History of judicial corruption

<body> History of Tragedy-Related Judicial Obstruction of Justice and Retaliation The following describes a series of efforts to expose corrupt, criminal, and even subversive activities implicating people in various government departments discovered by government agents, and the efforts to circumvent the widespread cover-ups. The harmful misconduct that was first discovered was in the government's aviation safety offices, and then expanded to other areas that were, and continue to, adversely affect national security, other national priorities, and the lives, and deaths, of many innocent people. Assignment to Correct Conditions Resulting in Worst Series of Airline Disasters in the Nation's History Federal aviation safety agent was given the assignment to correct the conditions responsible for the worst series of airline crashes in the nation's history. (1963) He was told, "There are serious problems there, but the FAA is right behind you." Problems discovered, consisting of corrupt and criminal activities. A cover-up started. Stich exercised the law in such a manner that he acted as an independent prosecutor for about four months, conducting hearings and causing FAA management officials to testify. The evidence showed a clear relationship between misconduct and a series of airline disasters. During the hearing, three other major crashes occurred. The hearing, conducted before an administrative judge who was on the FAA administrator's staff, and whose job depended upon pleasing the administrator. FAA Closing Brief Warning of Dire Consequences of Cover-Up Stich's FAA closing brief warned of continuation of the catastrophic consequences if a cover-up occurred. The corrupt practices and resulting crashes continued. The usual government cover-up did occur, and the hearing officer praised the very same people engaging in misconduct blocking the federal government from exercising its air safety responsibilities, and who were responsible for the conditions resulting in several recent brutal air disasters. Reporting Corruption to Members of Congress Attempts to motivate members of Congress to act on the serious corruption that Stich and other federal agents brought to them proved to be utterly impossible. Sampling of letters sent to members of Congress over the years, reporting criminal activities that professionals in government discovered. Lawsuit filed against members of Congress on the basis of their cover-ups of major criminal activities in government offices. March 24, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Reporting Corruption to FBI and DOJ Personnel Stich reported to FBI and DOJ personnel, including FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, while Stich was a federal agent, the criminal activities occurring within the FAA and especially during a FAA hearing, that were related to a continuing series of fatal airline disasters. The standard government cover-up and block occurred. Appearing Before Federal Grand Jury in Denver To circumvent the blocks in government, Stich obtained an appearance before a federal grand jury in Denver, circumventing the DOJ block. Stich discovered the control that the U.S. attorney had over the grand jury, most of whom were unsophisticated people. Although jurors came up to Stich after his presentation and stated there must be something that needs investigation, the U.S. attorney blocked any further action. Futile Attempt to Motivate the Public With Expose Book Stich refused to work under those conditions, and left the government. But as the airline crashes continued to occur at a frequent rate, and since Stich had the evidence to address the problems causing the crashes, he renewed his efforts to expose the corruption that he had discovered. He published informational books, appeared as guest and expert on radio and television shows, numbering over 3,000 since 1978. Books had excellent book reviews and reports from professionals, as well as the public. But no one did anything. Using Federal Crime Reporting Statute To Circumvent Endemic Cover-Ups Seeking to circumvent the constant cover-ups and force a record on the deep-seated and expanding misconduct that was responsible for many tragic events, Stich, seeking to circumvent the widespread cover-ups and obstruction of justice, exercised federal law in a unique manner. Stich filed the first in a series of federal lawsuits seeking to force a federal judge to perform a judge's mandatory duty under the clear wording of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. During these initial federal filings, federal judges admitted the gravity of the charges, but upon motions by Justice Department lawyers who argued that Stich had no standing to report the criminal activities, the judges blocked Stich from presenting the information and dismissed the filings. Crashes then continued to occur from the same problems Stich was trying to report, making the federal judges and Justice Department lawyers complicit in their occurrence. These actions were also filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The cover ups continued in the courts, blocking the reporting of these corrupt and criminal activities. Exposing Federal Judges Started Sequence of Corrupt Legal and Judicial Acts to Halt Exposure Activities Stich's second edition of Unfriendly Skies named these judges and the consequences. This apparently caused concern among federal judges. In 1982, a sham lawsuit was filed by a CIA-front law firm in San Francisco, the intent of which was to seize the assets that funded the exposure of the deadly criminal activities. That lawsuit was barred by dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections--all of which were repeatedly violated by California judges, and then by federal judges. Since the orders rendered by California judges--in support of the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm--violated federally protected rights for which federal defenses existed, Stich filed the first in a series of federal actions seeking to end the great personal and financial harm arising from the violations. The same federal judiciary that had blocked Stich from reporting the criminal activities now acted to block his exercise of federal defenses. Every attempt to exercise federal defenses was blocked and the lawsuits promptly dismissed. As Stich was continuing to suffer from the ongoing violations in the California courts, he continued his exposure activities, which gave him nationwide recognition. This exposure caused the start of years of reports from other former and present government agents, describing in detail corrupt and criminal activities implicating personnel in other government offices and in covert government operations. In 1986, Stich filed the first in a series of other federal lawsuits seeking to report these criminal activities to a federal judge as required under the federal crime reporting statute, and combined these attempts with exercising federal defenses against the actions started by the CIA-front law firm. By then, Stich recognized that these were parallel efforts to block his reporting and exposure of the criminal activities. Therefore, combining the attempt to report the crimes against the United States and addressing the actions taken to silence him were a natural combination. Federal judges then enlarged upon their earlier block to reporting the criminal activities and block to exercise of federal defenses. These actions included, for instance: Approving every one of the massive violations of laws and constitutional protections by the California judges acting in unison with the CIA-front lawyers, thereby becoming criminally complicit in the scheme to prevent the public from learning