Repeated Attempts to Report
Judicial attempts to halt exposure of criminal activities by former federal agent and activist against corruption in government. The start of judicial retaliation against former federal investigator and activist Rodney Stich commenced shortly after he published the second edition of Unfriendly Skies which identified by name federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress, and key personnel at United Airlines.
Stich's extensive assets had funded his extensive efforts to expose the corruption that he had found that was related to a series of specific airline crashes and those people who were obstructing justice. The obstruction of justice, by federal judges and others, made possible the continuation of the corruption, the crashes, and the deaths. This was a volatile mixture that had to be kept from the public. Stich's publishing of books and appearances on hundreds of radio and television shows threatened those people mentioned in his books.
Goals of the Judicial Blocks
The goal of the repeated judicial blocks:
Block the reporting and exposure of high-level corruption.
The people guilty of the corruption.
The past consequences of the corruption.
CIA-FBI-Front Law Firm
Bizarre scheme initiated by CIA-front law firm. A scheme was commenced shortly after Stich published the second edition of Unfriendly Skies naming federal judges and others. That lawsuit targeted the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. The scheme consisted of a lawsuit that was barred by dozens of California and federal laws, for which personal and subject matter jurisdiction was specifically barred. The lawsuit was filed against Stich by a San Francisco law firm that had been identified by two reliable sources as a front for the CIA and FBI.
This scheme is best described by a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The participants in the scheme sought to inflict massive personal and financial harm upon former federal agent Rodney Stich to halt his attempts to halt reporting and exposing the corruption in high government places that he and a group of other government agents had discovered during their professional and official duties.
The ripple effects, the consequences, of the corruption included great harm for national interests and many of America's people, and in some areas, deaths.
In 1982, a San Francisco law firm filed a lawsuit against Stich, claiming his Texas client, Emma Stich, wanted a termination of that marriage and a division of the alleged community property. There was no marital or any other relationship between the parties.
Stich had been divorced from the Texas resident for 16 years, since 1966, following a bilateral consent divorce proceeding. Neither he nor his former wife lived in California. (The scheme could just as well have used a probate action against Stich, and the judges would have refused to recognized Stich was not dead.)
That 1966 divorce judgment was then entered as a local judgment, entitled to recognition as a local judgment, in six subsequent jurisdictions (Oklahoma, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and in the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano).
Stich's former wife repeatedly signed papers declaring herself divorced since 1966, including credit applications, real estate sales and purchases, and in application for Social Security Administration payments on the basis of the 1966 divorce. The federal government, through the Social Security Administration, recognized the 1966 divorce.
After the sham "divorce" action was filed in California two decades later, Stich's former wife continued to declare herself divorced in Texas while the San Francisco law firm continued to represent to California and federal courts that she was married to Stich, that all of his properties were community, and that she wanted a divorce and division of the alleged community property.
Over 100 title insurance policies were issued showing Stich's properties to be the properties of a divorced person, based upon the 1966 divorce judgment.
Prior divorce judgments between the parties legally established that there was no community property.
Massive and repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections by the CIA-front law firm, joined by California judges, and then by federal judges--and Supreme Court Justices.
Complicity of California Judges
Violated California statutes, and related decisional law, which required recognition of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights stated in those judgments. (Friedman, Sloan and Ross law firm and attorneys in that firm.)
Violated the laws showing an absence of jurisdiction. Repeatedly filed motions, for which orders were rendered, knowingly lacking jurisdiction and violation of laws.
Violated federally-protected rights that were clearly stated in federal law and Constitution. The right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated and acquired personal and property rights; the right to unabridged interstate travel; the right to due process and the protection of law.
Violated the requirements in state and federal law to recognize prior divorce judgments.
Violated the requirement to recognize personal and property rights in previously adjudicated divorce judgments.
Violated the requirement to recognize property rights acquired as a divorced person, including rights acquired while residents of other states.
