U.S. Supreme Court Ceballos decision against whistleblowes.

<body> Supreme Court Ceballos Decision Covers-Ups For Corruption in Government Five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 128 S.Ct. 1951 (May 30, 2006) that approved retaliation against any government agent or employee whose official reports displeased management. Even if the report accurately reported corruption in government offices and the report was a required function of the reporting government employee. In effect, the landmark decision: Approved retaliation against a government employee for performing his duty. Approved management to retaliate against a government employee for performing his or her duty. Approved the implied falsification of government reports to avoid retaliation by management--who may be part of the corruption discovered by the reporting agent. The Justices knew that their decision would prevent government employees from reporting misconduct despite the legal requirement to include such facts in the report. Excerpts from that decision. The Garcetti v. Ceballos 5-4 decision, voided for courageous government employees the prior legal and constitutional protections against retaliation when the employee reports corrupt or criminal actions of other government personnel. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the employee who suffered the retaliation was simply preparing a report that was part of his official duty. He was an assistant district attorney who prepared a report that identified fraud in an affidavit used to request a search warrant by a sheriff deputy. Management didn't like the report (they wanted the corrupt acts covered up), which was accurate in its facts relating to a sheriff deputy placing false information into a sworn affidavit, and therefore retaliated against him. Management wanted him to either leave out the information and thereby falsify the official report and protect a government employee engaging in fraud. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, engaged in obfuscation, sidestepping the fact that h4e was making a required report, entering factual information that displeased the culture that protected corruption. It wasn't a matter of being a whistleblower; he merely quietly prepared and filed the report. What management wanted him to do is falsify the facts, and thereby protect a guilty employee. This corrupt practice exists all the time, and was one that I discovered in the government's aviation safety offices, which had the effect of being being cremated alive and dismembered alive in airline disasters that were made possible by the arrogance and corruption in these offices. The Supreme Court's majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, which made into law an earlier action by Kennedy while he was a U.S. court of appeals judge in the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco and after he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Details below. Grave Consequences and Implications The significance of that May 30, 2006, Supreme Court decision cannot be overemphasized. The five Supreme Court Justices approved retaliation against government agents/employees who write into their officially-required reports statements that are not desired by management. This requires, government agents/employees, in order to avoid retaliation, to doctor, corrupt, or falsify their reports to omit the truth. If the decision existed before 9/11, consider the following situations (and what will now occur, and what already existed due to retaliation against whistleblowers): FBI agent would not be reporting suspected terrorists going through pilot training in the United States. FBI agent would not be reporting suspicions that Zacarias Moussaoui was taking simulator training to be an airline hijacker. FAA inspectors would not bee reporting the urgent need to implement the known procedures to prevent hijackings. Government agents would not be reporting the drug smuggling of other CIA agents. The FBI agents in the Boston office did not report their suspicions that several FBI agents were members of a Boston crime group with Ray Bulger. The FBI agents in the New York City offices did not report their suspicions that FBI Supervisory Agent Lindley DeVecchio was working with Colombo Mafia boss Gregory Scarpa and involved with multiple murders, bank robberies, and other crimes. Examples of agents who could or were harmed by the de facto application of this Supreme Court decision: FAA air safety agent who reported corrupt, criminal, unsafe, and illegal practices that enabled to occur a series of fatal airline disasters, some of which occurred in his immediate area of government air safety responsibilities. Included in the reports for which FAA safety agent Rodney Stich (and others) suffered retaliation was the need to implement the inexpensive and easy measures to prevent the 40 years of hijackings that followed his reports. The cover-ups of those serious problems--and the retaliation against reporting inspectors--caused the unsafe and illegal conditions to continue--along with decades of specific preventable airline disasters. The latest: the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11 as FAA management blocked the implementation of known preventative measures during the prior 40 years of airline hijackings. FBI Special Agent Richard Taus, who suffered retaliation for reporting criminal activities of the CIA during the 1980s, and of his immediate FBI supervisor, Lindley DeVecchio. In 2006, the Brooklyn district attorney circumvented the FBI and DOJ block--and the block by federal judges--and charged DeVecchio with multiple murders while he was an FBI agent. FBI agents in the Boston office not reporting the criminal involvement of two Boston FBI agents involved in murders with the Bulger crime group. FBI agents in the New York City offices not reporting the criminal involvement of FBI agent Lindley DeVecchio with the Colombo Mafia boss Gregory Scarpa. As a result of the retaliation, that discouraged other safety agents from making similar reports, and which blocked the needed preventative actions, many hundreds of people were brutally killed in preventable airline disasters since 1950. Federal judges, including Justice Kennedy who wrote the Ceballos decision, played major roles in the retaliation, cover-ups, and continuation of these crimes. (Details in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries.) Earlier Contempt by Anthony Kennedy For Constitutional Protections After Anthony Kennedy was appointed to the United States Supreme Court, but before he left his position as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals at San Francisco, he acted on an emergency petition addressed to him by a former federal agent who was suffering enormous harm in an attempt to keep him from reporting and exposing major corruption in government offices, starting with what he discovered as a federal aviation safety agent. Among the issues stated in that emergency petition were the following: Petitioner had discovered deadly corruption in the government's aviation safety offices and corruption in other government offices. Petitioner had sought to report the criminal activities to federal judges under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute. Various legal schemes were put into place to halt that person's exposure activities, which involved massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. That federal judges and Justice Department prosecutors had charged that former federal agent with criminal contempt of court for exercising the statutory requirement to report the criminal activities to a federal official--a federal judge. That for making such reports, federal judge had sentenced the petitioner to six months in federal prison. That Petitioner sought a stay from prison until a decision was reached on the appeal of that decision. That Kennedy had a responsibility to receive information on the federal crimes; on the holding by the sentencing court that reporting federal crimes justifies sending the reporting person to prison; that a federal judge did not have the authority to deny anyone the right to file papers in the federal court for the remainder of that person's life. Kennedy responded by denying the legal right to a stay of the prison sentence pending appeal. His decision upheld: The felony obstruction of justice by federal judges. The felony retaliation of a former federal agent. The unlawful and unconstitutional termination of the right to file papers in federal court. The voiding of all civil and constitutional protections by denying the right to seek relief in federal court from massive violations of federally protected rights. Petition sent to U.S. Court of Appeals Anthony Kennedy dated December 27, 1987. