First Judges Involved in
Obstruction of Justice Actions
In the mid-1970s, former federal safety agent Rodney Stich filed the first of his many attempts to report the criminal activities in the FAA and NTSB to a federal judge that he had discovered during his official federal duties. The reports of the federal crimes to a federal judge were required by the federal crime reporting statute. Failure to have made such a report would have been a criminal offense.
Federal judge must receive the reports of federal crimes as part of their mandatory executive responsibilities and not their judicial responsibilities. Any failure or refusal by federal judges to receive report of a federal crime would constitute an obstruction of justice by the judge. Further, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would have the same mandatory responsibility to receive reports of a federal crime if brought to their attention (which was done numerous times, with the Justices covering up for not only the criminal acts, but also the obstruction of justice and felony retaliation by judges over whom the Justices had supervisory responsibilities).
Robert Schnacke (U.S. District Court, San Francisco) He was the first judge to receive a federal brief filed by Stich. (Stich v. United States, et al, 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977). The lawsuit sought to expose government corruption by key people in the Federal Aviation Administration, compounded by obstruction of justice from Justice Department employees.
Justice Department employees argued to have that action dismissed, thereby protecting the corruption that had played a major role in many prior airline crashes.
Judge Schnacke, and then three judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sympathized with Stich, but held that it was the responsibility of Congress, and not the court, to address these matters. That argument was contrary to statutory and case law.
Stich then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Justices covered up for the serious government corruption by refusing to hear the case. By covering up for the FAA corruption, several subsequent air disasters were closely associated with the same type of misconduct, which continues to this day.
Judge James R. Browning, U.S. District Court
James R. Browning (U.S. District Court.) He was the district court judge who heard Stich's lawsuit against the National Transportation Safety Board (Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977) in which Stich sought a court order forcing the NTSB to open the accident investigation into the 1978 Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) disaster in San Diego and admit major evidence revealing the primary reason why the disaster occurred (as revealed in the third edition of Unfriendly Skies).
Browning sympathized with Stich, and stated, as repeated by the three judges in the ninth circuit court of appeals that Stich had no standing to seek this remedy (despite the U.S. attorney at San Francisco initially agreeing to support Stich's actions. Aided by Justice Department and judicial misconduct, the pattern of NTSB cover-ups continued, as described in Unfriendly Skies, and in the tragic TWA Flight 800 disaster.
Prior Disasters That Made Obvious The
Consequences of Judicial Cover-Ups
1986 Repeat of Earlier Judicial Obstruction
In 1986, after Stich started learning of criminal activities in other areas of government operation from the many other former government agents who had contacted him, after hearing of Stich's efforts, he again filed the first of other judicial attempts to report the crimes.
That first filing, in the U.S. district court at Sacramento, California, was assigned to Judge Milton Schwartz. Schwartz initially showed concern about the reports of high-level government corruption that Rodney Stich sought to report under federal crime-reporting statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, and then a month later and refused to receive the evidence.
Compounding his refusal to receive the evidence offered under federal crime reporting statutes, Schwartz rendered an order barring Stich--for life--from federal court access (which was illegal and unconstitutional, and obviously intended to block Stich from reporting criminal activities that he and his government agents were seeking to report.
This was a clear obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting the criminal activities being reported, and constituted federal crimes worse than the offenses for which many people languish in federal prison. Schwartz initiated corrupt judicial acts that enabled federal and California judges to seize and loot Stich's life's assets. Schwartz' crimes in these areas expanded through Schwartz' cover-ups, obstruction of justice, misprision of felonies, and his various civil rights violations against Stich.
Not only did Schwartz commit criminal acts involving the obstruction of justice and retaliation against Stich, but he unlawfully and criminally blocked the exercise of what is the most important federal criminal statute available to the public when federal officials are guilty of criminal acts. That statute is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4.
Compounding Obstruction of Justice
With Crimes Against a Witness
As Stich's sources provided him more information of corrupt and criminal activities, Stich again sought to report these crimes to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statutes. By this time it was also necessary to cover up for the prior cover-ups of federal judges and Department of Justice personnel and the crashes that followed their earlier cover-ups.
The response was to expand on the prior judicial cover-ups and to charge the former federal agent with criminal contempt of court for having exercised the mandatory responsibility of the crime reporting statute.