Violated the right to unabridged interstate travel, the right to travel from state to state without having some rogue California judge take personal and property rights in violation of major state and federal law and constitutional safeguards.
Absence of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The California lawsuit to terminate the alleged marriage was filed under the Family Law Act, which prohibited that filing on the basis of any of the prior divorce judgments, including the judgments entered as a California judgment in the courts of Contra Costa and Solano.
California statutes and rules of court clearly state that there must be a marriage, and that there cannot have been a prior divorce judgment, for a California judge to have jurisdiction. Despite the clarity of the law, orders were repeatedly rendered without jurisdiction. (Note: For argument, a declaratory judgment lawsuit could have been filed , to determine the validity of the seven prior divorce judgments. But California statutes and decisional law, and federal statutes, decisional law, and constitutional protections, required recognizing the prior judgments.
Harm Inflicted Through Pattern of
Corrupt Judicial Actions
The Friedman law firm filed lis pendens on all of Stich's properties, inflicting major harm upon his real estate holdings which amounted in the mid-1980s to $10 million.
All of Stich's personal and corporate properties, in California and Nevada, were personal properties, not meeting the definition of community properties. They were acquired AFTER the couple separated while residing in Colorado; the seven divorce judgments stated there was no community property, and property acquired after the 1966 divorce is legally separate property.
At that time, Stich's real estate holdings were worth about $10 million, and his only indebtedness was $4 million in mortgages that were being regularly paid. He was in excellent financial condition. He had no other financial obligations. His holdings consisted of 58 apartment units in Concord; a 60-unit motel in Yuba City; 8 rental units in Nevada; $500,000 home in Rockville; a $500,000 home in Alamo; 160 acres near Pleasanton; and other holdings.
Even, for the sake of argument, if there had been a legal marital relationship, California law is clear that these properties were separate and outside the jurisdiction of a Family Law court because of their separate-property status.
The Friedman law firm refused to lift the lis pendens long enough to permit loans and deeds of trust to be lifted to replace loans coming due. Valuable properties were lost, one which has a quarter miller dollar equity over the $200,000 mortgage loan. These were lost due to inability to replace the loan due to the lis pendens filed by the Friedman law firm. (If their client did have a community property interest in these properties, they allowed their client to lose large sums of money. They knew their client had no interest in it!)
Relief in Chapter 11 From
Massive Civil Rights Violations
The refusal to lift the lis pendens forced Stich to seek relief from the civil rights violations in Chapter 11, seeking to save his life's assets. In 1987, Stich filed two chapter 11 cases: one for his personal assets and one for his corporate assets. He filed in Las Vegas (where he had several rental apartments, with another residence in Fairfield, California).
Judicial Corruption in Bankruptcy Courts
Providing relief, and then surreptitiously violating it. At first, Judge Robert Jones (Las Vegas) rendered a verbal and then written order removing the lis pendens, ordered the two cases dismissed in 60 days, and refusing to accept jurisdiction. That took care of Stich's immediate problem, which was the inability to refinance mortgages that came due in his vast real estate holdings.
Sabotaged by Retained Las Vegas Lawyer
Sabotaged by his Las Vegas attorney. Unknown to Stich, his Las Vegas attorney, Joshua Landish, during a subsequent hearing of which Stich was kept in the dark, strongly urged the judge to rescind the relief that he had earlier ordered for Stich, and order Stich's assets seized and liquidated. (This is shown by transcripts and court audiotapes of that hearing.) It is possible that a Marin attorney that Stich hired to protect Stich's interest, and who worked with Landish, may have been involved in that. Either way, he had an obligation to protect Stich from that sabotage.
