Judicial tactics to block reporting of major corruption in government

<body> Judicial Tactics Blocking Reports Of High Corruption Related To Catastrophic Events During the period 1978 to 1982, former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report the culture and corruption within the government's aviation safety offices that enabled to occur a long list of airline disasters. Stich filed these actions in the U.S. District Court at San Francisco, which were then dismissed without receiving the evidence. The statutory authority requiring criminal activities to be reported to a federal court (or other federal officer), and the mandatory responsibility of any federal judge to receive the information and evidence, arises under the mandatory crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and the right under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. Each of the filings were blocked by motions filed by Department of Justice lawyers, and then dismissed by federal judges. (Details of these lawsuits in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries and Defrauding America. Court filings in the lawsuit against the FAA, in 1974 and 1975, revealing the corruption and related deaths over a period of years. Stich then filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. That filing made the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court aware of the crimes against the United States and the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. Federal law requires that federal judges recognize the allegations stated in the complaint as true, in opposing dismissal. Every court filing had multiple allegations constituting federal causes of actions, in addition to reporting federal crimes. Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true.”) Last Attempt Prior to 9/11 to Report Corruption Related to Ongoing Catastrophic Events One of the bests descriptions of what followed can be found in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices repeatedly blocked every attempt to report the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4). These facts are detailed in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. April 24, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) After the 9/11 hijackings occurred, made possible by the corruption that were being reported to the federal judge, Stich filed a declaration that became part of the judicial record. January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Despite the gravity of the facts stated and the relationship to 3,000 deaths in just the latest consequences, and in only one of the areas affected by the corruption. Judge Reed blocked the action and dismissed it. That dismissal violated the crime reporting statute that required him to receive the information, which then violated other obstruction of justice statutes. Further, the dismissal violated the federal laws that required that he provide a federal court form, provide relief, and order a halt to the violations of federally protected rights. Continuing the pattern of federal judges blocking the reporting of the criminal activities adversely affecting national security, Judge Reed dismissed that lawsuit. Stich then filed a timely notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco--the same court of appeal judges that had been blocking the reporting of criminal activities for many prior years. Federal appellate judges refused to allow Stich to file an appeal brief, claiming that a 1984 order permanently terminated his legal and constitutional right to federal court access. This unlawful and unconstitutional order knowingly blocked Stich from reporting the criminal activities. May 15, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Dismissing Judges Names as Defendants, Immune From Consequences Of Their Criminal Acts U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., Reno, Nevada, signed an order (July 26, 2000) dismissing all defendant federal judges from the lawsuit holding that the "judges are absolutely immune ... even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." Allegations Stated in the Complaint Must be Accepted As True The allegations in the Amended Complaint, which under law must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceedings, revealed federal judges acting in a conspiracy to undermine the laws and Constitution of the United States, aiding and abetting criminal and subversive acts by blocking their reports, and engaging in other crimes. The complaint included such charges as federal judges: Obstructed justice by blocking the reports of criminal activities in government offices, which judges must receive as part of the mandatory administrative duties. They were guilty of obstruction of justice felonies. Acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as they rendered orders taking Stich's $10 million in assets−which had funded his investigative and exposure activities into high-level corruption in government. Blocking the reporting of criminal activities in government which Stich--a former federal agent and his group of government agents−sought to report to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. These obstruction of justice tactics violated various criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 3, and 4. Retaliated against Stich, a former federal agent and witness, for seeking to report the criminal activities in key government offices (as detailed in Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America). These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513. Engaged in long continuing conspiracy that violated large numbers of federal laws and constitutional protections as part of a long-continuing scheme to block the reporting of these criminal activities. And much more, revealing a literal judicial anarchy that has become the culture in the federal courts and is subverting the protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States, converting the courts into a corrupt arm of government, and which protects criminal activities in government. The sequence of these proceedings reveals a pattern of corruption in the federal courts that includes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and which is responsible for continuation of corrupt activities that have inflicted great harm upon the United States, the American people, and specific men and women. Dismissed the defendant California judges despite their federal offenses under the Civil Rights Act, on the basis of the orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, that violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, violated federal statutes, violated Supreme Court holdings, and violated numerous constitutional protections. These deliberate violations inflicted grave personal and financial harm upon Stich. Dismissed each of the attorneys and law firms that committed acts that constitute violations of Stich's civil and constitutional rights under color of state law and under color of federal law, which invoked federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act and under the Bivens doctrine. Federal law bars the dismissal of any defendant, or the lawsuit, if the allegations state one or more federal causes of actions for which federal relief is available. Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing Stich's personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments, and the validity of those judgments, that had been taken by the defendant California and federal judges. This federal remedy is provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and falls within the mandatory duty of federal judges. Reed refused to address that issue, claiming that since he dismissed the defendant California judges there was no jurisdiction to address these matters. That legally bankrupt argument was contradicted by the fact that the naming of the judges who rendered the unlawful and unconstitutional orders taking personal and property rights established in seven judgments did not require naming the judges as defendants to have these rights declared. It was the taking of these previously adjudicated rights that served as the basis for 20 years of judicial attacks upon Stich and the basis for taking the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of government and judicial corruption. Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing the void orders by federal judges that seized Stich's $10 million in assets that violated legal and constitutional requirements for a notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally required cause. Supreme Court decisions hold that such orders are void and remain void forever. Refused to render a declaratory judgment declaring the series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders as void that barred Stich for the remain of his life from access to federal courts that voided for him all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. These injunctive orders blocked Stich from reporting to a federal court the corrupt and criminal activities that he and his group of former government agents had discovered, and voided for Stich the due process protections in federal laws and the Constitution against the judicially inflicted personal and financial harm arising from the unlawful and unconstitutional orders continuously rendered without interruption for 20 years. Voided Stich's rights under the Civil Rights Act and the Bivens doctrine, among other law, to get financial damages against the defendant attorneys, law firms, and California and federal judges, whose documented series of unlawful and unconstitutional acts justified damages under these federal civil rights remedies. Continued the judicial refusal to receive information and evidence of the corrupt and criminal activities that Stich and his group of other former federal agents had sought to report to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. This refusal to receive the evidence constitutes obstruction of justice under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4. Orders Stich to pay over $3300 to the State of California for naming California judges in the lawsuit. That order was a continuation of the judicial retaliation for exercising legal and constitutional due process against record-setting violations of federally protected rights. These are the judges who knowingly and repeatedly issued orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, who violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, who violated federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections, causing Stich to suffer horrendous personal and financial harm that will continue until Stich dies. California attorney general Bill Lockyer aided and abetted these judicial violations and in March 2001 demand that Stich pays the $3300 to the State of California. During the proceedings which sought to expose the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, in the FBI, and elsewhere, terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, 2001. The conditions that made it easy for 19 terrorists to simultaneously hijack four airliners on 9/11 were corrupt activities in primarily the government's aviation safety offices and employees of the FBI-DOJ. Briefly described here. Stich then filed a declaration, dated January 23, 2002, putting the judge on notice of the catastrophic consequences of what the defendants made possible, and which were further enabled by the judge's block to reporting the corrupt activities. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) After receiving that declaration, Judge Reed dismissed the attempts to report these matters, insuring that the same causative conditions would continue, along with the consequences. Post-9/11 Judicial Block in NYC Lawsuit submitted on August 15, 2002, for filing in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York by former federal agent Rodney Stich. The purpose of the lawsuit was to report and expose the corrupt activities that created the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners, and the misconduct adversely affecting major national issues, including national security. That lawsuit also addressed the massive civil rights violations that were part of the parallel efforts to block the reports of these crimes against the United States. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Seeking to force the issue on the illegal refusal to file the Complaint, Stich sent a letter (September 11, 2003) to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Southern District of New York, with copies to each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Copies were also sent to lawyers representing plaintiffs and defendants, and others. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The letters charged that: Major misconduct in the government's aviation safety offices prevented the known preventative actions being taken against the hijackings occurring during the past 50 years; Government agents who attempted to expose these federal offenses suffered retaliation; Federal judges repeatedly blocked these reports being made. Federal judges compounded their obstruction of justice with felony retaliation against government agents for trying to report the criminal activities; A lawsuit submitted to the court had been illegally blocked from being filed. The receipt by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court again made them aware of the gravity of the misconduct, including that of federal judges over whom the Justices had supervisory responsibilitiesand vicarious liability for their wrongful acts. Letters to Supreme Court Justices: Continuing Judicial Block In what could have been instructions from the Supreme Court Justices, Chief Judge Mukasey, filed the lawsuit and immediately filed a five−page order dismissing it. The dismissal order was riddled with misstatements of facts and of law and surely took weeks to prepare, responding to a filing that had not even been filed and should not have served as the basis for the statements made in the dismissal. A dismissal, by law and constitutional due process, required notice of a hearing, a hearing, and a chance to object. Stich then filed a notice of appeal. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) NYC Court of Appeals Judges Continued the Solid Judicial Block The court of appeals issued a scheduling order for filing appeal briefs for Stich and the U.S. attorney (the same U.S. attorney prosecuting Martha Stewart for so-called obstruction of justice). Stich submitted his Appellant brief on January 3, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That appeal brief was received by the court on January 7, 2004, but filing was blocked, as was done in the district court. Stich then wrote letters complaining of the refusal to file the brief. January 21, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) In response to those letters, the federal court of appeals finally filed the brief on January 29, 2004. To disguise the filing irregularity, the filing date was back-dated to January 7, 2004. (The postmark on the envelope sending the filed appeal brief to Stich had a January 29, 2004 date.) DOJ Lawyers Failed to File Their Appeal Brief The scheduling order required the U.S. attorney to file their brief by February 12, 2004. It wasn't filed. Stich then filed a motion for a court order forcing the U.S. attorney to file the overdue brief and for sanctions, March 8, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF), A declaration of filing irregularities was submitted by Stich, February 23, 2004. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The U.S. attorney's office finally filed their brief on May 24, 2004, upholding the actions by the district court judge that blocked the reporting of criminal activities, some of which played key roles in the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners on 9/11, upholding the massive violations of federally protected rights that were part of parallel legal actions blocking Stich and h is group of other former government agents from reporting criminal activities that they initially discovered as part of their official government duties. Stich then filed Appellant's Reply Brief on June 8, 2004, responding to the false statements and deceptions stated in the Justice Department's brief. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Oral Argument Before Court of Appeals, New York City The appellate courts rarely provide for oral arguments after filing of the written briefs, and especially when a pro se appellant has filed the appeal. It is interesting that: Lawyers for almost every lawsuit related to the 9/11 attacks, with lawsuits in those same courts, were aware of Stich's filings and the serious allegations stated in that action. Media sources routinely examine lawsuits filed in federal courts, and especially in court of appeals, and they were aware of the serious allegations. Oral arguments were heard on August 24, 2004, before Judges Jose A. Cabranes; Chester J. Straub, and Richard C. Wesley. Stich presented a ten-minute oral argument highlighting matters of fact and law. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Included in the issues raised in Stich's appellate brief were: An order holding as void the numerous orders issued by federal district and appellate judges permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. The intent, and certainly the effect, of these unlawful and unconstitutional orders were to block Stich from attempting to report the criminal activities, and block Stich from exercising federal defenses against the judicial orders inflicting great personal and financial harm upon him. Ironically, the same federal judges entrusted to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States were criminally misusing their positions and the courts to obstruct justice, to inflict great personal and financial harm upon Stich, and then misusing their power to terminate the defenses guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. Even the Mafia doesn't have it that good! An order holding as void, the orders seizing Stich's $10 million in assets that were issued without the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legally recognized cause. These were the assets that funded Stich's extensive exposure activities of the criminal activities in government offices. Under the Supreme Court's void judgment doctrine, orders rendered without due process are forever void orders, and can be addressed at any time in any court. Other causes of actions were associated with the massive numbers of civil and constitutional violations inflicted upon Stich as part of parallel efforts to block him and his group of other former government agents from reporting the criminal activities in the three branches of government. These criminal activities are detailed in the various books authored by Stich with the input from many former and present government agents, former drug smugglers acting under orders of government personnel, and former Mafia figures. Federal remedies for these violations existed under the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, Declaratory Judgment statutes, RICO, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. For the Appellate court judges to receive the information and evidence of criminal activities, as required by the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Appellate court responsibilities. Mandatory Responsibilities Of Federal Appellate Judges Under federal statutes, case law, and rules of court, appellate judges must examine the complaint filed by Stich de novo (from the beginning), and must accept the allegations stated in the complaint as true for opposing dismissal. If a single federal cause of action is stated in the complaint, the dismissal by the lower court judge must be reversed. Further, the federal crime reporting statute requires any federal judge to receive the information on a federal crime offered by any party, and surely former federal agents meet that definition! Two days after oral argument, the three-judge appellate panel entered their decision, upholding each of the violations of criminal and civil due process provisions by Judge Mukasey, continuing the long history of judicial cover-ups and judicial violations. In this way the appellate judges enabled to continue the criminal and subversive activities and the long line of catastrophic consequences. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Stich submitted (September 7, 2004) for filing a petition for rehearing en banc to the court of appeals in New York City. Such a petition requires that every judge in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals must be made aware of the petition and enter a decision as to whether it will be heard. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Four months later, on December 16, 2004, an order was filed showing that every judge on the Second Circuit court of appeals refused to hear the case. Making Supreme Court Justices Again Aware of Conduct Involved in 9/11 On January 5, 2005, Stich submitted his petition for writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues stated in that submission were extremely sensitive. The filing of the petition was due to the judges in the Second Circuit court of appeals in New York City refusing to overturn the decision by U.S. district judges Mukasey. That decision supported the obstruction of justice by Judge Mukasey as the judge blocked Stich and his group of other former government agents from reporting criminal and subversive activities in government offices that they had discovered during their official duties. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The issues raised in that submission, under the petition for writ of certiorari and writ of mandate included: Latest in a series of repeated blocks by federal judges to receiving evidence of criminal activities which federal judges (and Supreme Court Justices) must receive, when offered by anyone having knowledge of a federal crime, as required by the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4−and their moral responsibilities. (Supreme Court Justices have been repeatedly made aware of this felony obstruction of justice since the early 1980s.) The unlawful and unconstitutional orders by federal judges−and the recognition of those void orders by the latest federal judges−that permanently barred Stich from filing any papers in the federal courts. The effect (and surely the intent) of these orders was to: Block Stich and a group of other former government agents from reporting the criminal and even subversive activities that they had initially discovered as part of their official government duties. To deny to Stich the federal defenses against the great personal and financial harm suffered from a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders that started with the filing of a sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan, and Ross in San Francisco. To protect the criminal involvement of prior federal judges, and the large number of lawyers who aided and abetted the schemes to silence Stich's exposure activities. Whether intentional or not, protected the criminal activities and the government personnel involved in them that Stich and his group of other government sought to report. Stich then sent on January 24, 2004, several dozen letters to each of the members of the Senate and House judiciary committees informing them of the corruption in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Despite the great harm for the United States if even a fraction of the charges stated in the letter and attached petition were true, not a one will make a meaningful response. For over 40 years Stich and other present and former government agents have reported criminal and subversive activities in government offices, often involving White House politicians, and in almost every case, that information was sequestered, making members of Congress complicit in the crimes and the consequences. January 24, 2005. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Never once during many years of offering to provide members of Congress testimony and evidence of criminal and even subversive activities was a meaningful response ever received. It is a combination of the refusal to act by those in control of various government checks and balances, and the complicity of most personnel in the media, and the public's lack of outrage and lack of reaction by most members of the public, that has enabled this combination of tragic effects to escalate for decades. Now will be no different! The petition was surely the last thing the Justices wanted to receive. It was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that the Justices denied Stich's petitions for writ of certiorari's that they refused to act upon, making possible the explosion of corruption in government offices and the series of otherwise preventable airline disasters. These justices were then implicated in the catastrophic consequences that followed their complicity of cover-up. In subsequent years, as Stich filed other similar petitions addressing the even more serious criminal activities and the corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional actions by federal judges to silence Stich, the Supreme Court repeatedly blocked the petitions from being filed. They used such excuses as the spacing between the lines in the petitions did not meet Supreme Court requirements (though unrecognizable by the naked eye), that the petitions were not timely received (when they were timely submitted), and other sham excuses. Filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court can be a costly and time-consuming procedure. The cover-up by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court can be expected to continue. Long Involvement by Supreme Court Justices Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were continually informed of these judicial acts through legal filings and certified letters, starting in the late 1970s with the filing of lawsuits against the FAA and NTSB. In each case the justices refused to act, despite their supervisory responsibilities over the federal judges involved in the misconduct and their responsibilities to receive reports of criminal activities as defined in the federal crime reporting statute. The legal right to file these lawsuits arose from the federal crime reporting statute that requires anyone who knows of a possible federal crime to promptly report it to a federal court. Also, the statute that permits any citizen to seek a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful conduct. Initially, district court judges in the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco admitted the gravity of Stich's charges. But after Justice Department lawyers moved to dismiss the lawsuits, the judges refused to receive the evidence and ordered dismissal of the lawsuits. The federal crime reporting statute required that federal judges receive information offered by anyone relating to a federal offense as part of the judge's administrative duties. Refusing to receive the information was not in their judicial decision making authority and amount to obstruction of justice. Notices of appeal were then filed. During oral argument before Ninth Circuit court of appeal judges on the first of these appeals, the gravity of Stich's charges was acknowledged by the judges. One court of appeal judge stated that these were serious charges but they were matters for Congress to investigate. Although that was true, federal statutes clearly required federal judges to receive the information (not to investigate) and also receive information related to seeking a judicial order for a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful or corrupt acts. In one lawsuit to obtain a court order requiring the NTSB to admit material evidence into the hearing record involving a PSA crash into San Diego, the assistant U.S. attorney admitted to Stich during a phone conversation that he was recommending to his superiors in Washington that the Justice Department support Stich's lawsuit. However, the assistant U.S. attorney was unaware of the earlier Justice Department coverups. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. attorney filed a motion to dismiss, thereby blocking Stich from providing evidence of the conditions that continued to result in major airline disasters. In later years as Stich sought to report criminal activities that he had discovered, and had learned from other former government agents, and filed petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court, they fabricated excuses to prevent the filings. In one case, the Supreme Court clerk stated the spacing between the double-space lines were not proper. In another case, the clerk falsely stated the petition was not timely, when it was well within the time. Still other excuses were made. Sampling of Events in Which Federal Judges Were 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. 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. See also: 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: 9/11 index. 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. 9/11 enablers. 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 List of Documentary Books On Endemic Corruption in the United States More information about these books by clicking here. Sampling of prior books reviews. Sampling of reader comments. 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. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com www.druggingamerica.com www.defraudingamericablog.com www.transoceanairlines.com </body>