UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODNEY F., STICH,

Defendant.

___________________

)
)
) CR 87-124 RAR
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}

 

 

Opposition to Criminal Contempt of Court Charge

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS  

Table of Cases & Other Authorities 

1. Statement of the case  

2. Criminal contempt of court charge is based upon an unlawful and unconstitutional injunction voiding legal and constitutional protections and blocking the reports of high level criminal activities.

3. None of the legal requirements for rendering an injunction against Stich existed, thereby making the injunction a violation of legal due process.

4. Legal requirements for a permanent injunction against Stich were also absent.

a. Injunction was not requested by plaintiff in the lawsuit.  

b. Great and irreparable harm, required for an injunction against Stich, did not exist and was not claimed 

c. No unlawful conduct was claimed or stated, as required for an injunction.

d. No public interests were claimed or stated, as required for an injunction.

e. Required findings of facts were not stated, as required by an injunction.

5. Every legal requirement for an injunction in favor of Stich, instead of against him, existed.

a. It was Stich who was suffering the great and irreparable harm  

b. It was the defendants who were perpetrating the unlawful acts 

c. The public's interest was gravely affected by the injunction 

6. The Injunctions Sought Support by the judicial placement of a sham frivolous label on major causes of actions that were the absolute opposite of  frivolous under law and common sense.

7. Even the sham frivolous label did not meet the legal requirements for an injunction.

8. Judge Petal's 1986 order and injunction was riddled with errors of facts and law. It omitted and misrepresented key facts. It covered up for major violations of federal civil rights and criminal violations. 


Table of Statutes

  Federal Criminal, Civil Rights, and Due Process Statutes Violated

Title 18 U.S.C. § 2

Title 18 U.S.C. §

Title 18 U.S.C. §

Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 372

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983-1986

Title 42 U.S.C. §§1961-1964 


Federal Case Law Violated

Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416

Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 

Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343 

Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 3378 

Anders v. California (1967) 386 US 738 

Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 US 500 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 US 817 

Ex parte Hull, 312 US 546 

Johnson v. Avery, 393 US 485 

Johnson v. Virginia, 373 US 61 

Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 1007 (3rd Cir. 1969) 

Public Service Com v. Wycoff Co. 344 US 237 

Re Burrus, 136 US 586 

Re Rowland, 104 US 604 

Ross v. Moffitt, 417 USS 600 

Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. (1941) 314 U.S. 118 


Constitutional Protections Judicially Violated

First Amendment 

Fifth Amendment 

Privileges and Immunity clause, Article IV, §

Right to travel, Commerce clause, Article IV,  


California Statutes Violated

Code of Civil Procedure § 318 

Code of Civil Procedure § 338 

Code of Civil Procedure § 343 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1699(b) 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.3 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1908

Code of Civil Procedure § 1913

Code of Civil Procedure § 1915 

Civil Code§ 880.020 

Civil Code § 880.250 

Civil Code § 4351 

Civil Code § 4370 

Civil Code § 4503 

Civil Code § 4554 

Civil Code § 4800.1 

Civil Code § 5004 

Civil Code § 5102 

Civil Code § 5103 

Civil Code § 5164

Evidence Code § 662 

Evidence Code § 665

Evidence Code § 666 

California Rules of Court Violated

Rule 1201(c)

Rule 1211 

Rule 1212 

Rule 1215(b) 

Rule 1222 

Rule 1229(a) 

Rule 1281

Rule 1282

California Supreme Court Decisions Violated

Rediker v. Rediker (1950 35 Cal.2d 796 

Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249 

Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656


STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1.    Defendant Rodney Stich has been charged with criminal contempt of court in retaliation for filing a federal action that sought relief from great and irreparable personal and financial harm and for attempting to report criminal activities that he, a former federal agent and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report. Defendant exercised the legal and constitutional right to seek relief from the civil rights violations under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, and sought to report the criminal activities to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. In retaliation for exercising these federal rights and federal responsibilities, Justice Department personnel and federal judges have charged him with criminal contempt of court.

Basis Defenses Against Contempt Of Court Charge
 

2.     The injunctive order constitutes obstruction of justice as it barred Stich, a former federal agent, from reporting criminal activities to a federal judge under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. The order obstructing justice is outside the administrative responsibilities of any federal judge to receive such reports and evidence, and its obstruction of justice consequences constitutes a felony under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4, and other federal criminal statutes.

3.     The injunctive order voids rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the United States that is outside the jurisdiction of any federal judge. That order voided for Stich the legal and statutory protections against the record-setting violations of federally protected rights perpetrated by California and federal judges acting in unison. 

4.     The injunctive order is an unlawful and unconstitutional order by a judge refusing to perform a mandatory duty under federal legislation and under the judge's oath of office to uphold and enforce the laws and Constitution of the United States.

5.     The injunctive order violated every requirement for such an injunction, and applies it against the person suffering the great and irreparable harm and the target of the record setting numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, while protecting the persons inflicting the harm and misusing the courts as they violate large numbers of lawful and constitutional rights and protections.

6.     The injunctive order aids and abets the pattern of unlawful and unconstitutional judicial acts that have subverted the laws and constitution of the United States.

7.     The criminal contempt of court charge is retaliation against a former federal agent for attempting to report criminal activities that he and his group of other government agents discovered, which continue to inflict great harm upon the internal security of the United States and upon countless numbers of men, women and families.

8.     Defendant's lawsuit which is being used as the basis for the criminal contempt of court charges was authorized under the laws and Constitution of the United States that guarantee a federal court forum and relief for the record-setting violations of federally protected rights perpetrated by California and federal judges acting in unison.

9.    The injunctive order sets the bizarre situation of allowing the California and federal judges, acting in unison, to inflict great harm upon defendant through record setting violations of law and constitutional protections while voiding for defendant the basic legal and constitutional rights to defend which are at the core of our form of government.

The Details
 

10.The lawsuit that defendant filed was was an exercise of rights guaranteed to him under the laws and Constitution of the United States, seeking relief from the harm arising from an unprecedented number of state and federal laws that were repeatedly violated, and also seeking to report, as a former federal agent, witness, informant, criminal activities that he and his group of government whistleblowers had discovered during their official duties. That lawsuit exposed criminal acts implicating personnel from the same Justice Department and federal judiciary that is now charging him with criminal contempt of court for complying with the federal crime reporting statutes and for seeking relief from the wrongful acts in which they themselves were implicated. Defendant's lawsuit invoked mandatory court jurisdiction under:

1.     The Civil Rights Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and other statutory and constitutional remedies specifically intended for the violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting such great harm upon Stich. Never once were these matters addressed by federal judges who repeatedly violated their mandatory duty to provide a federal court forum and relief.

2.     The federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Stich and his group of other government agents sought to report and provide evidence of hard-core criminal activities that they had discovered during their government activities and subsequent private investigations. These witnesses included agents of the FBI, DEA, Customs, CIA, among others, and included the former heads of secret CIA airlines and secret CIA financial operations. These reports to a federal judge are mandatory under the federal crime reporting statute, and federal judges are required to receive those reports and any available evidence as part of their administrative duties, which are outside the realm of judicial immunity decision making authority.

3.     Judicial records show that federal judges participated in a pattern of obstruction of justice as far back as 1978 and again from 1986 to the present date, blocking Stich and his group of government whistleblowers from reporting high-level corruption in government. In addition to blocking Stich's reports of high-level criminal activities, federal judges have misused their judicial positions and the courts to inflict great harm upon Stich through a pattern of unlawful and unconstitutional acts, involving nonfeasance, malfeasance and misfeasance. 

4.    To obtain a clearer picture of the sequence of events in the convoluted scheme to block the reporting of criminal activities, Stich makes reference to the following:

1.     Stich had first discovered a pattern of air safety and criminal activities associated with a series of fatal airline crashes while he was a federal air safety investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration. The most serious of the pattern of air safety and criminal violations occurred while he was responsible for air safety at the most senior program at United Airlines while that airline experienced a series of fatal airline crashes during a 20-year period that were directly related to the documented misconduct. Every attempt to bring these matters to justice encountered a high-level block by people in key government positions. 

2.     Those federal inspectors who sought to report and correct the air safety and criminal violations were threatened, suffered retaliation and job actions, and other violations that prevented carrying out the government's air safety responsibilities, which in turn caused or made possible the deaths of many hundreds of people in many fraud-related airline crashes. 

3.     These matters are detailed in Stich's third edition of Unfriendly Skies.  In turn, due to the fatal consequences of these violations, they became capital offenses. Justice Department personnel and federal judges joined others whose misconduct contributed to specific airline crashes and specific deaths, and now they seek to charge Stich, a former federal agent, with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report these tragedy-related crimes. These wrongful acts violated Title 18 U.S.C. Section 372 (conspiracy to impede or injure a government agent), and Title 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Impeding a present or former government agent).