Void Orders Seizing Stich's Assets
Judge Jones rendered a verbal order refusing to accept jurisdiction, which was followed by a signed order refusing to accept jurisdiction. The written order was never vacated and a motion was never filed to again regain jurisdiction. While these orders refusing to accept jurisdiction existed, Judge Jones signed two orders on October 8, 1987, seizing Stich's personal and corporate assets and appointing Charles Duck as trustee. The orders falsely stated there had been a hearing on that date. Court records show there was no hearing on either the personal or the corporate cases on that date, or any other date, or any notice of such hearing. (Two years later, while Duck was liquidating Stich's assets, Duck was sentenced to federal prison. The media reported he committed the worst trustee looting in the nation's history.)
Federal law is clear; orders rendered without jurisdiction, or in violation of due process, are void orders, and all orders subsequently rendered on the basis of such void orders are also void.
There was never any legal basis for seizing and destroying Stich's properties. They were all in excellent financial condition and the mortgages were being paid monthly.
Supreme Court decisions are clear. Any order rendered without jurisdiction is forever a void order, and any subsequent order based upon that void order is also void. (The absence of jurisdiction in this case resulted from the judge's orders refusing to accept jurisdiction.)
Further, Supreme Court decisions are also clear that an order rendered without due process is a void order. Stich never had any notice that his life's assets would be seized, and he was never given any notice to defend against this taking.
Stich's properties were turned over to trustee Charles Duck, who then promptly started liquidating the properties at pennies on the dollars. (One of Stich's CIA assets, described in Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies books, described covert CIA meetings with Charles Duck, indicating that Duck was a CIA asset. For attorneys naive about these matters, this will seem far out.) Destroying this financial healthy businesses deprived the government of tax revenue.
In March 1999, a final order distributing the last of Stich's assets to attorneys who played a role in the conspiracy.
Laws Violated in Chapter 11 Courts
Ordered the taking of assets in Stich's personal and corporate Chapter 11 cases without jurisdiction, the absence of which occurred after rendering and signing an order refusing to accept jurisdiction.
Ordered the taking of Stich's life's assets while violating the statutory and constitutional right to a noticed hearing, a hearing, legally required cause, and due process.
Ordered the taking of the assets
under documented conditions of
The purpose of seizing the assets was to halt Stich's exposure activities (that required funds to continue). Some of the corrupt and criminal activities that Stich sought to expose were those within the government's aviation safety offices and FBI and CIA, the three areas of primary blame for 9/11.
No Statute of Limitations For Reclaiming Assets
Under the void judgment doctrine, the corrupt judicial seizure of Stich's $10 million in real estate assets are void orders and can be brought to court for relief at any time. There is no statute of limitations. (The assets are now worth over $20 million, and would be free and clear.) Only problem: no lawyer will take on the corrupt judges and risk lifetime consequences.
Law relating to void orders/judgments
California Judges and Chapter 11 Judges
In the Chapter 11 proceedings, there existed a verbal, and a written order, refusing to accept jurisdiction, when the order to seize Stich's property were made without any hearing or notice of any hearing. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. (The California judges also lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act when there existed a prior divorce judgment.)
A void judgment, or proceedings founded on void judgments, are void. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44, 45. A void judgment is a simulated one, or one apparently rendered, where some essential element, which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment, is lacking. Henderson v. Henderson, 232 NC 380, 100 SE2d 227. See Restatement, Judgments, § 8.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. A void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44, 45. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments § 44, 45.
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)("a void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect.") Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."); U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985)
An illegal order is forever void. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice. Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. See also Restatements, Judgments § 4(b) and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ...
All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments §§ 44, 45.
The validity of a judgment may be affected by fraud in the obtainment thereof. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 26, 23 L Ed 286; Wyman v. Newhouse (CA2d) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460, cert den 303 US 664, 82 L Ed 1122, 58 S Ct 831; or by collusion between the parties. Branan v. Feldman, 158 Ga 377, 123 SE 710, especially where the complaining party was prevented from having his interest fairly presented or fully considered by the court, and the court was imposed upon. Harjo v. Johnston, 187 Okla 561, 104 P2d 985.
Fraud or collusion in connection with the rendition of a judgment is regarded as rendering the judgment void. League v. DeYoung US 11 How 184, 13 L Ed 657.
