Federal judges violated the law that requires four matters to exist before an injunction can be
issued against a person. These include:
(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.
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.
Another tactic used by federal judges was to issue permanent injunctions
barring Stich for the remainder of his life from filing any papers in the
federal courts, which were obviously unlawful and unconstitutional.
The intent and the effect of the permanent injunctions was to block the reporting of
criminal activities which Stich 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 protection in federal law against the massive violations occurring
in sham lawsuits filed by CIA-related law firms.
When Stich sought to report additional criminal activities that he
subsequently learned from the increasing numbers of other government agents,
federal judges and Justice Department prosecutors charged Stich with
criminal contempt of court.
A void injunctive order cannot serve as the 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.
n 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 by requiring Stich and his group of government
whistleblowers to cover up for criminal activities. The judges violated
numerous criminal statutes, including Title18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4
Retaliating against Stich, a former federal agent and witness, was a
felony under Title 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513.
Retaliating against a person for exercising due process rights.
These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.
The federal crime reporting statute constitutes one of the most valuable tools
to fight corruption in government that is covered up by other government
officials. It is understandable why corrupt people in government offices would
not want that statute used.
Free book
segments. For a listing of the books written by
former government insiders on the continuing history of
corrupt activities responsible for a continuing series of
human tragedies, and to download at no charge segments of
each of the books, click here.
If you wish to help us continue these efforts, and make
available for free downloading segments of any of the books, please make
donations via Paypal using your
credit card or your Paypal account. If sufficient donations are received,
the full segments of the books will be provided free for those who want the
information.
Email address for
the author and activist against corruption in
government: stich@unfriendlyskies.com.
For more information relating to the author and his
activities put "Rodney Stich" into a
search
engine such as Google or
yahoo.com.
The links run into many tens of thousands.
Download DVD videos from amazon to rent or to buy, onto your Windows XP
operation system computer. For more information,
click
here.
To order a DVD video download, click on the following amazon link:
Hot cell phone and service deal from amazon.com,
with 30-day return if not satisfied.
Consider placing orders for any product
from amazon.com through the following links. There is no
extra cost or delay in doing this, while it provides us a
small commission to help fund this site and our
public-spirited efforts.
Return to:
www.defraudingamerica.com
www.druggingamerica.com
www.unfriendlyskies.com
www.defraudingamericablog.com
unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring Rodney Stich and his group of government whistleblowers from reporting serious criminal activities that they uncovered as part of their official duties. These criminal activities included, for instance, CIA drug smuggling, judicial corruption in the bankruptcy courts, and other crimes described in his informational books.