Culture of Corruption in
Government Aviation Safety offices

Rodney Stich, who had been in aviation since prior to the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, was a federal aviation safety agent when he was given the assignment to correct the conditions responsible for the worst series of airline disasters in the nation's history. In this assignment he discovered what many other inspectors had already discovered, and found that the culture and corruption was also in high offices that prevented anyone from correcting the problems, despite the ongoing and related airline disasters.

The responsibility, and the consequences of culture, were such that Stich used the law in such a way that he forced an administrative hearing (similar to a court trial) to occur, during which he acted similar to an independent prosecutor. During the four months of the hearings, he subpoenaed witnesses and obtained documents that provided additional evidence of the corruption and the links to several recent major airline disasters.

During the hearings, three additional airline disasters occurred, each due to the safety problems and corruption that Stich had previously reported, for which corrective measures were blocked.

Stich submitted a final closing brief warning of the deadly consequences if the administrative law judge (William Jennings, later to be "safety" director at the Airline Passengers Association), were to cover up. Jennings did cover up, and years of numerous airline disasters did occur due to the culture and safety problems Stich had reported. Refusing to work under such a corrupt and deadly environment, Stich left the FAA and went to work for Flying Tigers, setting up their flight operating procedures for the stretched DC-8 fleet that they had on order.

 

 

Exercising a Citizen's Responsibilities

Airline disasters continued to occur at a frequent rate, due to the corruption and the cover-ups. Since Stich had the evidence, he exercised the law in such a manner that he sought to make a record by reporting the criminal activities to a federal judge. The authority for this is in 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:

 

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.

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.

Federal Action Filed in New York
Reporting Corruption Enabling the 9/11 Hijackings

Lawsuit submitted on August 15, 2002, for filing in the U.S. district court for theSouthern 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.

Letter sent to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Southern District of New York (September 11, 2003), 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. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The letters:

(a) charged 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.

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. October 14, 2003. (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 3, 2004, responding to the false statements and deceptions stated in the Justice Department's brief. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Oral Argument Before NYC Court of Appeals

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:

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.

Included in the issues raised in Stich's appellate brief were:

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. (Adobe PDF)

Making Supreme Court Justices
Again Aware of Corrupt Activities

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:

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.

For those with a serious interest in how today's events, especially 9/11 occurred, a careful examination of the lawsuits filed against the FAA and NTSB in the period between 1974 and 1977, and the cover-ups by federal judges, it can be seen that the conditions enabling four groups of terrorists to hijack four airliners on September 11, 2001, were ripple effects of what occurred in those lawsuits. And it doesn't require the intelligence of a brain surgeon to understand the relationship!

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.

Parallel 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.

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. December 6, 2002. (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 flashback 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 Federal Crimes 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 and
DOJ Prosecutors Were Criminal Acts

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.

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.

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.

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

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 The Lawyers and Judges
Implicated in the Obstruction of Justice Tactics

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.

 

A September 17, 2007, paper presented to the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI) by one of its original founding members describing one segment of the unpublicized problems responsible for the conditions that enabled four groups of terrorists to hijack four airlines on September 11, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

But There Were Many Others Implicated

While the actions by lawyers and judges were definitely criminal, and more directly made 9/11 possible, there were others who played a role by refusing to act when informed of the corruption. That would be members of Congress, who have been covering up for the criminal activities that Stich and many other government agents had reported to them. Part of this congressional cover-up culture is at another link.

Remember, the hijackings of four airlines on 9/11 were simply one day's consequences, and the one day's ripple effects, from what was first exposed in 1974 in several federal lawsuits filed by a former federal agent seeking to circumvent the corruption and the cover-ups that are endemic of people who have changed the culture in government offices. These conditions still exist, and will continue to inflict tragedies upon the American people.

Corruption-Related Tragedies
That Could Be Photographed

All forms of human tragedies have been inflicted upon the people of the United States from the corruption discovered by the people behind this site−and made possible by enablers in and out of government. The below pictures are only a sampling of the consequences from the documented corruption that are able to be portrayed graphically:

United Airlines crash into New York City, the world's worst at that time. Withheld from the Amererica public were the reports by federal safety inspectors-investigators showing a continuing pattern of corruption, fraud, criminal alteration of major government required records−and the standard abuse of those few inspectors attempting to require the airline management to comply with industry standards and clear requirements of federal aviation safety requirements−and FAA management to require compliance. None of the guilty, the enablers, to these and the continuing fraud-related crashes ever were held accountable for the hundreds of deaths that they enabled to occur.

   

            

These few examples of the horrors associated with airline disasters enabled to occur by documented corruption withheld from the American people. The standard culture of cover-ups in the United States enabled the corruption, cover-ups, to mutate into different areas. In the aviation area, although the continuing series of airline disasters eventually came to a halt for other reasons, the culture continued, and enabled to occur a number of easily preventable airline disasters. The inbred culture created the conditions that enabled four groups of terrorists to easily hijack four airliners within a few hours of each other and kill nearly 3,000 people.

In criminal law, people are accomplices, and guilty, if they know of a criminal act and fail to report it to proper authorities and also to take efforts within their capability to halt their continuation. And there are endless numbers of accomplices that are complicit in these crimes and enablers of the consequences.

Again, the system kept from the blissfully unconcerned American people the underlying enablers. The documented culture enabling to occur dozens of fatal airline disasters spread to other areas of government. One of the areas that most American will suffer from for many years to come is the recent housing and financial frauds. Even these ongoing events have not shaken the average American from their lack of outrage and efforts to finally use the documented material that is capable of making massive changes in the culture of greed and corruption. But that takes courage, integrity, effort−the evidence of which is sadly lacking.

   

After 40 years of effort, this writer no longer expects the outrage and effort to occur to reduce the enormous extent of greed, corruption, cover-ups, and enablers. However, efforts are made to document and describe as accurately as possible what most Americans are helping to continue.

List of lawsuits filed over the years specifically addressing the corruption in government offices related to a series of fatal airline disasters.

Free book segments. For a listing of the books written by former government insiders on the continuing history of corrupt activities responsible for a continuing series of human tragedies, and to download at no charge segments of each of the books, click here.

These books are now the latest attempt by a coterie of lawyers and judges seeking to remove from public availability the books that expose their own complicity in the many areas of corrupt activities.

Email address for the author and activist against corruption in government: stich@unfriendlyskies.com.

For more information relating to the author and his activities put "Rodney Stich" into a search engine such as Google or yahoo.com. The links run into many tens of thousands.

If you wish to help us continue these efforts, and make available for free downloading segments of any of the books, please make donations via Paypal using your credit card or your Paypal account. If sufficient donations are received, the full segments of the books will be provided free for those who want the information.

Consider placing orders for any product from amazon.com through the following links. There is no extra cost or delay in doing this, while it provides us a small commission to help fund this site and our public-spirited efforts.

 

 

 

Download DVD videos from amazon to rent or to buy, onto your Windows XP operation system computer. For more information, click here.

To order a DVD video download, click on the following amazon link:

 

Hot cell phone and service deal from amazon.com, with 30-day return if not satisfied.

 

Return to:

www.defraudingamerica.com

www.druggingamerica.com

www.unfriendlyskies.com

www.defraudingamericablog.com