4.     The retaliation inflicted upon Stich by those who blocked the government's air safety responsibilities caused him to leave government service. He then used his considerable assets to fund an exposure of the ongoing criminal activities that continued to play a role in certain airline crashes. He published books and appeared as guest and air safety expert on hundreds of radio and television shows. He started filing in 1978 federal lawsuits seeking to obtain a court injunction to halt the tragedy-related corruption. (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4). These lawsuits included:

Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.) (addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the cover-up of the DC-10 cargo door problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by claimant seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.

11.  In his second edition of Unfriendly Skies, Stich named federal judges in the Ninth Circuit who blocked corrective actions, which then played a permissive role in the continuation of the misconduct and the related fatal crashes. This exposure of federal judges and the continuation of Stich's exposure activities, funded by his assets, were soon followed by a continuing series of judicial attacks upon Stich, which are now in the 20th year.
 

12.  A scheme was commenced in 1982 through a sham lawsuit filed by a CIA-front law firm that targeted the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. That lawsuit was barred by record numbers of California and federal laws and constitutional protections, which required prompt dismissal. Instead, the lawsuit was continued, and orders rendered for the next six years by California judges knowingly acting without jurisdiction in violating an unprecedented numbers of state and federal laws.  The combination of record-setting violations of federally protected rights and the great and irreparable harm inflicted upon a former federal agent, Rodney Stich, as he sought to report criminal activities, constituted serious federal crimes. Federal judges then renewed their earlier actions blocking the reporting of the criminal activities, including others that he discovered through his large numbers of government whistleblower sources. 

13.Stich filed federal lawsuits under the Civil Rights Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and related statutes, for which federal judges had the mandatory responsibility to provide a federal court forum and relief. Federal judges then systematically again blocked the reporting of these criminal activities, blocked federal defenses against the judicially-inflicted civil rights violations, and then enlarged upon these violations and upon the harm inflicted upon this former government agent.

1.     The first of Stich's  lawsuits raising multiple federal causes of action was filed in 1983. Despite the facts that stated multiple federal causes of action and the federal law barring dismissal of the lawsuits, it was dismissed without allowing an adjudication of the serious issues. This pattern then continued continuously for the next 17 years.

2.     The dismissal of that lawsuit escalated the violations of state and federal laws and the harm inflicted upon Stich, including the taking of the assets that funded Stich's exposure of the criminal activities. At each major increase in the violations occurring during the sham California lawsuit, Stich exercised his rights guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Federal judges then promptly dismissed each and every action, sometimes sue sponte without notice. Never were the required findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered that addressed the serious issues raised in the lawsuit. It became the standard tactic to place a frivolous label on lawsuits that were so obviously not frivolous that it became obvious this was a judicial scheme to protect those involved in the California lawsuit.

3.     Stich and his group of government whistleblowers continued to uncover additional criminal activities, and in 1986, Stich included another federal issue in his federal lawsuits seeking relief from the ongoing civil rights violations: he sought to report the criminal activities to a federal judge  under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.

4.     A judicial crisis now existed. Court records showed federal judges obstructing justice relating to the criminal activities that Stich and other government agents sought to report, and court records showed the judicial infliction of major civil rights violations against Stich.

5.     Federal judges, including Judges Milton Schwartz and Marilyn Patel, among others, addressed this crisis by rendering unlawful and unconstitutional injunctions that barred Stich, for the remainder of his life, from federal court access and the multiple federal remedies specifically suited for the judicial violations being inflicted upon him. The rendering of these permanent injunctions was combined with unlawful and unconstitutional dismissal of the underlying lawsuit seeking relief from the judicially inflicted civil rights violations. After the first lawsuit was unlawfully dismissed, the subsequent dismissals used the argument that the lawsuits were frivolous, or that the matters had already been litigated, both of which were fraudulent judicial statements. 

6.     While denying Stich access to federal courts and the protections of federal law, federal judges were corruptly misusing their judicial positions and the courts to render unlawful and unconstitutional orders that inflicted great personal and financial harm upon Stich. These included seizing his life's assets without any hearing, without cause, and then liquidating them, rendering orders barring Stich from exercising federal defenses against the asset seizure, and sentencing him to federal prison when he did file objections. 

14.  After suffering a pattern of unlawful and unconstitutional acts, in a conspiracy, and before the statute of limitations expired, Stich filed a lawsuit in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada, under the Civil Rights Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, Bivens, and RICO, while simultaneously against seeking to report the criminal activities that Stich and his group of other government agents had discovered.

15.Stich had a short time earlier sought to file the lawsuit in the U.S. district court at Oakland, California, but his filing was rejected by Judge Wilkins on the argument that U.S. district judge Marilyn Patel had rendered an order in 1986, 15 years earlier, forever barring Stich from federal court access. That order effectively blocked Stich and his group of government agents from reporting the criminal activities and blocked the exercise of federal remedies from the judicial violations of federally protected rights.

Repetition of Judicial Obstruction Of Justice and Civil Rights Violations
 

16.Following the filing of that lawsuit in Reno, Justice Department prosecutors and federal judges charged Stich with criminal contempt of court.  The contempt of court charges were also based upon the unlawful and unconstitutional injunctions rendered by judge Marilyn Patel and Milton Schwartz, and other federal judges who acted in unison to block the reporting of the criminal activities and to block the exercise of federal defenses against the judicially-inflicted civil rights violations.,

Defenses Against the Criminal Contempt of Court Charges
 

1.    None of the legal requirements for an injunction existed, and the orders violated constitutional due process, making the earlier injunctive orders void orders. The clearly stated requirements for a temporary or permanent injunction required by FRCivP 65 did not exist. An injunctive order, which is considered a harsh and seldom rendered remedy, usually requested by the plaintiff in a lawsuit, requires the following non-existing criteria to exist:

1.     The party requesting the injunction must be suffering great and irreparable harm, and have concrete evidence of such harm.
 

2.     No great and irreparable harm was claimed, and none was shown to exist. The injunctive orders simply stated that Stich's  underlying lawsuit was frivolous (reversing the legal criteria for a frivolous label), and that a prior (unlawful and unconstitutional) order had been rendered barring Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. Stich was never accused of inflicting any great and irreparable harm. Judicial records prove that it was Stich who was suffering the great and irreparable harm.  Injunctive relief may not be granted in the absence of proof of any threatened or probable act which might cause irreparable injury. Public Service Com. v. Wycoff Co. 344 US 237, 73 S Ct 236, 97 L Ed 291. The basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 US 500, 79 S Ct 948, 3 L Ed 2d 988; Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 1402 (1987).

3.     The party against whom the injunction is directed must be guilty of unlawful acts that cause the great and irreparable harm. (Injunctive orders are to halt wrongful behavior. (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Stidham, 658 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1981).

4.     No unlawful conduct was claimed by the defendants in that lawsuit, nor stated by the judge who issued the injunction. It was Stich who was being harmed by the violations of large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.

5.    The injunction must protect public interests.

§  No public interests were claimed, and none were stated. Security or bond must be given by the party requesting the injunction to compensate the party against whom the injunction is directed in the event the plaintiff is not successful in his lawsuit and the defendant is harmed by it.

6.      Security or bond must be given by the party requesting the injunction to compensate the party against whom the injunction is directed in the event that party prevails in the lawsuit and that party is harmed by the injunction.

§  No security or bond was given to compensate Stich in the event the lawsuit that he filed was to prevail, and the injunction caused him to suffer great personal and financial losses.

7. There must be a hearing to permit the parties to present evidence that the basis for an injunction exists. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 states: "No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party."


 

§  The required notice of a hearing, and a hearing, were not provided to Stich, and the strict requirements for an injunction were never addressed.

8.    Findings of facts and conclusions of law must be prepared by the judge showing that the criteria had been met for the junction. 

§  No findings of facts were stated that addressed any of these legal requirements. Instead, the judges rendering the permanent injunctions sought to support their taking of valuable constitutional protections by placing a sham frivolous label on Stich's  lawsuit. The serious facts and issues stated in the lawsuits were so greatly outside the common sense and legal definition of frivolous that the frivolous label was an obvious deliberate sham.

9.     Injunctions initiated by the wrong parties. The injunctions were initiated by federal judges and not the plaintiff, as required by FRCivP 65. Every injunctive order rendered by Ninth Circuit federal judges was initiated by federal judges rather than by the plaintiff in the lawsuits; Stich was the plaintiff in those actions where an injunctive order was rendered.

10.  The permanent injunction ordered against Stich had additional legal requirements beyond those required for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction requires that the probability of the legal criteria will be met in the ongoing litigation. A permanent injunction, on the other hand, requires that the legal requirements have been proven to exist by the end of the lawsuit. The almost immediate dismissal of the lawsuits without addressing Stich's  allegations prevented that requirement from being addressed. Judicial notice of the facts stated in Stich's  lawsuit was prima facie evidence that it was Stich who was suffering great and irreparable harm from the unlawful acts of the defendants, and that public interests were being seriously affected.