about the corruption that Stich and his group of other government insiders sought to report and expose. Expanded on the violations perpetrated by the California judges and CIA-front law firm by violation numerous federal laws providing protection against civil rights violations. Immediately dismissed every filing before they could proceed, usually before the defendants could be served. Rendering unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. These orders blocked the reporting of the criminal activities and blocked federal defenses against the dual violations of federally protected rights. Charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for again seeking to report additional areas of criminal activities and for again exercising federal defenses seeking to halt the increasing personal and financial harm. Stich was sent to federal prison for six months on a contempt of court charge for exercising these federal requirements and federal defenses. While in prison, federal judges issued orders seizing and liquidating Stich's assets, which eventually converted him from multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. These orders violated the legal and constitutional requirements of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legal cause, making them void orders (for which Stich was barred to exercise legal remedies). When Stich filed objection to the seizure and liquidation, the objection was unlawfully unfiled and then Stich was charged with criminal contempt of court for exercising the right to defend. He was denied a jury trial, denied his own money to hire legal counsel, and sentenced to federal prison. (That sentence was never carried out. However, from 1967 to 1995, Stich was either in prison or house arrest arising from his attempts to report the criminal and even subversive activities and for exercising federal defenses against the misuse of judicial power to silence him.) Many national tragedies were associated with the criminal and subversive misconduct that Stich and his group of other former government agents sought to report, which federal judges blocked from being reported. The latest consequences of the underlying misconduct, and the felony obstruction of justice and retaliation by federal judges, were the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11. Even then, every group that contributed to the prior cover-ups continued to cover up after the 9/11 events, insuring that the decades of misconduct and blowback consequences would continue. Criminal Acts Repeatedly Perpetrated by Federal Judges The retaliatory acts against a former federal agent and witness for attempting to report crimes against the United States by federal personnel, were felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 35, 111, 153, 241, 242, 245(b)(1)(B), 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513(b), 1515(a). These felonies were in addition to these related to obstruction of justice, Title 18 U.S.C. § 2, 3, 4. It was also a criminal act to block anyone from exercising constitutionally protected rights, such as blocking access to federal courts. Blocking a Former Federal Agent from Reporting Criminal Activities Were Felonies The repeated obstruction of justice acts by federal judges--that enabled to occur great harm to national security and other national issues, were criminal acts. The criminal nature of the conduct by federal judges did not require addressing the truthfulness of the alleged criminal acts being blocked; the mere act of blocking a person from reporting what he believes to be criminal acts constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice by federal judges. 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. 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. Blocking Reporting Pattern of Judicial Obstruction of Justice and Parallel Massive Civil Rights Violations A lawsuit was submitted to the U.S. district court at Oakland, California on March 14, 2000, that reported the pattern of judicial obstruction of justice, judicial retaliation for such reports, and the massive legal and constitutional violations that were part of the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm. The clerk of the court refused to file the complaint, stating that an order by U.S. district judge Marilyn Patel in 1986--15 years earlier--had forever barred Rodney Stich from access to the federal courts. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Last Attempt Before 9/11 To Report Corruption That Made 9/11 Possible After being denied the right to file a lawsuit at Oakland, Stich then filed the lawsuit on March 24, 2000 in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada. An Amended Complaint was filed on May 12, 2000. The Amended Complaint was 66 pages long, and stated facts showing a 20-year pattern of judicial corruption. Most of the allegations in the complaint are supported by judicial records in the California and in the federal courts. (MS Word) (Adobe pdf) Before that lawsuit was unlawfully dismissed, Stich filed a declaration into the action showing the relationship between the corruption stated in the lawsuit and the conditions enabling four airliners to be hijacked on 9/11. January 21, 2002.(MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, October 24, 2002, at San Francisco denying to Stich the legal and constitutional right to appeal any orders rendered in the Reno lawsuit. This order, rendered by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges Pregerson, Kleinfeld, and Gould, refused to proceed with Stich's Notice of Appeal relating to the dismissal of the federal judges named in the lawsuit. Pregerson was one of the judges who blocked the initial lawsuits against the FAA and NTSB. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Continued Judicial Obstruction of Justice After 9/11 Two attempts were made, following the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11, to report the corrupt activities to a federal judge, including those in the government's aviation safety offices where the area of primary blame existed that enabled terrorists to hijack the airliners. (Attempts to make these reports to members of Congress--who had for years blocked receiving information--were blocked.) Lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Washington, D.C., which was blocked by district and appellate court judges. That appellate court is considered the most influential on legal decisions affecting the lives of all Americans, and by their actions are involved in criminal obstruction of justice and other offenses. (MS Word) (Adobe pdf) Lawsuit filed in the federal courts at New York City, seeking to report criminal and even subversive activities--some of which were responsible for the conditions that made 9/11 possible--and which again documents the extent of corruption in the federal courts. August 8, 2003. (MS Word) (Adobe pdf) Finally Giving Up Recognizing, finally, that he could not accomplish what he had tried to do so many years earlier, and facing the endemic corruption in the federal courts, the endemic cover-ups in government, the cover-ups by media people, and the indifference of the people, Stich finally gave up trying. In his 80s, and recognizing the overall decline in the culture and morals of the country, he has given up trying. However, he continued to write books based upon the explosive information he continues to acquire from the many insiders who come to him. These books are written, not to wake up and motivate the people--as their prior conduct showed this isn't possible--but to make a record of the information and evidence made available to the public, and the deadly consequences of their pathetic state of denial. </body>