The following judges were directly involved in the retaliation tactics:
Raul Ramirez (U.S. District Court, Sacramento-now in private practice in the Sacramento area.)
John Moulds (He was a magistrate in U.S. District Court at Sacramento and also in private practice. Moulds was first contacted by Stich on the basis of his constitutional law expertise, seeking to halt the massive civil and constitutional violations that were part of a California lawsuit initiated by the CIA-FBI-related law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco.
Possibly realizing the government's involvement in the scheme, he refused to provide Stich any help. Later, Moulds conducted a non-jury "trial" in which he ruled that Stich was guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. That was the charged first brought by U.S. Attorney David Levi and and Judge Milton Schwartz.
Bizarre DOJ Responsibility for
Protecting Civil Rights
Under law, one of the responsibilities for Department of Justice employees is to protect people's civil rights, in addition to fighting crimes against the United States. Another example of the bizarre contradictions in the years of tactics by Department of Justice employees and federal judges was the criminal contempt of court charge filed by U.S. Attorney David Levi. The charge was based upon:
A prior unlawful and unconstitutional order by U.S. District Judge Milton Schwartz permanently barring the former federal agent from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. The effect of that order−and surely the intent−was to prevent Stich from:
Reporting the criminal activities that he had initially discovered as a federal agent related to a series of airline disasters, and the criminal activities that he had subsequently discovered as provided to him by numerous other former government agents and other insiders. And:
To block Stich from exercising the federal remedies to halt the massive and continuing violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections arising from legal scheme filed by a CIA-FBI-front law firm in the California courts, and the complicity of California judges.
Exercising the responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute of reporting major crimes against the United States involving people in high-level covert and overt operations; and for exercising federal defenses seeking to halt the great harm from the massive violations of federally protected rights.
Moulds denied to Stich the constitutional right to a jury trial, and sentenced Stich, then nearly 70 years old and just recovering from open heart surgery requiring six bypasses, to six months in federal prison. That sentence was carried in the most brutal method possible, transporting Stich in chains from prison to prison.
Mould's sentence was approved by U.S. District Judge Raul Ramirez (now in private practice in Sacramento) and then after Stich filed an appeal, by the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco. The list of enablers to crimes against the United States, and insuring the continuation of the brutal consequences from the criminal activities and the cover-ups, continued to expand. As it would do for years thereafter, if for no other reason than to protect the judges earlier implicated.
Stich filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Justices also approved the blatant violations of civil, constitutional and criminal law.
Another judge who played a direct role in the scheme was Edward Garcia.
Standard Practice of Controlling the System
For their cooperation, and to insure control of the system, U.S. Attorney David Levi and Magistrate John Moulds were subsequently appointed as federal judges in the federal courts at Sacramento, California.
Obstruction of Justice Tactics
Extended into the Bankruptcy Courts
Robert Jones (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Las Vegas). Jones was the judge who criminally misused his judicial office to seize Stich's assets and place them in the hands of known embezzler, Charles Duck (formerly a Santa Rosa, California court-appointed trustee with a long history of looting assets and reportedly a CIA asset). The Jones' story is found in the third editions of Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies. Judge Jones' actions were especially important for the convoluted scheme to block Stich's exposure of high-level corruption to succeed.
Edward Jellen (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Oakland). Especially crude were the actions of Judge Jellen, who sentenced Stich to federal prison for filing objections to the looting of Stich's assets by corrupt trustee Charles Duck and the others who worked with him.
Allan Jaroslovsky (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Santa Rosa, California). A well-known figure in the judicial corruption in the bankruptcy courts.
Role of California Judges in the
Obstruction of Justice Tactics
California judges aided and abetted the federal actions to block Stich's reporting of the high-level government corruption, as detailed and documented in the third editions of Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America). California judges openly and repeatedly violated large numbers of California and federal statutes, related decisional law, rules of court, as they played their part in stripping Stich of over $10 million in assets (1987 value). These assets funded his exposure activities. Under federal criminal statutes, they became criminally implicated in the scheme to block the reporting of federal crimes. Included in this group were the following:
Dennis Bunting (Solano County, Fairfield, CA, who later became county counsel for Solano County in Fairfield, California.)
Dwight Ely (Solano County, Fairfield, CA)
William Jensen (Solano County, Fairfield, CA, promoted to California Court of Appeals)
Michael McInnis (Solano County, Fairfield, CA, now retired).