11.The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction, except "likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success" must be proven. (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Stidham, 658 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1981); A permanent injunction is limited to matters that have been fully litigated. Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. (1941) 314 U.S. 118. Judge Schwartz made reference to Hardwick v. Doolittle, 558 F.2d 292 (1977). Referred to the All Writs authority, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, as interpreted by Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 441 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1971) cert. denied, 441 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1971). The Court of Appeals "held that the district court had properly employed All Writs authority to enjoin a private party from further prosecuting issues in a patent infringement suit that had been fully and fairly litigated in the district court and on appeal."

The Injunction Was Riddled With Unlawful and Unconstitutional Violations

12.  Orders that violate constitutional due process protections are void orders.  The Constitution of the United States guarantees to every citizen, including government whistleblowers, the right to federal court access and the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. In turn, the oath taken by federal judges is to uphold and protect the laws and Constitution of the United States and to insure that no person is denied these rights and protections. 

13.  The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228. Violation of due process protection of the laws required reversal of contempt order. Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 (1963).

Legal requirements existed for an injunction in Stich's favor
 

14.Stich's lawsuits stated, and judicial notice of the wrongful acts proved, that it was Stich who was suffering great and irreparable harm arising from the unlawful and unconstitutional acts by others. This practice of applying the law in reverse repeatedly and completely occurred from 1983 to the present date. This tactic became necessary to carry out the scheme that started with the sham California lawsuit filed by a front for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and to protect everyone, being the attorneys and California and federal judges who became involved.  Throughout this period, federal judges totally reversed the legal requirements and legal responsibilities in the relevant statute, rules of court, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional rights and protections.

The Injunctive Orders Inflicted Great Harm Upon Public Interests
 

15.The injunctions rendered and honored by a large number of federal judges continue to inflict great harm upon the internal security of the United States and the public's interests. They:

§  Initially blocked the exposure and correction of deep-seated air safety and criminal violations implicated in a series of fatal airline crashes, making everyone involved in the coverup implicated in the federal offenses and the deadly consequences. This relationship is detailed in the third edition of Unfriendly Skies

§  Obstructed justice by blocking present and former government agents, including Stich, from reporting criminal activities, which was one of the issues in Stich's  lawsuit. Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report criminal activities that he and his group of government whistleblowers had discovered, and which had to be reported under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. These judicial obstruction of justice acts were criminal offenses under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4. Obstructing justice is not in the public's interest, and is made far more severe when perpetrated by a judge, and even more severe when the obstruction of justice involves a large number of judges.

§  Justice Department and federal judges retaliated against a former federal investigator, whistleblowers, informants, and/or witnesses in retaliation for attempting to report high-level criminal activities and for exercising federal remedies for civil rights violations.  These are federal crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513, and other statutes.

§  Feloniously retaliated against Stich for exercising constitutional due process remedies. It is a federal crime when two or more people, including federal judges, retaliate against anyone who exercises due process remedies. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.

§  Violated their responsibilities under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 when they learned of the violations of Stich's  civil rights that were protected under federal laws and the Constitution and failed to halt such violations.

§  Engaged in a conspiracy that repeatedly violated Stich's  civil rights, which constituted offenses under the Civil Rights Act and specifically Title 18 U.S.C. § 1985.

§  Corruptly misused their judicial positions and the courts to deprive a person, in this case a former federal agent who was exposing judicial corruption, the protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The right to petition government, which includes filing in the federal courts, extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is one aspect of the right of petition. See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485; Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. The Court concedes that the petitioners' "right of access to the agencies and courts . . . is part of the right of petition protected by the First Amendment."

§  Misused their judicial positions and the courts to protect people violating record-setting numbers of federally protected rights.

§  Reversed the legal criteria for issuing an injunction, protecting persons inflicting great harm through violations of federally protected rights, and applying the injunction against the victim instead of the perpetrators.

§  Aided and abetted those committing the criminal activities and the perpetrators of those activities that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to expose.

The Injunctive Orders Were Riddled With Errors In Facts and In Law
 

2.     The 1986 injunction by Judge Marilyn Patel was riddled with misstatements of facts and law, riddled with omissions of relevant facts, approved conduct that violated clear and long established law and constitutional protections. 

3.    The dismissal of the underlying civil action from which the injunction arose violated federal due process rights:

1.    Facts were stated in the lawsuit that constituted federal causes of actions under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, invoking the mandatory duty  by the district judges to provide a federal court forum and relief. The statement of these facts must be accepted as true at that stage of the pleadings.

  Judge Patel's Injunction Misstated the Facts

4.    She represented the cause of action in the California lawsuit as a dissolution of marriage action, despite the fact that several divorce judgments, each of which must be recognized under law, established that the marriage had been terminated over 20 years earlier. The filing of a divorce action against Stich was a bizarre and convoluted attempt to promptly seize the assets that funded Stich's exposure of high-level corruption in government. The absence of a marriage was established by: 

1.     A 1966 divorce judgment, which had been entered as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, California, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, showed that the parties had been divorced for the prior two decades. These judgments must be recognized as controlling under the laws of those prior states of residence; by California statutes; by California Supreme Court decisions; by federal full faith and credit statutes and constitutional provision of Article IV § 1; by controlling decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the prior 50 years.

2.      The "divorce" label placed on the California action was a sham and a convoluted and bizarre lawsuit to strip plaintiff of the assets that funded his exposure of high level corruption in government.

3.    The cause of action filed by Stich addressed the civil rights violations occurring in the California courts which would invoke federal court jurisdiction regardless of the label placed on the state action. Further, the federal Declaratory Judgment Act specifically addresses the refusal of a state judge to recognize rights and legal obligations arising from prior judgments entered prior to exercising the right to change residence. 

Refused to Address the Multitude of Civil Rights Violations
 

4.     California judges were repeatedly acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act while rendering orders inflicting great personal and financial harm upon Stich. These are major civil rights violations. The absence of jurisdiction arose under various California statutes and rules of court, including California Rules of Court 1201, 1230, etc.

5.     The cause of action, an attack upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court, 20 years earlier, was barred by state and federal laws. Worse yet, the attack was predicated on Stich, who was the petitioner in that 1965-1966 divorce proceeding, lacking the mental thought processes of residing in that court's jurisdiction for the remainder of his life. 

6.     Attacks or refusal to recognize prior divorce judgments and personal and property rights adjudicated in them are barred by large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional rights.

7.     Over 12 California statutes, numerous California Supreme Court decisions, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, constitutional rights, required recognizing the 1966 divorce judgment and the six additional judgments entered as local judgments, and the divorced status and property rights established in them. 

8.     The right to acquire property as a divorced person and to have these rights recognized upon changing residence to California is a right guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. These include the rights under the commerce clause, Title IV,  § 2, to unabridged interstate travel, the right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights.

9.     The 1966 divorce judgment had already been entered as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. These judgments showing the parties as having been divorced 20 years earlier must be recognized under the federal full faith and credit statutes (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738) and the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution, Article IV, § 2.

10.  The full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires that all state judges recognize those divorce judgments entered as local judgments in the various states.

11.  The full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution, Title IV, § 1, requires recognition of those divorce judgments.

12.  Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court fifty years ago required recognition of prior divorce judgments, eliminating the practice of some state judges refusing to recognize divorce judgments obtained in Nevada and other places.

13.  The constitutional right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated divorce status and property rights, property rights acquired as a divorced person, when changing residence to another State. These California judges, many of whom were lawyers holding a judicial position for a short term when elected to that position, simply ignored this and the dozens of other laws and constitutional rights and protections.

14.  Absence of personal and absence of subject matter jurisdiction for the cause of action attacking the exercise of jurisdiction by the divorce court 20 years earlier while the parties were residents of jurisdictions outside of California. 

15.These violations constituted federal causes of action for which Judge Patel had a duty to provide a federal court forum and relief under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Her refusal to perform that duty was compounded by rendering an injunction voiding the same federal laws that she had a duty to defend.  

Refused To Show That the Legal Criteria For An Injunction Existed
 

5.    Federal judges rendering permanent injunctions must render findings of facts and conclusions of law showing that the legal requirements for rendering either a temporary or a permanent injunction have been met. These requirements were not met: 

1.     Rule 65(d) requires that every restraining order and order granting an injunction shall (1) set forth the reasons for its issuance; (2) shall be specific in terms; and (3) describe in reasonable detail, and not be reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.

2.     The federal judges rendering injunctions against Stich repeating each other, stating that Stich's  lawsuit was frivolous and that a prior judge had entered an order barring Stich from federal court. The facts stated in Stich's lawsuits stated major violations of specific federally protected rights, which do not meet the legal or common sense definition of frivolous. 

3.     FRCivP 52(a) requires that the judge, in granting a preliminary injunction, "shall set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action." Such findings would have had to address:

1.     The federal issues stated in Stich's  complaint could not meet the legal or common sense definition of frivolous. 

2.     Stich's  attempts to report criminal activities that were required to be reported to a federal judge under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, could not be considered frivolous, especially the gravity of the matters being reported.