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) To be uploaded shortly. The block by federal judges to receive the information of federal crimes, that the judge must receive as part of the judge's administrative (not judicial) duties. That constituted criminal obstruction of justice. The retaliation by federal judges against the former government agent exercising his mandatory duty, and his right, to address the criminal activities against the United States. The retaliation constituted additional federal crimes. The retaliation for exercising federal defenses against massive violations of state and federal laws, involving a CIA-front law firm and California and federal judges, constituted additional federal crimes by the judges. Petition sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals at San Francisco at a later date. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter sent to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, dated January 2, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That letter, sent before the terrorists hijackings of four airliners on 9/11, revealed: What former federal agents had discovered about corruption in the government's aviation safety offices (which would be the area of primary blame for the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11. In the FBI and the CIA (the two government entities identified as failure to act on known intelligence. The felonious cover-ups and obstruction of justice by federal judges. The felonious misuse of the courts and judicial positions to retaliate against present and former government agents who attempted to perform their official duties by reporting corruption in government offices, and who then suffer retaliation. The serious charges in the letter, and the catastrophic consequences for the United States if any of the statements were true, required that Kennedy obtain further information from the letter writer--former government agent Rodney Stich. Kennedy also had a responsibility under the federal crime reporting statute to receive further information and evidence that Stich had. Instead, Kennedy continued the obstruction of justice that already ensnared a large number of federal judges. The pattern of conduct by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy are proven by judicial records. Trial court brief, U.S. District Court, Sacramento (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Emergency request of 9th Circuit court of Appeals for stay of imprisonment until decision on appeal. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Oct. 5, 1988. Opening brief to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appealing prison sentence for having filed papers in federal court attempting to report criminal activities under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute. (HTML) April 1, 1989. His Reply Brief, May 26, 1989: (MS Word) (Abode PDF) Petition filed with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (March 1991) addressing another contempt of court charge for having attempted to report criminal activities (including areas of corruption that would later that year result in 3,000 deaths on 9/11). Case CR 90-0636 VRW. These charges were instituted by San Francisco federal judges Vaughn Walker and Marilyn Petal. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco, Jan. 27, 1992 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Copy of the petition sent to U.S. Court of Appeals Anthony Kennedy dated December 27, 1987. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) To be uploaded shortly. Petition sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals at San Francisco at a later date (after Stich was in prison). (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter sent to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, dated January 2, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That letter, sent before the terrorists hijackings of four airliners on 9/11, revealed: What former federal agents had discovered about corruption in the government's aviation safety offices (which would be the area of primary blame for the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11. In the FBI and the CIA (the two government entities identified as failure to act on known intelligence. The felonious cover-ups and obstruction of justice by federal judges. The felonious misuse of the courts and judicial positions to retaliate against present and former government agents who attempted to perform their official duties by reporting corruption in government offices, and who then suffer retaliation. The serious charges in the letter, and the catastrophic consequences for the United States if any of the statements were true, required that Kennedy obtain further information from the letter writer--former government agent Rodney Stich. Kennedy also had a responsibility under the federal crime reporting statute to receive further information and evidence that Stich had. Instead, Kennedy continued the obstruction of justice that already ensnared a large number of federal judges. The pattern of conduct by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy are proven by judicial records. The actions by former federal agent Rodney Stich to report these federal crimes to a federal judge under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute and the statute proving the right of any citizen to seek a court order requiring a federal official to perform his or her duty and to halt criminal conduct. Former federal agent Stich was charged with criminal contempt of court for exercising the responsibility to report the criminal activities, was denied a jury trial, and sentenced to six months in federal prison. The prison sentence constituted a criminal act against a former federal agent for reporting major crimes against the United States. The judges involved were Raul Ramirez, Milton Schwartz, John Moulds. (Schwartz has since died; Ramirez is in private practice in Sacramento; and Moulds went from a magistrate to district judge. The prosecuting attorney, Davis Levi, was later promoted to a federal judge position at Sacramento.) Rejected Emergency Stay by Kennedy Judge Raul Ramirez ordered Stich to turn myself in on January 14, 1988. Over the Christmas holidays, Stich prepared a petition to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Anthony Kennedy (before he became a Justice of the United States Supreme Court). He then filed the petition for submission to Kennedy the following Monday. The emergency petition sought an order staying the prison sentence until the a decision was reached on the appeal. Shortly before Christmas 1987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco rendered a decision denying Stich's motion for stay of prison sentence pending decision on the appeal The three judges, James R. Browning, Alex Kozinski, and Pamela Rymer, turned down the appeal in December 1987, without addressing a single one of the many defenses that were raised. Incredibly, they approved each and every judicial violation inflicted upon him by the DOJ prosecutor and federal judges; approved the felony obstruction of justice; the felony retaliation against a former federal agent for seeking to report the ongoing criminal activities. Over Christmas, 1988, Stich filed 's emergency motion sought a stay of the prison sentence until a decision was reached on the appeal brief that he had filed. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) (Stich had been abandoned by the court-appointed lawyers and had to file his own briefs.) His court appointed attorneys refused to file such a motion. that motion was granted. Stich then returned home, waiting for a decision on his appeal brief. Judge Kennedy denied the motion, enabling Stich, at 67 years of age, and shortly after multiple bypass open-heart surgery was performed. (While in prison, orders were issued without the legal and constitutional requirement of notice and a hearing, seizing and liquidating Stich's $10 million in assets that had funded his exposure activities.) Judge Kennedy was already involved in the corruption Stich sought to expose. Kennedy was on the appellate panel that heard prior appeals of the district court's dismissal of the federal actions against the Federal Aviation Administration and NTSB. Kennedy knew the consequences of cover-up, as several major air tragedies associated with the air safety corruption followed his decision upholding the district court's dismissal of my action. That action sought to report to a federal court the federal crimes that Stich discovered, as a federal investigator, at United Airlines and within the FAA that were associated with a series of air disasters. Stich appeared in court, was shackled, and sent from prison to prison, possibly to insure that he be sufficiently broken to where he would never again attempt to report the criminal activities in government offices. Stich filed a notice of appeal and an appeal brief with the 9th Circuit at San Francisco (the same district and appellate judges that had covered up when Stich sought to report criminal activities that had been implicated in several major airline disasters. April 1, 1989. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The Ninth Circuit judges issued denying the appeal. the court of appeal judges did not address a single one of the many issues raised raised in the appeal, which was a requirement and responsibilities. They violated numerous due process requirements, in addition to approving the criminal and constitutional violations. Their decision simply stated, "The judgment is affirmed." Stich was then sent back to federal prison, being routed through several county jails before arriving at federal prison at Lompoc, California. Further Examples of Federal Judges Obstruction of Justice Former federal agent Rodney Stich had exhausted his attempts to report the deadly criminal activities that he discovered as a government agent, being unable to get any response from members of Congress. He then sought to report the criminal activities to a federal judges under the clear wording of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Other authority for filing the actions arose under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (allowing any citizen to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a required duty and to halt unlawful conduct). the repeated refusal of federal judges to receive the information constitutes prima facie evidence of criminal acts, and makes them complicit in the many tragic and catastrophic consequents that followed their cover-ups. Federal judges--and even Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court--are required to received information on a federal crime from anyone offering the information. This responsibility is under the judge's administrative duties, rather than judicial duties. Stich's first attempted to report the criminal activities to a federal judge that were implicated in a series of fatal airline crashes, some occurring in Stich's immediate area of federal aviation safety responsibilities. Although members of Congress had the same responsibility under the crime reporting statute to receive evidence of the federal crimes, none of the many that were contacted ever showed any interest in asking for evidence. (For the benefit of younger viewers who weren't adults when the many airline disasters were occurring, airline crashes occurred every few months during the period from 1947 to 1980. The basis culture still remains, and it was this culture that made the hijackings of 9/11 possible, along with a few other airline crashes.) Thinking that the public would react if they knew of the corrupt culture in the government's aviation safety offices and the many deaths arising from it, Stich published the first edition of his book, Unfriendly Skies, in 1978. He then appeared as guest on hundreds of radio and television shows, other former and present government agents (and other insiders) started providing him with information on criminal activities in other areas, which they had discovered as part of their official duties. Federal judges blocked each and every attempt by Stich and his group of other former government agents from reporting the criminal activities. In 1986, U.S. District Judge Milton Schwartz (Sacramento) and U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel (San Francisco) issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court, for the remain of his life. These orders have been duplicated by over half dozen district and appellate judges. They knew that the orders blocked the reporting of criminal activities--aiding and abetting criminal acts--and voided for Stich every legal and constitutional defense that were necessary to defend against the parallel legal actions (by CIA-front law firms) that were parallel efforts to block Stich from exposing the corruption in government offices. In 1987, when Stich discovered additional areas of corruption in government offices, he filed another action seeking to report these crimes as well as what he discovered and still existed in the government's aviation safety offices. Sampling of Legal Filings Documenting Corruption of Federal Judges and Justices Rarely has so much evidence existed to fight corruption that is destroying America as with the evidence exposing corruption in the courts. The following lawsuits and letters constitute evidence that: Repeated attempts were made from 1978 to 2005 to report major criminal activities to federal judges under the federal crime reporting and other federal statutes. That the criminal activities continued to inflict great harm upon the United States and its people, some of it deadly. That federal judges and Supreme Court Justices had the legal and moral duty to receive the reports, and that their refusal to receive the reports enabled the criminal activities and the consequences to continue. That federal judges compounded the obstruction of justice with felony retaliation for attempting to report the criminal activities (and the Supreme Court decision of Garcetti v. Ceballos has made that judicially acceptable and a matter of law!! List of federal lawsuits related to the people holding guilt related to the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11, filed over the years attempting to report high-level criminal activities, and lawsuits addressing the massive legal and constitutional violations involved in legal and judicial actions to block the reports. Another list of lawsuits that reveal various forms of corrupt and criminal activities, the blocks by federal judges toss reporting them, and the parallel misuse of judicial positions against the former federal agent seeking to halt his exposure activities. List of various legal filings seeking to report criminal activities under the authority of the federal crime reporting statute--every one blocked by federal judges and DOJ prosecutors, and filings seeking relief from the judicial retaliation. One of several lawsuits filed in New York federal courts seeking to report the corruption that enabled years of preventable airline disasters to occur, including several world-famous that occurred in New York City. Submitted on August 8, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe pdf) Start of Retaliation for Protecting U.S. Interests After Stich's first book was released in 1978 (first edition