruption.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing the void orders by federal judges that seized Stich's $10 million in assets that violated legal and constitutional requirements for a notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally required cause. Supreme Court decisions hold that such orders are void and remain void forever.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment declaring the series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders as void that barred Stich for the remain of his life from access to federal courts that voided for him all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. These injunctive orders blocked Stich from reporting to a federal court the corrupt and criminal activities that he and his group of former government agents had discovered, and voided for Stich the due process protections in federal laws and the Constitution against the judicially inflicted personal and financial harm arising from the unlawful and unconstitutional orders continuously rendered without interruption for 20 years.
Voided Stich's rights under the Civil Rights Act and the Bivens doctrine, among other law, to get financial damages against the defendant attorneys, law firms, and California and federal judges, whose documented series of unlawful and unconstitutional acts justified damages under these federal civil rights remedies.
Continued the judicial refusal to receive information and evidence of the corrupt and criminal activities that Stich and his group of other former federal agents had sought to report to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. This refusal to receive the evidence constitutes obstruction of justice under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.
Orders Stich to pay over $3300 to the State of California for naming California judges in the lawsuit. That order was a continuation of the judicial retaliation for exercising legal and constitutional due process against record-setting violations of federally protected rights. These are the judges who knowingly and repeatedly issued orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, who violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, who violated federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections, causing Stich to suffer horrendous personal and financial harm that will continue until Stich dies. California attorney general Bill Lockyer aided and abetted these judicial violations and in March 2001 demand that Stich pays the $3300 to the State of California.
During the proceedings which sought to expose the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, in the FBI, and elsewhere, terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, 2001. The conditions that made it easy for 19 terrorists to simultaneously hijack four airliners on 9/11 were corrupt activities in primarily the government's aviation safety offices and employees of the FBI-DOJ. Briefly described here.
Stich then filed a declaration, dated January 23, 2002, putting the judge on notice of the catastrophic consequences of what the defendants made possible, and which were further enabled by the judge's block to reporting the corrupt activities. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
After receiving that declaration, Judge Reed dismissed the attempts to report these matters, insuring that the same causative conditions would continue, along with the
consequences.
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/judicial_tactics_obstruct_justice.html