Federal Judges Were Beneficiaries of Their Injunctions

1.    The judges and their injunctions barring Stich access to the federal courts and blocking his reporting of criminal activities were beneficiaries of the unlawful and unconstitutional injunctions. Federal judges were implicated in the criminal acts that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report by their coverups, by refusing to provide a court forum and relief from the bizarre lawsuit that intended to strip Stich of the assets that funded his investigative and exposure activities. By their actions, they violated numerous federal criminal and civil rights statutes that made them subject to impeachment and criminal prosecution. 

Void Injunctive Orders Cannot Serve As Basis For Contempt
 

2.    An injunctive order that violated federal laws and constitutional due process is a void order and cannot support a contempt charge. An order denying a person equal protection of the law cannot support contempt of court charges. Johnson v. Virginia, 373 US 61, 83 S Ct 1053, 10 L Ed 2d 195. In Re Burrus, 136 US 586, 10 S Ct 850, 34 L Ed 500, the Supreme Court held that if the command is in whole or in part beyond the power of the court, the writ, or so much as is in excess of jurisdiction, that it is void; and the court cannot punish for any contempt of its unauthorized requirements. Re Rowland, 104 US 604, 26 L Ed 861; the Court has no power to punish for contempt the violation of an injunction which it had no jurisdiction to grant. Worden v. Searls, 121 US 14, 7 S Ct 814, 30 L Ed 853; orders enjoining a party from suing are void. Re Ayers, 123 US 443, 8 S Ct 104, 31 L Ed 216.

"Supporting" the Injunctions with Sham Frivolous Labels

3.    Seeking to justify their injunctive orders, federal judges fraudulently placed a frivolous label on each lawsuit filed by Stich. The facts clearly showing record-setting violations of California and federal laws and constitutional protections, judges acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, orders seizing Stich's life's assets without the constitutionally required notice of hearing, hearing, and cause, are hardly frivolous filings. Nor is the attempt to report criminal activities that Stich, a former federal agent, and his group of government agents, sought to report, which continue to inflict grave harm upon the internal security of the United States and upon countless numbers of Americans, frivolous. The frivolous label was contradicted by federal law that:

1.     The statements in the complaint must be accepted as true at that stage of the lawsuit. Only if those statements did not state a federal cause of action could the lawsuit be dismissed. Every lawsuit filed by Stich stated facts showing serious violations of federally protected rights, and that Stich was suffering great and irreparable harm as a result of the violations of federally protected rights. Under law, a complaint "is not frivolous if any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ..." Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.

2.     The lawsuit clearly stated facts and federal causes of action invoking mandatory court jurisdiction and relief.  The facts showed violations of record numbers of state and federal statutes and constitutional protections; orders rendered without jurisdiction; violations of the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, causes of actions arising under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

3.     Some of the allegations stated in the lawsuits were matters for a jury to determine rather than a judge protecting the outrageous misconduct of fellow judges.

4.     Receiving evidence of federal crimes is mandatory under the federal crime reporting statute, and included matters discovered by Stich, a former federal agent, and his group of other government agents. The gravity of these criminal offenses is in sharp contradiction to the frivolous label placed on the matters by judges blocking the reports of these serious criminal activities. 

A Frivolous Label Does Not Meet Legal Requirements for Permanent Injunction
 

4.    Federal judges sought support for the injunctions by fraudulently placing a sham frivolous label on each of Stich's  lawsuits. But even if, for argument, Stich's  lawsuits were frivolous, which they obviously weren't, a frivolous lawsuit does not meet the legal requirement for an injunction, or to bar a person from the statutory and constitutional right to federal court access, especially when he is suffering great and irreparable harm from record-setting violations of federally protected rights. Further, seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crimes reporting statute is not a frivolous act.

Judicial Injunctions Were Combined With Judicial Violations of Federal Protections
 

5.    The unlawful and unconstitutional judicial injunctions were combined with federal judges rendering unlawful and unconstitutional orders that inflicted great and irreparable harm upon Stich. Among these judicial orders inflicting great harm upon Stich were orders seizing his $10 million in assets--that funded his exposure of high-level government corruption--without the legal and constitutional requirement of a noticed hearing, a hearing, or cause. This seizure was compounded by orders barring Stich from objecting to the seizure and liquidation of his assets. The injunctive orders protected the judges from the federal defenses against their lawless acts.


 

1.    Further, the injunctive orders acted to block Stich and his group of government agents from reporting to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 4) the existence of major criminal activities that continue to inflict great harm upon the United States.

Requiring Stich To Get Off-the-Record Approval Before Filing Court Papers Which Would Never Be Granted

6.     The injunctive orders sought to avoid the appearance of totally voiding Stich's right to court access by stating he must first submit the filing to a judge, who then determines whether it will be accepted for filing. That was a sham.

The lawsuits on which federal judges placed a frivolous label presented record-setting major violations of statutory and constitutional protections. It would be almost impossible to find greater violations of federally protected rights than these. If these were fraudulently called frivolous, obviously, nothing could be stated that was not given a frivolous label.

1.     The lawsuits on which federal judges placed a frivolous label presented record-setting major violations of statutory and constitutional protections. It would be almost impossible to find greater violations of federally protected rights than these. If these were fraudulently called frivolous, obviously, nothing could be stated that was not given a frivolous label.

2.     The conditions stated in the injunction barred Stich from addressing the record-setting number of laws and constitutional violations occurring in the California courts and the taking of Stich's assets by federal judges. 

3.     If the lawsuit that had to be off-the-record submitted to a federal judge was denied the right to be filed, Stich would again be denied his due process rights to appeal, since there wasn't anything filed that could be the basis for an appeal. 

4.    The federal crime reporting statute, one of the issues raised in Stich's lawsuits, in which he sought to report criminal activities that included criminal activities in the federal courts, does not permit a federal judge to bar the reports of criminal activities or to deny such reports when they involved criminal activities in Ninth Circuit courts. These activities are detailed in the third editions of Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies. This judicial chicanery was addressed in Supreme Court decisions:

Door Left Open In Theory But Not In Fact

5.    Addressing this very same sham, the Supreme Court stated in Ross v. Moffitt, 417 US 600:

The Court in Douglas stated that "when an indigent is forced to run this gauntlet of a preliminary showing of merit, the right to appeal does not comport with fair procedure." 372 US, at 357. The court held in In Re Las Colinas Development Corporation, 585 F.2d 7 (1978), "It is important that all persons have the right of access to the courts." See e.g. Bounds, Correction Commissioner v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals stated In Ren Green, 669 F.2d 779 (1981), that injunctive orders requiring him to get court permission to file lawsuits (he had already filed over 700 of them raising such frivolous matters as being allowed to wear beards and grow long hair, have regular conjugal visits, etc.), that "these orders violate Green's statutory and constitutional rights of access to the courts." Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the case said: The Supreme Court recently stated, "it is now established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1494, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). Indeed, the Eight Circuit, in In re Clovis Car Green, 598 F.2d 1126, 1127 (8th Cir. 1979)(en banc), conceded that "it is axiomatic that no petitioner or person shall ever be denied his right to the processes of the court."

Injunction Was A Blatant Attempt to Obstruct Justice and Protect Judges Against Their Lawless Conduct

7.    The evidence clearly indicates that the injunction was to block the reporting of high level criminal conduct and to void for Stich the many federal remedies against the 17-year pattern of judicial violations of record numbers of statutes, case law, and constitutional protections that were part of a convoluted scheme to destroy the assets that funded Stich's  exposure of major criminal activities in high government offices and in the courts.


 

1.     For almost 20 years, judicial records show federal judges, with the assistance of California judges, engaging in lawless acts, using their judicial positions and the courts as a corrupt arm of government:

2.    Repeatedly blocking Stich's  attempts to report the criminal activities that continue to inflict great and irreparable harm upon the internal security of the United States.

§  Repeatedly rendering orders that violated the law and inflicted great harm upon Stich

§  Repeatedly blocking the rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. 

§  The obstruction of justice tactics violated numerous federal criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. These acts constituted obstruction of justice and were crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4.

§  The criminal contempt of court charges against a former government agent seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute violated various criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513.

Pattern Of Great Harm Inflicted Upon Stich
 

8.    Federal judges rendering the orders voiding the constitutional right to court access for the remainder of Stich's  life were obstructing justice, protecting the guilty, and punishing the victim, causing Stich to suffer:

1.     Forced to leave government service after he sought to report a pattern of air safety and criminal violations associated with a series of fatal airline crashes.

2.     Loss of his life’s assets consisting of $10 million in real estate.
 

3.     Loss of his income which arose from his real estate.
 

4.     Loss of his real estate investment business.
 

5.     Loss of his home.
 

6.     Loss of his credit worthiness.
 

7.     Converted from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty.
 

8.     The loss of his civil liberties and his civil rights.
 

9.     His quality of life was destroyed as he went from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty.

10.  Repeatedly threatened with jail and prison, and sent to prison for exercising remedies specifically provided by law for the type of violations being inflicted upon him by the defendants.

11.  In constant fear of arrest from either California or federal judges.

12.  From 1986 through 1995, he was constantly under the oppressive effects of criminal contempt of court charges. Twice, as a senior citizen, he was sent to federal prison in retaliation for exercising due process remedies and for seeking to report criminal activities in high government places, also implicating federal judges.