Clinton Peterson (Solano County, Fairfield, CA, promoted thereafter to California Court of Appeals. He then retired and became a private judicial arbitrator.)
Richard Harris (Solano County, Fairfield, CA)
Harry W. Low (California Court of Appeals)
Donald B. King (California Court of Appeals)
Zane P. Haning (California Court of Appeals)
Other California judges become implicated, starting in 2001, in the scheme started by the Smith and Collins law firm in South Carolina. The participants in that scheme, including the additional California judges, are detailed at that site. Among the dozen or more lawyers that became involved in that latest scheme was the Guerrini law firm in the Los Angeles area.
California judge Terence L. Bruiniers (Martinez, CA)
California court commissioner Judith A. Sanders (Martinez, CA)
South Carolina judge Jackson V. Gregory (Circuit court judge)
South Carolina judge Patrick R. Watts (Dorchester County Master-in-equity).
South Carolina lawyers and law firms:
Smith and Collins law firm.
David Athell Collins
Steven L. Smith
Troy Guerard Knight (Summerville, SC)
Horger, Horger, Lanier & Knight law firrm (Summerville, SC)
Law Firms and Lawyers Whose Conduct
Knowingly Obstructed Justice
Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco law firm, reportedly a CIA front or asset)This is the law firm that commenced the sham action against Stich, that was barred by state and federal law.
Lawrence Gibbs (attorney with Friedman, Sloan and Ross and now an attorney in the San Francisco-Berkeley area). A key attorney in the scheme to strip Stich of the assets that funded Stich's exposure of high-level government corruption.
Goldberg, Stinnett & MacDonald (San Francisco law firm). A major player in the scheme that blocked the exposure of high-level government corruption and the looting of Stich's assets.
Goldberg, Stinnett, Meyers & Davis (Modified partner structure of Goldberg, Stinnett & MacDonald). Working with convicted embezzler and trustee Charles Duck and others, they assisted in looting Stich's assets and the violations of numerous federal civil and criminal statutes.
Murray and Murray (Law firm in Palo Alto). Worked closely with court-appointed trustees looting assets seized from people exercising statutory protections of Chapter 11, including joining the scheme against Stich which helped block the reporting of major criminal activities.
Sid Saperstein (worked with Friedman, Sloan and Ross in carrying out the scheme against Rodney Stich, as part of the scheme to block Stich's reporting of the criminal activities that he uncovered in government).
Jo Anne Speers, legal counsel with Judge Milton Schwartz, who assisted and conspired with Judge Schwartz in the sham attacks upon Stich as described in both books. At this time she is an attorney with the California league of California cities, based in Sacramento.
Joshua Landish, Las Vegas attorney, who sabotaged his client, Rodney Stich, paving the way for Judge Jones to strip Stich of the assets funding Stich's exposure activities.
Carl Larson, court-appointed attorney to Rodney Stich, and who sabotaged Stich's defenses when Stich was charged with contempt of court for seeking to report criminal activities in government that must be reported under federal crime-reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4.
Joel Pegg, attorney in the Sacramento, California area. Hired by Stich to defend against the sham contempt of court charge and in the sham California action, Pegg sabotaged Stich in both cases, making possible the loss of Stich's $10 million in assets and Stich's imprisonment on a contempt of court charge (Justice Department and judicial retaliation for having filed an action with the federal courts under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, seeking to report the criminal activities (in which federal judges and Justice Department personnel were earlier implicated through cover-ups).
Sequence of the involvement by dozens of lawyers and law firms and lawyer corruption.
Sequence of the overall plot.
Extending Obstruction of Justice into the 1990s
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel
Marilyn Petal (U.S. District Court, San Francisco). One of the most vicious of all the federal judges in the obstruction of justice tactics, Petal's enlarged on the prior judicial misconduct, again charging Stich with criminal contempt of court in 1990. Information provided to Stich by CIA sources indicated that Petal was deeply involved with CIA activities.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
Assisting Judge Petal was U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (U.S. District Court, San Francisco). Walker closely assisted Judge Petal in blocking the reports of high-level criminal activities and in seeking to return Stich to prison.
Walker's orders kept Stich under almost complete house arrest from 1990 to 1995, until the charges were suddenly dropped in 1995 without notice to Stich. (Walker rendered orders that provided unusual relief to major drug traffickers, possibly because of a CIA drug connection.)
