Conditions
that must exist before an injunction can be issued against a person:
(1) they must halt great and irreparable harm;
(2) they must halt unlawful acts;
(3) they must be in the public’s interest; and
(4) the judge rendering the orders must issue a finding
of facts showing that these requirements had been met.
Continuing the documented pattern of reversing the clear
wording of the law, numerous federal judges applied these requirements in
reverse, another indication of the utter contempt for the law by the mindset in
the federal judiciary.
The orders did not halt the harm, they protected the
people inflicting the harm and deprived Stich, who was the recipient of the
harm, from defenses and protections in the laws and Constitution of the United
States.
The orders did not halt the unlawful acts; they provided
judicial protection to the continuation and escalating of these violations.
As to protecting public interests, subverting the laws
and Constitution of the United States and depriving a citizen of these rights
was not in the public’s interest. And the findings of facts showing these
requirements were met was never rendered by any of the judges.
No law permits issuing a permanent injunction,
especially when it voids for anyone the rights and protections guaranteed by
the laws and Constitution of the United States.
These
requirements were repeatedly violated by federal judges as they issues unlawful
and unconstitutional orders permanently barring former federal agent Rodney
Stich from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court.
The
intent of the permanent injunctions was to block his reporting of criminal
activities which he and his group of government whistleblowers had sought to
do. The requirement to make such reports to a federal judge is clearly stated
in the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. That statute
states:
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."
The
other reason for rendering the injunctive orders was to void for Stich the
multiple federal causes of actions that arose from the repeated violations of
major rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United
States.
Void
Injunctive Orders Issued In A Corrupt Judicial Environment Cannot Serve As
Basis For Contempt
A
void order cannot support a contempt charge. An order denying a person equal
protection of the law cannot support contempt. Johnson v. Virginia, 373
US 61, 83 S Ct 1053, 10 L Ed 2d 195. The injunctive order violated important
due process protections guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and Constitution
of the United States. 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. Making this worse, he was suffering great
and irreparable harm from record numbers of violations of federally protected
rights.
The
injunctive orders:
Obstructed
justice. Required Stich and his group of government whistleblowers to cover up
for criminal activities. These are felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4
Retaliated
against a witness or informant reporting criminal activities. These are federal
crimes under. These are felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, 1512,
1513.
Retaliated
against a person for exercising due process rights. These are criminal acts
under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Became
part of a conspiracy, aiding and abetting those defendants named in the lawsuit
that repeatedly misused the courts to violate federally protected rights, to
retaliate against persons for exercising due process remedies, to retaliate
against witnesses and informants,
Required
Stich to commit the crime of cover-ups under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
Required
Stich to Forfeit the due process rights and protections guaranteed by the laws
and Constitution of the United States, subvert fundamental constitutional
rights and federal statutes, and are obviously void orders.
See
the notice of appeal filed by Rodney Stich with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The appeal was denied.