13.  In the year 2000, stripped of his life's assets, stripped of his ability to earn income, at the age of 78, he is threatened with tax seizure of what little remains, the taxes due to the judicial seizure and liquidation of his life's assets, and is without the right to any of the rights and protections under the form of government intended by the laws and Constitution of the United States.

14.Family unities were destroyed.

SUMMARY

9.    The issues here constitute a grave threat upon the internal security of the United States and go far beyond the unprecedented misuse of judicial positions and the courts against Stich. 

 

 

Dated: August ____ , 2000 

 

___________________________

Rodney F. Stich

 

 

 

ENDNOTES

1.     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." Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977) (addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct).

 

1.     Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.) (addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the cover-up of the DC-10 cargo door problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by claimant seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.
 

2.     Repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards occurring in the sham California action for six continuous years (protected by federal judges).

3.     California statutes requiring recognizing the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights associated with that judgment: Civil Code §§ 4554, 5004, 5164; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1699(b), 1713.3, 1908, 1913, 1915 (effective when the 1966 judgment was rendered and for nine years thereafter).
 

4.     California full faith and credit statutes that required recognition of each of the prior judgments and personal and property rights stated in those judgments.
 

5.     Civil Code §§ 5004 (Full Faith and Credit Requirement); 4554 (final and conclusive effects of prior judgment, local, foreign state, foreign country).
 

6.     C.C. § 5164 (a filed custody decree has the same effect as a California judgment). Several of the prior divorce judgments were entered as local judgments in the counties of Contra Costa and Solano.
 

7.     C.C.P. § 1713 (a foreign state judgment is conclusive between the parties).
 

8.     C.C.P. § 1908 (effect of a California judgment is conclusive between the parties (and this conclusiveness applies to foreign judgments under, inter alia, C.C. § 5164. Refusal to recognize this legal requirement was another due process and equal protection violation.
 

9.     Absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. California law deprived California judges of personal and subject matter jurisdiction in Family Law Act proceedings on the basis of the absence of a marriage resulting from the divorce judgments.
 

10.  Rules 1201(c), 1211, 1212, 1215(b), 1215(c), 1222, 1229(a), 1281, and 1282; Civil Code §§ 4351, 4357(a), 4370, 4503, 4554.
 

11.  Absence of jurisdiction over separate properties. California law deprived California judges of jurisdiction over separate property in Family Law Act proceedings.
 

12.  Civil Code §§ 4800.1, 5102, 5103, relating to separate property, that is outside the jurisdiction of a California judge under the Family Law Act.
 

13.  Absence of jurisdiction on the basis that Stich had filed a timely motion to quash challenging the court’s personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Until there was a hearing and a decision on that motion to quash, the judges lacked jurisdiction over Stich. California judges rendered numerous orders adversely affecting plaintiff’s personal and property rights for the next four years before they held a hearing on that motion, while knowingly lacking jurisdiction also on the basis of the motion to quash.
 

14.  California Supreme Court decisions that required recognition of the prior divorce judgments and plaintiff’s divorced status and property rights. (Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249; Whealton v. Whealton (1967)67 C.2d f656). These early decisions were followed by statutes requiring the recognition of prior divorce judgments and related personal and property rights.
 

15.  Statute of limitations. In addition to the statutory requirement to recognize the prior divorce judgments, the statute of limitations provided an additional bar to the sham lawsuit.
 

16.  Code of Civil Procedure §§ 318, 338, 343; Civil Code §§ 880.020, and 880.250, require recognizing that the prior court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction when the judgment is under attack two decades after its exercise of jurisdiction, and the acceptance of the benefits by both parties: Evidence Code §§ 666, 665, 622.
 

17.  Res judicata doctrine, in that the divorce litigated two decades earlier could not be relitigated. (Refusal to recognize this and other protections also violates constitutional equal protection and due process rights.)
 

18.  Estoppel doctrines, including collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, estoppel by deed, estoppel by inaction, estoppel by judgment, estoppel by record, estoppel by oath, and estoppel in pais.
 

19.  Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which required recognizing plaintiff’s divorced status and property rights established in the prior divorce judgments.
 

20.  Full faith and credit constitutional protection in Article IV, § 1, which also required recognizing the prior divorce judgments filed in several jurisdictions, and the divorce status, property rights, and no-spousal-support status.
 

21.  Controlling and landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions that required recognizing each of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights arising in and from those judgments. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416; Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948); Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969). The long-settled rights under these Supreme Court decisions existed years before blacks were no longer required to sit in the back of buses, to use separate drinking fountains, and separate toilets, and should have been capable of being recognized by California judges and Friedman!
 

22.  Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, which were violated by denying to Stich the same rights to substantive and procedural due process as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State of California and the United States, and as applied to other citizens.
 

23.  Privileges and immunity clause under Article IV, § 1, by depriving plaintiff the right, while a resident of another state and jurisdiction, to obtain a divorce on a universally recognized basis, and deprived plaintiff of the right to change residence without losing previously acquired personal and property rights.
 

24.  Constitutional right to unabridged interstate travel, the right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights and previously acquired property rights as a divorced person. The right to travel is provided by the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, section 2; and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
 

25.  Fourteenth Amendment rights to the protection of property rights, the protection against being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and denying to plaintiff the equal protection of the law.
 

26.  Procedural due process protections. California judges repeatedly:
 

27.  Refused to address plaintiff’s timely filed motion to quash, ignoring the fact that harmful orders were rendered without having jurisdiction over Stich.
 

28.  Refused to issue mandatory findings of fact and conclusions of law which if they had been issued would have revealed in the judicial records the gross violations of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards and the absence of jurisdiction arising from several quarters.
 

29.  Unlawfully placing Stich in default status and then proceeding to the taking of Stich’s assets without allowing him to appear or defend. In 1986, California judge Harold Wolters declared Stich in default for not appearing in San Francisco for a deposition, after plaintiff had already appeared numerous times. Stich resided in Nevada, and under California law he was not required to travel that distance for a deposition. This act of putting Stich in default status violated due process remedies that barred Stich from even attempting to defend against the continuing civil rights violations. 
 

30.  California judge Denis Bunting refused to allow plaintiff to appear at a July 28, 1988 hearing where plaintiff’s properties would be given to his former wife of 22 years earlier, where money judgments would be rendered, and a judgment entered "terminating" the non-existing marriage. That hearing violated still other federally protected rights, including the constitutional due process right to appear before taking of properties would occur.
 

31.  Retaliated against Stich for exercising constitutional due process, thereby violating federal criminal statute Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241Conspiracy 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;
 

32.Harm inflicted upon Stich in the sham California action while violating record numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards:

a. Loss of his life’s assets.

b. Loss of his income.

c. Loss of his real estate investment business.

d. Loss of his home.

e. Loss of his credit worthiness.

f. Converted from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty.

g. The loss of his civil liberties and his civil rights.

h. Repeatedly threatened with jail, and sent to jail when he was unable to pay a financial sanction for having exercised his due process remedies.

33.Dismissal of the law suits was barred by:

a. Civil Rights Act.

b. Declaratory Judgment Act.

c. Supreme Court case law barring dismissal if a single federal cause of action is stated in the complaint.

Unlawful Judicial Acts in Federal Courts
 

34.Continuously for nearly 20 years, federal judges perpetrated the following wrongful acts:

Aided and abetted the unlawful and unconstitutional acts occurring in the California courts.

Repeatedly, from 1983 to 2000, promptly dismissed every lawsuit  filed by Stich, often without a hearing, and placing a sham frivolous label on lawsuits stating facts raising multiple and major federal causes of actions.

Repeatedly rendered permanent injunctions that barred Stich from court access and voided for him all rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. In this way, they blocked the reporting of criminal activities that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report and blocked the use of the many federal remedies to defend against the judicially inflicted violations of federally protected rights.

Repeatedly, from 1986 through 1995, charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for seeking relief from the great and irreparable harm inflicted upon him through the record setting judicial violations of federally protected rights.

Seizing Stich’s life’s assets without the statutory and constitutional due process requirement of a noticed hearing, of a hearing, and legally required cause.

Then filing an order barring Stich from objecting, violating his right to procedural due process protections.

Then charging Stich with criminal contempt of court when Stich exercised procedural due process remedies and filed objections to the seizure and liquidation of his assets.

  Immediately dismissed every lawsuit seeking to halt the escalating violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich, thereby voiding for Stich the statutory and constitutional protections guaranteed for every citizen (and illegal alien).

Repeatedly placed frivolous labels on the lawsuits as federal judges sought to dismiss the actions. Judges reversed the common sense and legal criteria for a frivolous label, placing a frivolous label on causes of actions and violations of federally protected rights that were record setting violations of federally protected rights.

Repeatedly refused to render findings of facts and conclusions of law on orders of dismissal and other orders, thereby eliminating the glaring contradictions between their sham excuses for denying Stich his due process and what the facts actually are.