Samuel Conti (U.S. District Court, Sacramento), aided and abetted the actions by the other federal judges, with the same felony violations and prostitution of his judicial duties.
U.S. District Judge Lowell Jensen
Lowell Jensen (U.S. District Court, San Francisco) Jensen played a role in the above activities. He was directly and corruptly involved as a Department of Justice attorney in the Inslaw scandal (described in Defrauding America), and in the Iran-Contra affair, and was rewarded with a federal judge position, a common tactic to control the system and control the checks and balances available to the public.
1990s Extension of Tactics
To the Washington Courts
Lawrence Silberman (U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington, DC). Silberman played key roles in blocking Stich from exposing the high-level government corruption by dismissing a lawsuit raising these matters, including the attempts by Stich and his coalition of government agents and deep-cover operatives from exposing CIA crimes (CIA drug trafficking, savings and loan fraud, among others). Coincidentally, Silberman was a former legal counsel for the CIA.
Stanley Sporkin (U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington, DC). Sporkin also played key roles in blocking Stich's exposure activities. Sporkin was at one time the head legal counsel for the CIA, was legal counsel for the covert CIA operation, Southern Air Transport, and identified by Terry Reed in his book, Compromised, as involved in CIA Arkansas drug smuggling activities. Others who were closely involved in blocking the exposure of high-level government corruption will be added to this list as time permits.
Last Obstruction of Justice Before 9/11
Federal district judge in Reno, Nevada, Edward C. Reed, Jr., blocked attempts to report the corruption in the three government agencies that would shortly thereafter be responsible for the conditions enabling four groups of terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11, and the failure of the FBI and CIA to act on the evidence of the terrorist plot.
Stich filed a lawsuit seeking to expose the corruption that he had discovered, and the obstruction of justice tactics by named defendants. As in every prior attempt, that federal judge blocked the reports and protected each of the parties involved in the legal and judicial obstruction of justice tactics.
After the 9/11 hijackings occurred, and before Judge Reed dismissed the lawsuit, Stich filed an affidavit titled, "Declaration Relating to Links Between Defendants' Conduct and September 11, 2001, Terrorist Acts." Reed ignored the gravity of the issues, thereby protected the army of lawyers and judges already implicated in the obstruction of justice tactics. (Word format) (Adobe PDF format)
This judge not only refused to receive Stich's information, but ordered Stich to pay sanctions for filing the action. Even 3,000 deaths didn't change the culture in the federal courts. But to have finally addressed these matters would expose the massive criminality throughout the federal courts. Stich then filed a notice of appeal, which required the same Ninth Circuit court of appeal judges who had played key roles in the obstruction of justice to act on the appeal−as well as receiving Stich's reports of the criminal activities as required under the federal crime reporting statute.
In dismissing the federal judges who Stich included among the judges and lawyer defendants, Judge Reed stated in his order of dismissal:
It is hereby ordered that motion to dismiss filed July 6, 2000, by defendants Federal Judges Milton Schwartz, Raul Ramirez, John Moulds, Marilyn Patel, Vaughn Walker, Robert Jones, and Edward Jellen, is granted.
The Federal Judges have absolute immunity. Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Moreover, judges are absolutely immune from a § 1983 or Bivens liability even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. The acts complained of by plaintiffs were not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or non judicial in nature. An act is judicial if it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity.
The families of those killed on September 11, 2001, whose deaths could be blamed more on the obstruction of justice and other crimes by federal judges, may be disheartened by the self-serving decision of federal judges protecting them against the consequences of their actions.
However, federal civil rights statutes and others do not exclude judges from the liability of their misconduct. But Congress would have to legislate a statute to specifically clarify that judges are not immune from the consequences of their criminal acts or from knowing violations of rights clearly established in the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Post 9/11 Obstruction of Justice
Shortly after the hijackings of four airliners on September 11, 2001, Stich again sought to report the continuing corruption in the government offices responsible for the conditions that enabled the hijackings to occur and to enable to hijacking scheme to proceed when evidence was known that the hijackings were planned. He filed a lawsuit in the federal courts in New York where most of the 9/11 litigation was filed.
The list of federal judges blocking the exposure of corrupt and criminal activities that enabled the events of 9/11 to occur included Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, who was shortly thereafter appointed to U.S. Attorney General; and , a post rife with political corruption, into which Mukasey was a "perfect" fit; and Alvin K. Hellerstein.
