Reversing Frivolous Label to
Obstruct Justice and Strip Legal-Constitutional Defenses

The primary tactic used by federal judges to block Stich's access to federal courts and the multiple federal remedies for the record number of federal causes of action was to place a frivolous label on the lawsuits and then promptly dismiss them.

Common sense, and the criteria stated in Supreme Court decisions, made is obvious that the serious nature of the allegations in the lawsuits, each of which invoked federal causes of actions, were not frivolous. 

Any single one of the dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections invoked mandatory federal court jurisdiction under, for instance, the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. So determined were the federal judges to void all federal remedies needed to defend against the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm that exercise of federal defenses, intended for any one of the dozens of laws violated, became a frivolous act. 

Throughout the 20 years of attempts to defend, Stich encountered a constant pattern of judicial lies and violations of this nature--typical of what is normal in the legal fraternity.

Violated federal case law requiring that the statements in the complaint be accepted as true, and that only if those statements did not state a federal cause of action could the lawsuit be dismissed.

Each lawsuit clearly stated facts and federal causes of action invoking mandatory court jurisdiction and relief.. In addition, taking judicial notice of the wrongful acts proved that the statements were true. 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, ....

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.

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:

California judges repeatedly acting without jurisdiction while issuing orders inflicting great personal and financial harm upon Stich.

California judges repeatedly violating large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards in the sham California action. The violation of any one of these dozens of state laws would justify filing for relief.

As the litigation continued, federal judges expanded upon the violations of civil and constitutional rights, invoking additional federal causes of actions under the Bivens doctrine which provides identical relief against civil rights violations occurring under color of federal law to the Civil Rights Act which provides defenses against violations of civil rights under color of state law. 

---