Violated requirement that allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true for opposing motions to dismiss or summary judgment, using this violation to violate Stich’s rights to a federal court forum and an adjudication of the federal issues in his lawsuit. In this way, federal judges denied to Stich the protections from the violations of federally protected rights appearing in federal remedies.

Placing a sham frivolous label on each of Stich’s complaints to support the immediate dismissal of his highly explosive lawsuits, despite the fact that Supreme Court decisions and common sense contradicted that label.

Repeatedly refused to render findings of facts and conclusions of law when dismissing Stich’s lawsuits, so as to avoid focusing on the facts that contradicted the excuses used to dismiss each and every lawsuit filed by Stich. This repeated judicial chicanery duplicated the judicial chicanery used by California judges in the sham California lawsuit that initiated the 19 years of continuing civil rights violations against Stich.

Reversed the legal criteria for issuing an injunction. Instead of protecting Stich, who was suffering great and irreparable harm from the unlawful acts of the defendants, the judges rendering the injunction protected those who perpetrated the harm through record-setting unlawful acts, and in the process inflicted great harm upon the national security and the public’s interests.

Reversing the legal criteria for a frivolous action, fraudulently placing a frivolous label on a lawsuit that raises multiple, concrete, hard-core, violations of federally protected rights in a scheme to evade the responsibilities to provide a federal court forum and to deny fundamental constitutional due process protections to a person exposing high level corruption in government offices.

Rendered orders taking Stich’s life’s assets without the statutory and constitutional due process requirement of a noticed hearing, of a hearing, and of legally required cause.

Rendering orders barring Stich from filing objections to the unlawful, unconstitutional, and corrupt seizure of his properties.

Charging him with criminal contempt of court when he did file objections to the seizure and liquidation of his life’s assets.

Rendering injunctions barring Stich for the remainder of his life from filing any papers in the federal courts, or protecting himself, while concurrently rendering judicial orders that violated federally protected rights that inflicted great and irreparable harm upon Stich

Voiding for Stich due process remedies to court access as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States, thereby subverting fundamental protections under our form of government.

Misusing judicial positions and the courts to protect the unlawful and unconstitutional acts of the defendants listed in Stich’s lawsuits.

Obstructing justice, by blocking the reporting of criminal activities undermining the internal security of the United States, that were being reported by Stich and his group of government whistleblowers under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.

Subverting the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Aiding and abetting those perpetrating criminal acts against the United States, and becoming guilty as the principles..

Aiding and abetting those violating major federally protected rights through corrupt misuse of judicial positions and the courts.

Protecting those people engaged in corrupt and criminal acts against the United States, as described in Stich’s lawsuits that were barred from being filed.

 Inflicting great harm upon the public’s interests.

The order barring Stich from federal court protected those involved in the criminal acts that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report, protected those who aided and abetted by coverups the criminal activities; and the order voiding for Stich constitutional protections aided and abetted the scheme commenced in the California courts that required repeatedly violating dozens of state and federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and fundamental constitutional rights, along with every possible procedural due process remedy intended to protect against such violations of federally protected rights.

Federal Laws Violated by Federal Judges

35.Federal judges engaged in a continuous 18-year pattern of violating major state and federal laws and constitutional protections, including criminal statutes, which included:

a. Fifth Amendment right to due process protections.

b. The right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights and previously acquired property rights while a resident of other states.

c. The right to procedural and substantive due process, which was being violated by California judges and then by federal judges. California and federal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising procedural due process remedies when his substantive due process rights were being violated.

d. The right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment in the federal courts and the Fourteenth Amendment in the California courts.

e. The specific acts that Stich stated in his lawsuit invoked federal court jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C§ 1331, 1343, the Civil Rights Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

f. His constitutional and statutory right to federal court access and relief under the Civil Rights Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and other statutes.

g. Supreme Court decisions that bar the dismissal of any lawsuit if the complaint states a federal cause of action. Stich’s complaints stated multiple federal causes of actions.

h. Supreme Court decisions require that all allegations stated in the complaint must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceeding. Therefore, if any federal cause of action was stated, that barred dismissal. Among the federal causes of action stated in the complaint were violations of large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, acting without jurisdiction, while inflicting great and irreparable harm upon Stich, invoking mandatory federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, and other federal statutes and constitutional protections.

i. Blocked the reporting of criminal activities that were undermining the internal security of the United States.

j. Article IV, § 1, Full faith and credit shall be given to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. (Stich’s personal and property rights established in seven prior divorcee judgments were ignored and these rights and properties were taken in direct violation of this protection. Simultaneously with this taking, property rights acquired as a divorced person, while a resident of other states, were taken by California judges.) This constitutional protection was then corroborated by federal statute (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738), and Supreme Court decisions.

k. Article IV, § 2, privileges and immunities clause guarantees to every citizen the right to all privileges and immunities as enjoyed by citizens of other states. It has been held that this right includes the right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights. Stich’s right to obtain a divorce, to obtain property while a resident of other states, was denied to him by California judges; his right to acquire a divorce and a judicial determination of his divorced status and property rights were violated by California judges.

l. Article VI, Clause 2, supremacy clause, makes federal law the supreme law of the United States. For Stich, the violations of the supremacy clause included violations of Supreme Court holdings, Full Faith and Credit relating to personal and property rights previously adjudicated in divorce judgments before exercising constitutional right to change residence, due process right to the procedural and substantive protections of the laws and Constitution of the United States.

m. The First Amendment right to petition government, which includes filing in the federal courts, extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is one aspect of the right of petition. See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485; Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. The Court concedes that the petitioners' "right of access to the agencies and courts . . . is part of the right of petition protected by the First Amendment."

n. Fourth Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable seizure of property.

o. Violated Fifth Amendment Rights. By denying Stich the right to court access, the judges rendering the injunctive orders were denying him equal protection of the law, due process, and the various protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.

p. Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, including the privileges and immunities and equal protection clauses. These include the right to travel without losing previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights.

q. The Civil Rights Act.

r. Declaratory Judgment Act.

s. Title 28 United States Code § 1331, which provides to district courts original jurisdiction for civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

t. Title 28 United States Code § 1343, which provides a federal court forum in which citizens may seek redress from the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities under color of state law.

u. Civil Rights Act, Title 42 United States Code §§ 1983-1986, on the basis of continuous violations of plaintiff’s civil rights, under color of state law.

v. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, based upon the conspiracy by the defendants to violate plaintiff’s civil rights.

w. Title 42 United States Code § 1986, based upon the demand for damages from those defendants who had knowledge of the violations of plaintiff’s civil rights, who had the duty and the ability to prevent or aid in the prevention of them, and who failed to perform that duty.

x. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Bivens claim is based upon the violations of plaintiff’s civil rights under color of federal law.

y. Title 18 United States Code §§ 1961-1964. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (hereafter "RICO") claim arises from the pattern of multiple predicate acts perpetrated by defendants over a 17 year span. The predicate acts of racketeering by multiple defendants affected interstate commerce.

z. Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 United States Code §§ 2201 and 2202, which provides for district courts to declare rights and legal relations that are in controversy, and provide whatever remedies are appropriate.

aa. Title 18 United States Code § 4. This federal crime reporting statute requires any person who knows of a federal crime to promptly "report it to a federal judge" or other officer.

Blocking the Reporting Of Major Criminal Activities

36.Criminal activities that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report, including for instance:

a. Drug smuggling into the United States by the Central Intelligence Agency, for the past 40 years.

b. Drug smuggling involving people in key positions with the Drug Enforcement Administration National Security Council, the State Department.

c. Felony coverup of the drug smuggling crimes by people in key positions with the Department of Justice, and other government agencies.

d. Widespread fraud in the bankruptcy courts implicating federal judges, judge-appointed trustees, Justice Department trustees and law firms.

e. Numerous other areas of criminal activities as described in the third editions of Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies and the first editions of Drugging America and Disavow.

f. Earlier judicial obstruction of justice as Stich filed federal actions from 1978 to 1982, including certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, reporting criminal activities by key people at United Airlines, within the FAA, and the NTSB, which made possible a series of specific catastrophic air disasters. This relationship is documented in official records in Stich's possession.

37.Harm inflicted upon Stich in the sham California action while violating record numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards:

a. Loss of his life’s assets.

b. Loss of his income.

c. Loss of his real estate investment business.

d. Loss of his home.

e. Loss of his credit worthiness.

f. Converted from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty.

g. The loss of his civil liberties and his civil rights.

h. Repeatedly threatened with incarceration, and sent to jail when he was unable to pay a financial sanction for having exercised his due process remedies.

i. Continually, from 1986 through 1995, charged with criminal contempt of court to block his reporting of criminal activities by government personnel and judges, and to block the federal remedies against the judicial retaliation..