Violations of State
And Federal Laws
Dozens of laws barred the bizarre lawsuit. Despite the dozens of state and federal statutes and constitutional protections that barred the lawsuit, and the absence of jurisdiction, California judges at every level continued to render orders that inflicted great harm upon Stich's assets and barred him from access to his money.
California judicial retaliation for exercising due process remedies. California judges retaliated against Stich when he exercised procedural due process remedies specifically intended for the type of violations occurring.
Exercising federal defenses. Stich then exercised federal remedies that were specific for the type of violations occurring in the California lawsuit. These were filed under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. After Stich exercised these federal remedies that were specific for the type of violations occurring.
At this stage there was a CIA-front law firm filing a lawsuit that was barred by California and federal law, that violated over 40 California statutes and rules of court (as listed in the complaint) and controlling federal statutes, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional rights. We had over six California judges acting without personal and subject matter jurisdiction, violating these laws, inflicting great and irreparable harm upon Stich. The series of events implied that they all had some type of assurance that their violations would be protected and that they would not face the consequences of their unlawful and unconstitutional acts.
Federal laws were available for halting these rights under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act. Federal judges had mandatory and non-discretionary duty to provide a federal court forum and relief from these violations of federally protected rights.
Instead of providing a federal court forum, every U.S. district court judge promptly dismissed the lawsuits despite the fact that the facts stated in them barred the dismissal. This blocking of the exercise of federal remedies commenced in 1983 and continued without interruption to 2000.
In 1986, as Stich and his increasing numbers of government whistleblowers continued to discovered other areas of corruption, he added another cause of action to his Civil Rights and Declaratory Judgment acts remedies. He sought to report these federal crimes to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. This criminal statute provides that anyone who knows of a federal crime must promptly report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer), and if he fails to do this, he is guilty of a crime.
The inclusion of that issue provided additional basis for federal judges to provide a federal court forum to Stich. Instead, federal judges, and particularly U.S. district judgment Marilyn Patel at San Francisco and Milton Schwartz at Sacramento, refused to perform their duty to provide a federal court forum, refused to receive the evidence of the criminal activities, and then rendered an unlawful and unconstitutional order forever barring Stich from federal court access. This order voided for Stich the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Simultaneously, the orders rendered in the California lawsuit, the refusal of federal judges to provide relief, the order barring Stich access to the federal courts and federal protections, was followed by orders seizing Stich's assets that were rendered by federal judge Robert Jones in Las Vegas and Edward Jellen in Oakland.
Judge Jones ordered the taking of Stich's $10 million in assets, that had funded his exposure of government corruption, without any hearing, and without the right to defend. The orders taking Stich's life's assets were rendered without the legal and consti6tutional due process requirement of a noticed hearing, a hearing, and legally recognized cause. A judge can't simply take a person's properties without cause, but this was done.
After taking Stich's assets, Judge Jellen then rendered another order barring Stich from filing any objections to the taking and liquidation of the assets. When Stich did file an objection to the unlawful and unconstitutional orders, Jellen then charged Stich with criminal contempt of court.
Throughout this 20 year period, Stich filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, to where the Supreme Court justices were fully aware of the racketeering activities occurring in the courts for which they have oversight responsibilities. They knew of the charges of criminal activities and the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges.
Felony Obstruction-of-Justice Retaliation
A pattern of violating constitutional safeguards, and protecting others who violated important civil rights.
Encouraging others to expand on the violations of federally protected rights.
While aiding and abetting others to escalate their violations of federally protected rights, and perpetrating their own civil rights violations, they rendered orders barring Stich access to federal courts.
Charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for exercising procedural due process remedies in the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, which are specifically intended for the violations of federally protected rights that were occurring. This is a criminal act under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241.
Charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for reporting federal crimes to a federal judges, as required to be reported by federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, reporting federal crimes to a federal judge. This is a criminal act under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1503, 1512, and 1513, and indirectly a criminal act associated with obstruction of justice, misprision of felonies, aiding and abetting, and becoming guilty as an accomplice.
Forcing Stich to seek refuge in Chapter 11 courts from the gross violations of federally protected rights.
Corruptly seizing Stich's life's assets while enlarging upon the earlier violations of federally protected rights. The violations associated with the taking of Stich's $10 million in real estate assets included absence of jurisdiction; absence of noticed hearing; absence of hearing; absence of legally recognized basis for taking a person's property; pattern of fraud upon the court and upon Stich.
This lawsuit would be authorized by the following federal laws: Civil Rights Act; Bivens; RICO; torts involving diversified jurisdictions, and the statutory and constitutional right to federal court access for obtaining relief guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.
The sequence of events, most or all of which are recorded in judicial records, strongly indicates that a high government official or powerful group orchestrated the initial attacks upon Stich and then orchestrated the obstruction of justice, the aiding and abetting of the wrongful acts, and the conversion of the federal courts into a corrupt arm of government. Somewhere there had to be a powerful force to orchestrate such massive breakdowns in the courts.
Stich initially had legal counsel to defend against the sham California lawsuit, but their performance was a combination of incredible ignorance about California and federal law relating to the sham lawsuit, and in some cases a clear case of sabotaging their client, possibly to avoid offending the judges. Several who refused to represent Stich stated that their careers would suffer if they represented him.
Liability of Those Who Knew Of
The Civil Rights Violations
And Failed To Act
Liability of those who knew of the civil rights violations and either did nothing, or in most or all cases, took advantage of the violations for their own self-enrichment, is shown by the following:
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 U.S.C.S. § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Among the people who knew were:
Federal Equivalent of a
Civil Rights Act Cause of Action
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court held that citizens of the United States have a cause of action directly under the Constitution to seek damages against federal personnel for violation of fourth and fifth amendment rights.
Remedies available when any single law or constitutional right is violated in federal courts:
Supreme Court decisions show the absence of judicial immunity when judges knowingly act without personal or subject matter jurisdiction, and/or when judges knowingly violate clear and settled law and constitutional safeguards. The lawsuit can clarify the rights of Americans to be protected against renegade state and federal judges. In this lawsuit, not only a pattern of judicial corruption would be exposed, but how this judicial corruption inflicts great harm upon Americans, the courts, and other government offices. Also, the lawsuit deals with documented misconduct, and not discretionary or unclear acts.
One lawsuit, filed in the federal courts at Reno, sought to halt the harm arising from the massive violations of state and federal laws by a combination of California and federal judges, CIA-front laws firm, and lawyers who jumped on the bandwagon to loot Stich's assets. That lawsuit combined seeking relief with an attempt to report criminal activities as required to be reported under the federal crime reporting statute. April 24, 2000. Among the corrupt activities sought to be reported were those in the government's aviation safety offices and FBI and CIA−where the misconduct would shortly result in the primary and secondary areas of responsibility for the events of 9/11. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
After the events of 9/11, and before Judge Reed dismissed the legal action, Stich filed a declaration in the lawsuit. January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
That lawsuit was blocked, as every other lawsuit seeking to report the criminal activities Stich sought to report since 1978--the blockage that enabled to continue the corruption and the various tragic consequences.
Stich filed a notice of appeal and appeal briefs with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. May 15, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The court of appeal judges protected the corrupt acts of prior judges, protected the CIA-front law firm, and the underlying corruption.
Retaliation: Sending Stich to Prison
For Reporting Federal Crimes
When judicial blocks to reporting the criminal activities did not stop Stich from attempting to expose the crimes to the public, and when seizing the assets that funded his exposure actions didn't stop him, DOJ prosecutors and federal judges (and Supreme Court Justices) entered into a coalition sending him to prison. Click here for the details. Ironically, the very same corruption that he sought to report, and for which he was sent to prison, made possible, among other tragedies, the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11. And to this day, the public still has not reacted to that!