District of Columbia Judges Continued
Their Obstruction of Justice After 9/11
After 9/11, former federal safety agent Rodney Stich also sought to force the issue by filing a lawsuit in the federal courts in the District of Columbia. Directly involved in blocking the reports were the following federal judges:
Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Court judge.
Douglas H. Ginsburg, Court of Appeals judge.
David B. Sentelle, Court of Appeals judge.
A. Raymond Randolph, Court of Appeals judge.
Complicity of Justices of
The U.S. Supreme Court
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have repeatedly aided and abetted the obstruction of justice tactics and the massive violations of civil and constitutional rights that were part of the tactics.
Stich filed and submitted for filing numerous legal papers with the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, along with numerous letters over a period of years.
Under federal criminal statutes, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are criminally implicated in many of the criminal activities described in author Rodney Stich's books. Under federal crime reporting statutes, and especially the very important Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, anyone knowing of a federal crime is himself or herself guilty of a crime if that person does not promptly report the crime/s to a federal judge or other federal official.
Federal Judges Are Criminally
Complicit in 3000 Deaths
Consider the following:
Without addressing the other areas affected by the criminal activities that Stich and his group of former government agents sought to report, and addressing only the corruption that affected the aviation environment:
IF the culture and corruption within the FAA did in fact exist (as overwhelming documentation shows), which included a history of blocking the implementation of procedures addressing the known safety problems, such as hijackings);
It would explain why the known and obviously long overdue measures to prevent the hijackings of the four airliners on 9/11 were not taken;
And the preventative measures to prevent airline hijackings did exist (and Stich made such recommendations);
And the need for such preventative measures was obvious from years of airline hijackings, plus the knowledge that airline hijackings were planned by Middle East terrorists);
And if federal judges did block Stich from making these reports;
And if federal judges did charge Stich with criminal contempt of court for trying to make such reports;
It becomes obvious that the long overdue preventatives measures were blocked by the judicial obstruction of justice and judicial retaliation, including the criminal contempt of court for attempting to report these federal offenses.
It then becomes obvious that if a citizen had perpetrated a minute fraction of these offenses that he would be criminally prosecuted for complicity in events that led to the 9/11 hijackings and 3,000 deaths. And these were only one-day's consequences and only in the aviation arena.
If these federal judges and Justices are guilty of any complicity in these events, we also have the complicity of the dozens of members of Congress who knew not only about the underlying criminal activities, but also the criminal obstruction of justice and criminal retaliation against the former federal agent. And the others, in the media and elsewhere, who also knew! Talk about the ugly Americans, what about the criminal Americans!
The next question: What are you going to do about this blatant criminal and even subversive conduct by judges and Supreme Court Justices! The answer: Nothing!
Sampling of Disasters Made Possible by
Legal-Judicial Enablers and Others
The series of forewarned terrorist attacks then followed, in the following sequence:
TWA Flight 800, departing a New York City airport was downed, shortly thereafter.
The U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed with heavy loss of life.
The hijackings of U.S. airliners occurring on September 11, 2001.
TWA Flight 800 pictures
(Strong Suspicion of Terrorist Act)
U.S. Embassies in Africa:
September 11, 2001 Forewarned Terrorist Attacks
Details about the FBI-DOJ cover-ups and the contacts between the al Qaeda operative and Gregory Scarpa Jr. can be found in the book, Crimes of the FBI-DOJ, and the Mafia, available in print and e-book formats from amazon.com (and in Kimble) and other sources. The decades of preventable airline disasters and their enablers are described and documented in the book, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries.
American Airlines Flight 587
(Strong indications of Terrorist Action)
Consequences Not Limited to
Aviation and External Terrorists
While heavy reference is made to the terrorist attacks made possible by the pattern of corruption and cover-ups, this same culture of corruption affects the people and the nation in many other ways,
List of Documentary Books
On Endemic Corruption in the United States
More information about these books by clicking here.
Email address for the author and activist against corruption in government: email@example.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:
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.
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.
available in various online pharmacies can be adopted to get back the normal sexual health once more at any age. Generic cialis
is also a drug which is highly adopted for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. This drug unlike any online pharmacy
other similar drug does not affect blood pressure of the patient under any circumstances and thus highly appreciated.