38.Repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards occurring in the sham California action for six continuous years (protected by federal judges).

a. California statutes requiring recognizing the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights associated with that judgment: Civil Code §§ 4554, 5004, 5164; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1699(b), 1713.3, 1908, 1913, 1915 (effective when the 1966 judgment was rendered and for nine years thereafter).

b. California full faith and credit statutes that required recognition of each of the prior judgments and personal and property rights stated in those judgments.

c. Civil Code §§ 5004 (Full Faith and Credit Requirement); 4554 (final and conclusive effects of prior judgment, local, foreign state, foreign country).

d. C.C. § 5164 (a filed custody decree has the same effect as a California judgment). Several of the prior divorce judgments were entered as local judgments in the counties of Contra Costa and Solano.

e. C.C.P. § 1713 (a foreign state judgment is conclusive between the parties).

f. C.C.P. § 1908 (effect of a California judgment is conclusive between the parties (and this conclusiveness applies to foreign judgments under, inter alia, C.C. § 5164. Refusal to recognize this legal requirement was another due process and equal protection violation.

g. Absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. California law deprived California judges of personal and subject matter jurisdiction in Family Law Act proceedings on the basis of the absence of a marriage resulting from the divorce judgments. Absence of jurisdiction arose under Rules 1201(c), 1211, 1212, 1215(b), 1215(c), 1222, 1229(a), 1281, and 1282; Civil Code §§ 4351, 4357(a), 4370, 4503, 4554.

h. Absence of jurisdiction over separate properties. California law deprived California judges of jurisdiction over separate property in Family Law Act proceedings. Arose under Civil Code §§ 4800.1, 5102, 5103.

i. Absence of jurisdiction on the basis that Stich had filed a timely motion to quash challenging the court’s personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Until there was a hearing and a decision on that motion to quash, the judges lacked jurisdiction over Stich. California judges rendered numerous orders adversely affecting plaintiff’s personal and property rights for the next four years before they held a hearing on that motion, while knowingly lacking jurisdiction also on the basis of the motion to quash.

j. California Supreme Court decisions that required recognition of the prior divorce judgments and plaintiff’s divorced status and property rights. (Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249; Whealton v. Whealton (1967)67 C.2d 656). These early decisions were followed by statutes requiring the recognition of prior divorce judgments and related personal and property rights.

k. Statute of limitations. In addition to the statutory requirement to recognize the prior divorce judgments, the statute of limitations provided an additional bar to the sham lawsuit.

l. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 318, 338, 343; Civil Code §§ 880.020, and 880.250, require recognizing that the prior court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction when the judgment is under attack two decades after its exercise of jurisdiction, and the acceptance of the benefits by both parties: Evidence Code §§ 666, 665, 622.

m. Res judicata doctrine, in that the divorce litigated two decades earlier could not be relitigated. (Refusal to recognize this and other protections also violates constitutional equal protection and due process rights.)

n. Estoppel doctrines, including collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, estoppel by deed, estoppel by inaction, estoppel by judgment, estoppel by record, estoppel by oath, and estoppel in pais.

o. Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which required recognizing plaintiff’s divorced status and property rights established in the prior divorce judgments.

p. Full faith and credit constitutional protection in Article IV, § 1, which also required recognizing the prior divorce judgments filed in several jurisdictions, and the divorce status, property rights, and no-spousal-support status.

q. U.S. Supreme Court decisions that required recognizing each of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights arising in and from those judgments. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416; Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948); Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969). The long-settled rights under these Supreme Court decisions existed years before blacks were no longer required to sit in the back of buses, to use separate drinking fountains, and separate toilets, and should have been capable of being recognized by California judges and Friedman!

r. Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, which were violated by denying to Stich the same rights to substantive and procedural due process as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State of California and the United States, and as applied to other citizens.

s. Privileges and immunity clause under Article IV, § 1, by depriving plaintiff the right, while a resident of another state and jurisdiction, to obtain a divorce on a universally recognized basis, and deprived plaintiff of the right to change residence without losing previously acquired personal and property rights.

t. Constitutional right to unabridged interstate travel, the right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights and previously acquired property rights as a divorced person. The right to travel is provided by the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, section 2; and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

u. Fourteenth Amendment rights to the protection of property rights, the protection against being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and denying to plaintiff the equal protection of the law.

39.  Procedural due process protections. California judges repeatedly:

a. Refused to address plaintiff’s timely filed motion to quash.

b. Refused to issue mandatory findings of fact and conclusions of law which if they had been issued would have revealed in the judicial records the gross violations of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards and the absence of jurisdiction arising from several quarters.

c. Unlawfully placing Stich in default status and then proceeding to the taking of Stich’s assets without allowing him to appear or defend. In 1986, California judge Harold Wolters declared Stich in default for not appearing in San Francisco for a deposition, after plaintiff had already appeared numerous times. Stich resided in Nevada, and under California law he was not required to travel that distance for a deposition. This act of putting Stich in default status violated due process remedies that barred Stich from even attempting to defend against the continuing civil rights violations. 

d. California judge Denis Bunting refused to allow plaintiff to appear at a July 28, 1988 hearing where plaintiff’s properties would be given to his former wife of 22 years earlier, where money judgments would be rendered, and a judgment entered "terminating" the non-existing marriage. That hearing violated still other federally protected rights, including the constitutional due process right to appear before taking of properties would occur.

e. Retaliated against Stich for exercising constitutional due process, thereby violating federal criminal statute Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241Conspiracy 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. 


Unlawful Judicial Acts in Federal Courts

Continuously for nearly 20 years, federal judges perpetrated the following wrongful acts:

40.Aided and abetted the unlawful and unconstitutional acts occurring in the California courts. Repeatedly, from 1983 to 2000, promptly dismissed every lawsuit filed by Stich, often without a hearing, and placing a sham frivolous label on lawsuits stating facts raising multiple and major federal causes of actions.

1.     Repeatedly rendered permanent injunctions that barred Stich from court access and voided for him all rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. In this way, they blocked the reporting of criminal activities that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report and blocked the use of the many federal remedies to defend against the judicially inflicted violations of federally protected rights.
 

2.     Repeatedly, from 1986 through 1995, charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for seeking relief from the great and irreparable harm inflicted upon him through the record setting judicial violations of federally protected rights.
 

3.     Seizing Stich’s life’s assets without the statutory and constitutional due process requirement of a noticed hearing, of a hearing, and legally required cause.
 

4.     Then filing an order barring Stich from objecting, violating his right to procedural due process protections.
 

5.     Then charging Stich with criminal contempt of court when Stich exercised procedural due process remedies and filed objections to the seizure and liquidation of his assets.
 

6.     Immediately dismissed every lawsuit seeking to halt the escalating violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich, thereby voiding for Stich the statutory and constitutional protections guaranteed for every citizen (and illegal alien). These dismissals violated numerous federal laws and constitutional rights.
 

7.     Repeatedly placed frivolous labels on the lawsuits as federal judges sought to dismiss the actions. Judges reversed the common sense and legal criteria for a frivolous label, placing a frivolous label on causes of actions and violations of federally protected rights that were record setting violations of federally protected rights.
 

8.     Repeatedly refused to render findings of facts and conclusions of law on orders of dismissal and other orders, thereby eliminating the glaring contradictions between their sham excuses for denying Stich his due process and what the facts actually are.
 

9.     Violated requirement that allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true for opposing motions to dismiss or summary judgment, using this violation to violate Stich’s rights to a federal court forum and an adjudication of the federal issues in his lawsuit. In this way, federal judges denied to Stich the protections from the violations of federally protected rights appearing in federal remedies.
 

10.  Placing a sham frivolous label on each of Stich’s complaints to support the immediate dismissal of his highly explosive lawsuits, despite the fact that Supreme Court decisions and common sense contradicted that label.
 

11.  Repeatedly refused to render findings of facts and conclusions of law when dismissing Stich’s lawsuits, so as to avoid focusing on the facts that contradicted the excuses used to dismiss each and every lawsuit filed by Stich. This repeated judicial chicanery duplicated the judicial chicanery used by California judges in the sham California lawsuit that initiated the 19 years of continuing civil rights violations against Stich.
 

12.  Reversed the legal criteria for issuing an injunction. Instead of protecting Stich, who was suffering great and irreparable harm from the unlawful acts of the defendants, the judges rendering the injunction protected those who perpetrated the harm through record-setting unlawful acts, and in the process inflicted great harm upon the national security and the public’s interests.
 

13.  Reversing the legal criteria for a frivolous action, fraudulently placing a frivolous label on a lawsuit that raises multiple, concrete, hard-core, violations of federally protected rights in a scheme to evade the responsibilities to provide a federal court forum and to deny fundamental constitutional due process protections to a person exposing high level corruption in government offices.
 

14.  Rendered orders taking Stich’s life’s assets without the statutory and constitutional due process requirement of a noticed hearing, of a hearing, and of legally required cause.
 

15.  Rendering orders barring Stich from filing objections to the unlawful, unconstitutional, and corrupt seizure of his properties.
 

16.  Charging him with criminal contempt of court when he did file objections to the seizure and liquidation of his life’s assets.
 

17.  Rendering injunctions barring Stich for the remainder of his life from filing any papers in the federal courts, or protecting himself, while concurrently rendering judicial orders that violated federally protected rights that inflicted great and irreparable harm upon Stich.
 