of Unfriendly Skies) and he appeared as guest on hundreds of radio and television shows, other former and present government agents (and other insiders) started providing him with information on criminal activities in other areas, which they had discovered as part of their official duties. Stich, after unable to obtain a response from members of Congress, again sought to report the corrupt activities to a federal judge under 18 U.S.C. § 4, and also under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (allowing any citizen to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a required duty and to halt unlawful conduct). Federal judges blocked each and every attempt by former federal agent Rodney Stich and his group of other former government agents from reporting the ongoing criminal activities. Federal lawsuits filed by former federal aviation safety agent seeking to report the corruption in the FAA, and NTSB cover-ups, that was responsible for many airline crashes and deaths. The next attempts were after Stich discovered from his CIA insiders corruption in other areas of government operations. He sought to report these under the federal crime reporting statute to a federal judges at Sacramento in 1986. Again, continuing the years of cover-ups, federal judges blocked the reports, which constituted judicial criminal obstruction of justice. Court of Appeals Judges Approving Retaliation For Reporting Criminal Activities In retaliation for filing papers in the federal court, U.S. District Attorney David Levi (Sacramento--now a federal judge) and several federal judges, charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for having filed papers in federal court when their (illegal and constitutional) orders barred him for the remainder of his life from doing so. It is important to realize the many deaths, the many other areas of great harm, the harm to national security, especially the events of 9/11, were ripple effects from their criminal cover-ups. Shortly before Christmas 1987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco rendered a decision on the appeal of the criminal contempt of court prison sentence. The three judges, James R. Browning, Alex Kozinski, and Pamela Rymer, turned down the appeal without addressing a single one of the many defenses that were raised. Incredibly, they approved each and every judicial violation inflicted upon him by the DOJ prosecutor and federal judges; approved the felony obstruction of justice; the felony retaliation against a former federal agent for seeking to report the ongoing criminal activities. They approved the imprisonment that constituted prima facie evidence of felony retaliation for trying to report the federal crimes that I had discovered. They approved the obstruction of justice tactics, and the many other wrongful judicial acts. The implications of this judicial mindset were extremely serious. Without addressing a single issue that I raised in the appeal briefs, which they should have done, the Court of Appeals judges simply stated: "The judgment is affirmed." Responsibility of Court of Appeals Judges repeatedly violated. They had a responsibility to: Perform a de novo examination, from the beginning, of the massive numbers of procedural and substantive due process violations; To address the responsibility of lower court judges--and themselves--to receive information of the federal crimes; To address the retaliation by federal judges that were additional criminal acts; To address each of the issues raised in the appeal and render a decision on each. They violated each of the requirement and responsibilities of appellate judges. They approved the violations of numerous due process requirements, substantive due process violations, in addition to approving the criminal and constitutional violations. Attempts Shortly Before 9/11 to Report Corruption To Federal Judge at Reno, Nevada Federal lawsuit filed in Reno, prior to 9/11, seeking to report the corrupt and criminal activities in the government's aviation safety offices, and the FBI and CIA, that caused the conditions to exist that enabled terrorists to escape detection and prevented the federal government from implementing known preventative measures for airline hijackings. Amended complaint dated April 24, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for emergency write to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, February 8, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Declaration filed into the Reno lawsuit, January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, May 1, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Declaration of laws violated by California judges, attached to Reno lawsuit, CV-N-0152-ECR-PHA, repeatedly violating numerous California and federal laws and constitutional protections in unison with a sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco, August 1, 1987. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) No one paid any attention--a standard American tradition! Blocking Lawsuits Filed in NYC Courts: Pre and Post 9/11 Recognizing the major area of blame for the conditions enabling four groups of terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11--and the continued cover-ups by members of Congress (and eventually the 9/11 Commission), Stich filed a lawsuit filed in federal court at New York city, seeking to report the corrupt and criminal activities within the FAA, FBI, and CIA--the areas of primary and secondary blame for 9/11. that lawsuit was submitted on August 8, 2002, and blocked for over 13 months from being filed. It was eventually filed after Plaintiff Rodney Stich notified each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices of the latest obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges over whom the Justices had supervisory responsibilities. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to U.S. District Judge Hellerstein, requesting that he notifies lawyers with 9/11 cases of the charges claimed by former federal agent Rodney Stich. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief of the dismissal without a hearing by the district court judge. January 3, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Filing of Reply Brief in New York, June 3, 2004, after the Department of Justice lawyers filed their brief that was riddled with misstatements of law and fact. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Oral argument, Court of Appeals, New York. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) En banc appeal brief filed in New York City case related to 9/11, September 7, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief U.S. Court of Appeals, New York City, en banc. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Supreme Court, January 2005, appealing the dismissal of the lawsuit filed in the federal courts at New York City that sought to report criminal activities in government offices that played roles in the 9/11 hijackings. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Additional sources of information related to that lawsuit filing. (HTML) Additional information related to unpublished primary and second causes for 9/11. (HTML) Decade-Earlier Attempts Before NYC Federal Judges Eleven years before the 9/11 events in New York City, former federal agent Rodney Stich filed a lawsuit in the federal courts at New York City, seeking to report the criminal activities involved in a prior catastrophic New York City air disaster. The lawsuit was filed on August 15, 1990. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Parallel Obstruction of Justice in DCA Courts Stich had also sought to report the criminal activities to federal judges at Washington, D.C. One of the early attempts was by a lawsuits filed on August 1, 1987. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That filing, as every other one, was blocked, despite the requirement under the federal crime reporting statute for the judge to receive the information as part of his administrative duties. Lawsuit filed in Washington in 1990, reporting the corruption in government offices, including the FAA, FBI, and CIA, that played primary and secondary roles in the successful hijackings of four airliners on 9/11. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Another attempt on May 18, 1991, to report the criminal activities that a group of federal agents had discovered. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit filed in Washington federal courts seeking to report the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, the FBI, and CIA. March 9, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit filed against members of Congress based upon their felony cover-ups of corruption in high level government positions, March 24, 1992, DCA (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Former CIA legal counsel, appointed to a federal judge position, dismissed the lawsuit. Lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., August 12, 1992, seeking to report criminal activities and seeking relief from the massive violations of state and federal laws occurring with the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan, and Ross. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal of the sua sponte dismissal by the district judge in Washington, D.C., September 14, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Post-9/11 lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C. on June 20, 2002, seeking to report the criminal activities in the FAA, FBI, and CIA that constituted the primary and secondary areas of blame for the terrorist hijacking that Washington. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief filed with U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington, D.C. (December 6, 2002) This court of appeals is considered the second highest court in the United States, just below the U.S. Supreme Court. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Further Evidence of Involvement by Supreme Court Justices From 1978 to 2005, in response to the numerous actions by federal judges blocking the reports of criminal activities and federal judges criminally retaliating to prevent such reports, Stich submitted and filed numerous petitions for emergency relief, petitions for writ of certiorari, and letters to each of the Supreme Court Justices. In every case, they aided and abetted the criminal and constitutional violations that made the federal courts into a criminal enterprise. If they had performed their duties instead of corrupting the judicial process, many past tragedies and criminal activities could have been either prevented or halted. Sampling of letters sent to Justices of U.S. Supreme Court, which combined with legal filings since 1978, made Supreme Court justices fully aware of the underlying criminal activities adversely affecting national interests and people, the obstruction of justice and other corruption of federal judges, the subversion of major national interests. Lawsuit against Supreme Court Justices. While filing lawsuit against Supreme Court Justices appears bizarre and without legal merit, the facts stated in the lawsuit stated federal causes of actions. The response by the Supreme Court justices admitted that they knew of the charges made by former federal agent Rodney Stich; that they did not respond; but that they were totally immune from the consequences (of their criminal complicity, cover-ups, etc.) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petitions sent to U.S. Supreme Court during period from 1978 to 1984, addressing the crash-related corruption in the two government safety offices, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the political board of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Federal lawsuit filed against the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Petition to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Oct 21, 2003, pertaining to the dismissal of the legal action filed in New York seeking to expose corrupt activities related to 9/11. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, January 26, 2003. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, December 16, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, May 1, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Rehnquist, April 11, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, February 8, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Thomas, January 15, 2001 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Emergency petition to Justice O'Connor, January 5, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to Justice Rehnquist, January 02, 2001 (HTML) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, January 2, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, January 2, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Clerk William K. Suter, describing the tactics used by the Supreme Court to block the filing of a petition that would expose widespread corruption in the courts, December 12, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist, November 10, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Rehnquist, March 16, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to clerk of U.S. Supreme Court, August 23, 1998. (HTML) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Supreme Court, August 15, 1997. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Ginsburg, referring to the criminal activities covered up by the Justices, January 16, 1995. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Supreme Court, August 15, 1994. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief, NYC, appealing the sua sponte dismissal of the lawsuit filed in the federal court at New York City. July 4, 1992 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit in Washington, D.C. March 9, 1992, complaint seeking to report federal crimes to a federal court at Washington, D.C., followed by a block. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) U.S. Court of Appeals brief, San Francisco, January 27, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Complaint addressing the widespread corruption in the bankruptcy courts involving federal judges, federal trustees, lawyers, law firms, and their accomplices, May 18, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Attempt to report, under the federal crime reporting statute, corrupt and criminal activities to a federal judge in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 1991) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition Supreme Court Contempt filed by former government agent Rodney Stich, making the Justices of the Supreme Court aware of the criminal activities (some of which were treasonous and subversive; the felony obstruction of justice by judges over whom the Justices had supervisory responsibilities; the felony retaliation against a former government agent for attempting to report serious crimes against the United States; and the aiding and abetting by the Justices.) March 4, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, January 15, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for relief to Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, January 5, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Ginsburg, referring to the criminal activities covered up by the Justices, January 16, 1995. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Judge Petal, San Francisco, Petal, Jan 25, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Souter, January 9, 1991, describing the criminal activities and the complicity of federal judges. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Complaint to report the corruption within the FAA that was associated with several prior airline disasters, filed in the federal courts at Washington, D.C. August 1, 1987. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Declaratory judgment seeking under the declaratory judgment act a determination of personal and property rights established in five prior judgments but being violated by California and federal judges in supporting the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) February 1, 1991. This sham lawsuit filed by the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross is what started the judicial retaliation against Stich, seeking to halt his exposure of high-level corruption. Appeal brief, San Francisco, of judgment of criminal contempt of court on basis of reporting criminal activities in government offices. April 1, 1989 (HTML) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for stay of prison sentence, arising from the filing of legal papers seeking to report criminal activities that Stich and his group of other government insiders had discovered. October 5, 1988 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for rehearing en banc, New York, September 7, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition sent to the Supreme Court by Rodney Stich seeking to report criminal activities in government offices and seeking relief from judicial retaliation. August 1997. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Emergency Request 9th Cir, January 27, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Souter, January 9, 1991, describing the criminal activities and the complicity of federal judges. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Declaration of laws violated by California judges, attached to Reno lawsuit, CV-N-0152-ECR-PHA, repeatedly violating numerous California and federal laws and constitutional protections in unison with a sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco, August 1, 1987. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit against the NTSB, seeking an order related to cover-up of material evidence in the PSA crash into San Diego in 1978. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) First federal lawsuit against the FAA, seeking to circumvent the blocks in Congress and elsewhere, during the time that a continuing series of fatal airline disasters were occurring due to the FAA internal misconduct. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Will be uploaded shortly. Sampling of letters sent to Justices of U.S. Supreme Court, which combined with legal filings since 1978, made Supreme Court justices fully aware of the underlying criminal activities adversely affecting national interests and people, the obstruction of justice and other corruption of federal judges, the subversion of major national interests. Implications of the conduct of the Supreme Court Justices List showing Supreme Court involvement. Miscellaneous Judicial Filings General description of judicial corruption. Sampling of tactics used to block insiders from exposing corruption in government offices and covert government operations. Index of legal matters, including letters, lawsuits seeking to report criminal activities in government, actions taken by lawyers and judges to block the exposure of corruption in government. Sampling of actions taken by federal judges to halt one particular tenacious former federal agent from exposing tragedy-riddled corruption in government offices and government operations. Lawsuit against federal judges on the basis of their actions to halt the exposure of criminal activities in government offices. Description of lawsuits against California judges, whose six years of repeated massive violations of California and federal laws protected the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross of San Francisco. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Description of blocks to filing lawsuits, including those against California judges. Miscellaneous legal filings arising from (a) attempts to report widespread corruption in government offices and covert operations; (b) exercising federal defenses against massive civil and constitutional violations judicially inflicted in parallel actions to halt the former federal agent from exposing high-level corruption. General description of judicial corruption. Sampling of tactics used to block insiders from exposing corruption in government offices and covert government operations. Index of legal matters, including letters, lawsuits seeking to report criminal activities in government, actions taken by lawyers and judges to block the exposure of corruption in government. Sampling of actions taken by federal judges to halt one particular tenacious former federal agent from exposing tragedy-riddled corruption in government offices and government operations. Lawsuit against federal judges on the basis of their actions to halt the exposure of criminal activities in government offices. Description of lawsuits against California judges, whose six years of repeated massive violations of California and federal laws protected the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross of San Francisco. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Description of blocks to filing lawsuits, including those against California judges. Miscellaneous legal filings arising from (a) attempts to report widespread corruption in government offices and covert operations; (b) exercising federal defenses against massive civil and constitutional violations judicially inflicted in parallel actions to halt the former federal agent from exposing high-level corruption. General description of judicial corruption. Sampling of tactics used to block insiders from exposing corruption in government offices and covert government operations. Index of legal matters, including letters, lawsuits seeking to report criminal activities in government, actions taken by lawyers and judges to block the exposure of corruption in government. Sampling of actions taken by federal judges to halt one particular tenacious former federal agent from exposing tragedy-riddled corruption in government offices and government operations. Lawsuit against federal judges on the basis of their actions to halt the exposure of criminal activities in government offices. Description of lawsuits against California judges, whose six years of repeated massive violations of California and federal laws protected the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross of San Francisco. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Description of blocks to filing lawsuits, including those against California judges. Miscellaneous legal filings arising from (a) attempts to report widespread corruption in government offices and covert operations; (b) exercising federal defenses against massive civil and constitutional violations judicially inflicted in parallel actions to halt the former federal agent from exposing high-level corruption. First federal lawsuit against the FAA, seeking to circumvent the blocks in Congress and elsewhere, during the time that a continuing series of fatal airline disasters were occurring due to the FAA internal misconduct. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for rehearing en banc, New York, September 7, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Oct 21, 2003, pertaining to the dismissal of the legal action filed in New York seeking to expose corrupt activities related to 9/11. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter Justice Rehnquist, April 11, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, January 26, 2003. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Rehnquist, December 16, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) List showing Supreme Court involvement. Petition to Justice Clarence Thomas, May 1, 2002 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Thomas, January 15, 2001 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition, Thomas, January 5, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to Justice Rehnquist, January 02, 2001 (HTML) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court, William K. Suter, December 12, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Supreme Court, November 10, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Justice Rehnquist, March 16, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to clerk of U.S. Supreme Court, August 23, 1998. (HTML) (Adobe PDF) Petition to U.S. Supreme Court, August 15, 1997. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Supreme Court emergency writ 1994. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Supreme Court petition 1994. October 19, 1994 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit filed in Sacramento, August 12, 1992, seeking to report criminal activities and seeking relief from the massive violations of state and federal laws occurring with the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan, and Ross. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief, NYC, appealing the sua sponte dismissal of the lawsuit filed in the federal court at New York City. July 4, 1992 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit in Washington, D.C. March 9, 1992, complaint seeking to report federal crimes to a federal court at Washington, D.C., followed by a block. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) U.S. Court of Appeals brief, San Francisco, January 27, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Emergency Request 9th Cir, January 27, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Complaint filed in federal courts at New York City, addressing the widespread corruption in the bankruptcy courts involving federal judges, federal trustees, lawyers, law firms, and their accomplices, May 18, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Attempt to report, under the federal crime reporting statute, corrupt and criminal activities to a federal judge in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 1991) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief U.S. Court of Appeals, New York City, en banc. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition Supreme Court Contempt filed by former government agent Rodney Stich, making the Justices of the Supreme Court aware of the criminal activities (some of which were treasonous and subversive; the felony obstruction of justice by judges over whom the Justices had supervisory responsibilities; the felony retaliation against a former government agent for attempting to report serious crimes against the United States; and the aiding and abetting by the Justices.) February 5, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition to 9th Circuit to reinstall civil rights, Jan 21, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, January 15, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for relief to Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, January 5, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Eleven years before the 9/11 events in New York City, former federal agent Rodney Stich filed a lawsuit in the federal courts at New York City, seeking to report the criminal activities involved in a prior catastrophic New York City air disaster. The lawsuit was filed on August 15, 1990. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Declaratory judgment seeking under the declaratory judgment act a determination of personal and property rights established in five prior judgments but being violated by California and federal judges in supporting the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) February 1, 1991. Lawsuit addressing corruption in the bankruptcy courts that corruptly strips people of their assets who exercise the statutory protection of Chapter 11, or who are forced by others into the bankruptcy courts. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) This serious problem is covered in Defrauding America. Complaint for return of seized properties, filed in Nevada, seeking relief from corrupt judicial seizure of life assets. These properties, $10 million in real estate assets, were illegally, unconstitutionally, and corruptly seized by federal judges and a CIA-front law firm acting in unison, to strip Stich of the assets that funded his exposure of high-level corruption. October 28, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) List of seized properties, totaling $10 million in 1987, that were looted, converting the former federal agent from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief, San Francisco, of judgment of criminal contempt of court on basis of reporting criminal activities in government offices. April 1, 1989. (HTML) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for stay of prison sentence to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco, arising from the filing of legal papers seeking to report criminal activities that Stich and his group of other government insiders had discovered. October 5, 1988 (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Complaint filed in Sacramento, August 1, 1987, seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit against the NTSB, seeking an order related to cover-up of material evidence in the PSA crash into San Diego in 1978. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Converting Former Government Agent To Man Without a Country In 1986, U.S. District Judge Milton Schwartz (Sacramento) and U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel (San Francisco) issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court, for the remain of his life. These orders have been duplicated by over half dozen district and appellate judges. They knew that the orders blocked the reporting of criminal activities--aiding and abetting criminal acts--and voided for Stich every legal and constitutional defense that were necessary to defend against the parallel legal actions (by CIA-front law firms) that were parallel efforts to block Stich from exposing the corruption in government offices. In 1987, when Stich discovered additional areas of corruption in government offices, he filed another action seeking to report these crimes as well as what he discovered and still existed in the government's aviation safety offices. In response to that filing, DOJ prosecutor David Levi and federal judges charged Stich with criminal contempt of court, denied him a jury trial, sentenced him to six months in federal prison, and then seized his $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities, converting him from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. He was then imprisoned for seeking to defend U.S. interests and exercising rights "guaranteed" by the Constitution. And no one came to his defense! The significance of these legal filings include: Evidence that former government agents sought to report corrupt and criminal activities adversely affecting the United States to a federal judge. The federal judge had the duty under the federal crime reporting statute to receive the reports and evidence of a federal crime. Federal judges, in large numbers, blocked the reports, constituting a prima facie evidence of criminal obstruction of justice (which was not dependent upon whether the attempted reports of federal crimes were valid or not). If any of the reports of federal crimes, being offered by professional former federal agents, were true, the national tragedies that would obviously result from such misconduct could be blamed on the judicial cover-ups. This, in turn, shows the culture in the federal courts to be a literal Trojan horse subversion of major U.S. interests. Harm Inflicted Upon People and the Country By Widespread Judicial Corruption Lawsuit addressing one example of the nationwide corruption in the bankruptcy courts that corruptly strips people of their assets who exercise the statutory protection of Chapter 11, or who are forced by others into the bankruptcy courts. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) This serious problem is covered in Defrauding America. Complaint for return of seized properties, filed in Reno, October 28, 2000. These properties, $10 million in real estate assets, were illegally, unconstitutionally, and corruptly seized by federal judges and a CIA-front law firm acting in unison, to strip Stich of the assets that funded his exposure of high-level corruption. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) List of seized properties, totaling $10 million in 1987, that were looted, converting the former federal agent from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. Will be uploaded as time permits. (HTML) The cover-ups, the obstruction of justice, the corruption of judicial positions and the courts, have not been without resulting harm. Just a few of the many areas that were and are most directly affected includes: The many deaths in the aviation environment due to the corrupt culture in the government's aviation safety offices. The number of resulting airline disasters is much lower today than it was when federal aviation safety agent was attempting to report the corruption. But the consequences in aviation continue to occur, though far less frequently. The conditions that blocked the implementation of known measures to prevent airline hijackings enabled the four groups of terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11, kill 3,000 people, and cause horrendous consequences to follow. Incredibly, the seemingly simple problem of corrupt and arrogant people in the government's aviation safety offices--and the universal cover-ups--had such dramatic ripple effects. Corruption in the federal bankruptcy courts that impoverishes thousands of people. Looting of people's assets in the massive corruption existing in the federal bankruptcy courts. Corruption in the federal courts that adversely affects all types of decisions, including Supreme Court decisions (Such as Ceballos) that slowly destroys the freedoms that once existed. Innocent people sentenced to prison on perjured and paid testimony, withheld witnesses and testimony, lying government agents and confidential informants. Seizure of assets that are never returned, of people never charged, people found innocent. Life-long imprisonment on minor offenses, stealing a loaf of bread for instance, under three-strike laws. Retaliating against government agents/employees who report as part of their duties corrupt and criminal activities in government offices and government operations. Aiding and abetting the cover-ups of drug smuggling by people in or associated with the CIA and the cover-ups by people in other government capacity. The worsening culture of arrogance and corruption in government offices and covert government operations that is protected--or even condoned--by decisions of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. The many other criminal activities and resulting harm that could have been halted if federal judges had not blocked the reports by insiders and even assisted in retaliating against those who sought to protect vital American interests. Miscellaneous Legal Material Federal laws violated in 20 years of judicial and legal attacks to block a former federal agent from reporting of corruption in government offices. Laws violated by federal judges California laws violated violated in the process of seeking to halt the reporting and exposure of high-level corruption in government offices. Laws violated by California judges who were complicit in the schemes to halt the exposure of high-level corruption. Pre and Post 9/11 corruption (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Legal group complicity and cover-ups Schemes by lawyers and law firms over the years whose function was to halt the exposure activities by former government agent Rodney Stich of high-level corruption in government offices and covert government operations. Legal fraternity harassment Judicial tactics that obstructed justice. (HTML) Lawsuit against several media sources on the basis that they engaged in cover-ups of criminal activities in government offices, a felony, which enabled to occur resulting tragedies. Lawsuit against media sources (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Highlights of the lawsuits filed by former federal agent Rodney Stich as he sought to circumvent the blocks preventing exposure of corruption in government offices that were having serious adverse consequences. Lawsuit highlights Legal definitions Index of various forms of corruption related to the 9/11 hijackings Political prisoners, some of whom suffered retaliation at the hands of federal judges who joined the scheme to silence their exposure of high-level corruption. Complaint filed in U.S. district court at Reno, prior to 9/11, seeking to report the corrupt and criminal activities in the FAA, FBI, and CIA, the areas of primary and secondary blame for 9/11, and responsible for prior tragedies. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Pre-9/11 obstacles to report and correct the problems that would enable four groups of terrorists to kill 3,000 people. Supreme Court notification list. Supreme Court submissions list. Window of Intrigue into Documented Misconduct of Federal Judges and Justices Federal laws violated in 20 years of judicial and legal attacks to block a former federal agent from reporting of corruption in government offices. Laws violated by federal judges California laws violated violated in the process of seeking to halt the reporting and exposure of high-level corruption in government offices. Laws violated by California judges who were complicit in the schemes to halt the exposure of high-level corruption. Pre and Post 9/11 corruption (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Legal group complicity and cover-ups Schemes by lawyers and law firms over the years whose function was to halt the exposure activities by former government agent Rodney Stich of high-level corruption in government offices and covert government operations. Legal fraternity harassment Judicial tactics that obstructed justice. (HTML) Lawsuit against several media sources on the basis that they engaged in cover-ups of criminal activities in government offices, a felony, which enabled to occur resulting tragedies. Lawsuit against media sources (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Highlights of the lawsuits filed by former federal agent Rodney Stich as he sought to circumvent the blocks preventing exposure of corruption in government offices that were having serious adverse consequences. Lawsuit highlights Legal definitions Index of various forms of corruption related to the 9/11 hijackings Political prisoners, some of whom suffered retaliation at the hands of federal judges who joined the scheme to silence their exposure of high-level corruption. Complaint filed in U.S. district court at Reno, prior to 9/11, seeking to report the corrupt and criminal activities in the FAA, FBI, and CIA, the areas of primary and secondary blame for 9/11, and responsible for prior tragedies. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Pre-9/11 obstacles to report and correct the problems that would enable four groups of terrorists to kill 3,000 people. Supreme Court notification list. Supreme Court submissions list. It is important to remember that the criminal activities that former federal agent Rodney Stich and his group of other former government agents sought to report--and federal judges were required to receive: Were the results of their findings in a professional capacity as agents of the federal government, authorized by law to make such determinations. The gravity of the consequences, if the charges were true, was too great, too catastrophic, to ignore. These were not Chicken-Little type of allegations by unqualified people. Evidence existed of the problems, the misconduct, from information already known. If the allegations were known to be groundless, a federal judge could have received the information and that would have ended the attempts to report the criminal, subversive, and treasonous activities. Judges were required to receive the information under the federal crime reporting statute as part of their administrative duties, and did not have the judicial decision-making authority to ignore the attempted reports. Their acts were--as a matter of law--obstruction of justice. Their retaliation against the person trying to make the reports of deadly criminal activities were criminal acts, as a matter of law. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.druggingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com </body>