People Who Don't Report Knowledge
Of a Crime Are Guilty as the Principals
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.
Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.
See the obstruction of justice statutes.
Miscellaneous Legal Files
Sampling of Events Made
Possible by Enablers
The following are some of the prior and continuing national events resulting from corruption that FBI-DOJ employees were covering up. Which then enabled them to continue, indefinitely.
TWA Flight 800
Two unpublicized events made possible the downing of TWA Flight 800, as disclosed in the books, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries, and Crimes of the FBI-DOJ, and the Mafia. These events are addressed in letters that were sent by former federal agent Rodney Stich, including the following:
. These were the following:
Most of the above catastrophic events occurred on the program for which FAA air carrier operations inspector Rodney Stich had been given the assignment to correct the conditions responsible for the worst series of airline disasters in the nation's history. Pictures of many other crashes are not shown.
The continuation of the culture of corruption−and the continuation of the cover-ups−made many people and groups enablers of many subsequent airline disasters. The following aviation disasters occurred after forewarned information of the terrorist attacks were given to FBI agents by a mole inside a key al Qaeda cell:
TWA Flight 800, departing a New York City airport was downed, shortly thereafter. Strong Suspicion of Terrorist Act. See the book, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries. This link provides information on 100 surface-to-air missiles being made available to Middle East terrorists about one year before the downing of TWA Flight 800; the rejection of the missiles by FBI-CIA personnel, and the letters written by former federal agent Rodney Stich to members of Congress seeking to prevent the transfer of the missiles. No response−followed by the missile downing of TWA Flight 800. Followed by the need for the standard cover-up to protect high-level government personnel.
Additional FBI Enablers To
Downing of TWA Flight 800
In a recent book, Crimes of the FBI-DOJ, and the Mafia, details are given of how a Mafia soldier acted as a mole inside the al Qaeda cell headed by Ramzi Yousef, who directed the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center and had plans to simultaneously bomb 11 U.S. airliners departing Far East locations. The advance warnings were disregarded by high FBI-DOJ personnel who sacrificed the lives that would be lost so as to protect personnel in the Department of Justice. Very sensitive information, that would also play a role in ignoring the warnings of planned terrorist attacks on other U.S. targets. That cover-up enabled to occur approximately 4,000 deaths as the forewarned terrorist attacks occurred.
Sampling of letters reporting the relationship between FBI-DOJ cover-ups and successful terrorist attacks.
The hijackings of U.S. airliners occurring on September 11, 2001.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.
More information on the enablers to those catastrophic events:
Information provided by a mole inside the al Qaeda cell headed by infamous Ramzi Yousef on the planned terrorist attack, information that was then "deep-sixth" by high-level FBI-DOJ personnel. Absence of preventative measures resulted in nearly 4,000 deaths.
Comparative blame for 9/11 between Afghanistan, Iraq, and the documented conduct of enablers in the United States.
American Airlines Flight 587
(Strong indications of Terrorist Action)
Consequences of Corruption And
Cover-Ups Not Limited to Aviation
Corruption of the type described at this site does not occur in a vacuum. High-level corruption in one area is simply one tentacle of a widespread culture of corruption. And the consequences of that corruption−and the endemic cover-ups−have consequences in other areas. The culture of corruption affects the people and the nation in many other ways, That includes the latest series of financial frauds that has occurred in the housing and financial sectors. Also, the effect of the endemic corruption and endemic cover-ups−major parts of the culture in the United States−that enablers successful terrorist attacks upon U.S. interests.
Forewarned Bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
On Endemic Corruption in the United States
More information about these books by clicking here.
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.
Help fund and continue our exposure efforts by ordering any product from amazon.com through our links. Thank you.
Consider making your purchases of any item sold by or through amazon.com by going through the following links. This adds nothing to the cost, and helps fund out continuing efforts to expose corruption in the three branches of government.