18.  Voiding for Stich due process remedies to court access as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States, thereby subverting fundamental protections under our form of government.
 

19.  Misusing judicial positions and the courts to protect the unlawful and unconstitutional acts of the defendants listed in Stich’s lawsuits.
 

20.  Obstructing justice, by blocking the reporting of criminal activities undermining the internal security of the United States, that were being reported by Stich and his group of government whistleblowers under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
 

21.  Subverting the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
 

22.  Aiding and abetting those perpetrating criminal acts against the United States, and becoming guilty as the principles.
 

23.  Aiding and abetting those violating major federally protected rights through corrupt misuse of judicial positions and the courts.
 

24.  Protecting those people engaged in corrupt and criminal acts against the United States, as described in Stich’s lawsuits that were barred from being filed.
 

25.  Inflicting great harm upon the public’s interests.
 

26.  The order barring Stich from federal court protected those involved in the criminal acts that Stich and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report, protected those who aided and abetted by coverups the criminal activities; and the order voiding for Stich constitutional protections aided and abetted the scheme commenced in the California courts that required repeatedly violating dozens of state and federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and fundamental constitutional rights, along with every possible procedural due process remedy intended to protect against such violations of federally protected rights.

Federal Laws Violated by Federal Judges

1.     Federal judges repeatedly violated, and aided and abetted the violations, as proven by judicial records, many federal criminal and civil rights laws and constitutional rights, including:

1.     Fifth Amendment right to due process protections.
 

2.     The right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights and previously acquired property rights while a resident of other states.
 

3.     The right to procedural and substantive due process, which was being violated by California judges and then by federal judges. California and federal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising procedural due process remedies when his substantive due process rights were being violated.
 

4.     The right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment in the federal courts and the Fourteenth Amendment in the California courts.
 

5.     The specific acts that Stich stated in his lawsuit invoked federal court jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C§ 1331, 1343, the Civil Rights Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
 

6.     His constitutional and statutory right to federal court access and relief under the Civil Rights Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and other statutes.
 

7.     Supreme Court decisions that bar the dismissal of any lawsuit if the complaint states a federal cause of action. Stich’s complaints stated multiple federal causes of actions.
 

8.     Supreme Court decisions require that all allegations stated in the complaint must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceeding. Therefore, if any federal cause of action was stated, that barred dismissal. Among the federal causes of action stated in the complaint were violations of large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, acting without jurisdiction, while inflicting great and irreparable harm upon Stich, invoking mandatory federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, and other federal statutes and constitutional protections.
 

9.     Blocked the reporting of criminal activities that were undermining the internal security of the United States.
 

10.  Article IV, § 1, Full faith and credit shall be given to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. (Stich’s personal and property rights established in seven prior divorcee judgments were ignored and these rights and properties were taken in direct violation of this protection. Simultaneously with this taking, property rights acquired as a divorced person, while a resident of other states, were taken by California judges.) This constitutional protection was then corroborated by federal statute (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738), and Supreme Court decisions.
 

11.  Article IV, § 2, privileges and immunities clause guarantees to every citizen the right to all privileges and immunities as enjoyed by citizens of other states. It has been held that this right includes the right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights. Stich’s right to obtain a divorce, to obtain property while a resident of other states, was denied to him by California judges; his right to acquire a divorce and a judicial determination of his divorced status and property rights were violated by California judges.
 

12.  Article VI, Clause 2, supremacy clause, makes federal law the supreme law of the United States. For Stich, the violations of the supremacy clause included violations of Supreme Court holdings, Full Faith and Credit relating to personal and property rights previously adjudicated in divorce judgments before exercising constitutional right to change residence, due process right to the procedural and substantive protections of the laws and Constitution of the United States.
 

13.  The First Amendment right to petition government, which includes filing in the federal courts, extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is one aspect of the right of petition. See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485; Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. The Court concedes that the petitioners' "right of access to the agencies and courts . . . is part of the right of petition protected by the First Amendment."
 

14.  Fourth Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable seizure of property.
 

15.  Violated Fifth Amendment Rights. By denying Stich the right to court access, the judges rendering the injunctive orders were denying him equal protection of the law, due process, and the various protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
 

16.  Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, including the privileges and immunities and equal protection clauses. These include the right to travel without losing previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights.
 

17.  The Civil Rights Act.
 

18.  Declaratory Judgment Act.
 

19.  Title 28 United States Code § 1331, which provides to district courts original jurisdiction for civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
 

20.  Title 28 United States Code § 1343, which provides a federal court forum in which citizens may seek redress from the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities under color of state law.
 

21.  Civil Rights Act, Title 42 United States Code §§ 1983-1986, on the basis of continuous violations of plaintiff’s civil rights, under color of state law.
 

22.  Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, based upon the conspiracy by the defendants to violate plaintiff’s civil rights.
 

23.  Title 42 United States Code § 1986, based upon the demand for damages from those defendants who had knowledge of the violations of plaintiff’s civil rights, who had the duty and the ability to prevent or aid in the prevention of them, and who failed to perform that duty.
 

24.   Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Bivens claim is based upon the violations of plaintiff’s civil rights under color of federal law.
 

25.  Title 18 United States Code §§ 1961-1964. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (hereafter "RICO") claim arises from the pattern of multiple predicate acts perpetrated by defendants over a 17 year span. The predicate acts of racketeering by multiple defendants affected interstate commerce.
 

26.  Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 United States Code §§ 2201 and 2202, which provides for district courts to declare rights and legal relations that are in controversy, and provide whatever remedies are appropriate.

Federal Criminal Statutes Violated by Federal Judges
 

2.     Federal judges repeatedly violated federal criminal statutes as they blocked the reporting of criminal activities by Rodney Stich, a former federal agent, and his group of government whistleblowers. The federal criminal statutes that they repeatedly violated included:

1.     Title 18 United States Code § 4. This federal crime reporting statute requires any person who knows of a federal crime to promptly "report it to a federal judge" or other officer.
 

2.     Extension of the earlier acts impeding plaintiff and other federal air safety inspectors from performing the federal government’s air safety responsibilities. These wrongful acts resulted in hundreds of deaths in identifiable and documented air disasters, as detailed in earlier lawsuits filed by plaintiff and as detailed in his book, the third edition of Unfriendly Skies. These acts were crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. § 372. Title 18 U.S.C. § 372. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States top leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

3.     Obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, guilty as the principles. Federal judges blocked the reporting of criminal acts, thereby obstructing justice and violating the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4), committed felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4.
 

4.     Inflicting harm upon former government agent, whistleblower, witness, informant. Federal judges retaliated against Stich by rendering injunctive orders voiding all protections in law while using the courts to inflict additional harm, committed felonies against a witness, informant, and whistleblower, under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513.
 

5.       Inflicting harm upon person exercising due process rights. Federal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising due process remedies, thereby committing felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.
 

6.     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. Note: 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. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

7.     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.
 

8.     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.
 

9.     Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505 applies to anyone who corruptly attempts by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States. They do not have to succeed to have committed a federal crime; the attempt or scheme (conspire) to do so is criminal.
 

10.  Title 18 USC § 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.

(b) As used in this section, the term "criminal investigator" means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.

11.  Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness/informant. Applies to anyone who (b) uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to (1) influence, delay or prevent that person's testimony in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to (A) withhold testimony; or withhold a record from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impart the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a ... judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense, ...

§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens 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: shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. [1988 amended reading].

12.  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 forSQ(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 ...

13.  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;

14.    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 USCS § 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; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

Criminal Acts Related To A Series Of Fatal Airline Crashes
 

3.     By impeding Stich, while an FAA air safety inspector from performing his duties, and impeding and retaliating against him as a former federal air safety agent after leaving government service for seeking to report a pattern or corrupt and criminal acts associated with a series of fatal airline crashes, federal criminal statutes were violated, including Title 18 U.S.C. Section 372. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer.

1.     If two or more persons ... conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence  under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each  of such persons shall be fined not more than $5000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
 

2.     Stich was the primary air safety inspector for the most senior program at the world's largest airline, at a time when that airline was experiencing a series of fatal airline crashes due to the documented pattern of air safety and criminal violations. By blocking his reports of such crimes, while he was a federal agent and thereafter, made possible a continuation of such tragedies. The defendant judges played a key role in these federal offenses.

Civil Rights and Conspiracy Violations by Federal Judges

peatedly, from 1983 through 2000, violated Stich’s civil rights, and aided and abetted the violation of these federally protected rights.

3.     Title 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

4.     (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; ... or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
 

4.     Repeatedly aided and abetted the defendants that violated record numbers of California and federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and fundamental constitutional rights, starting in 1983 and continuing to this date. Despite the fact that these violations invoked federal court jurisdiction and constituted major federal causes of actions, federal judges protected the CIA-front law firm that initiated the violations and the California judges who carried them out. Stich sought relief under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, for which federal judges were paid and entrusted to provide a federal court forum, which they refused to do. In this way they aided and abetted the violations of federally protected rights that they were required to halt.