Judicial tactics to block reporting of major corruption in government

<body> <p><HTML></p> <p><HEAD></p> <font COLOR="#0000c0"> <p><META NAME=</font>"Keywords"<font COLOR="#0000c0"> CONTENT=</font>"judges, judicial corruption, judicial misconduct, </p> <p>public corruption, corrupt judges, federal judges, court misconduct, </p> <p>judicial fraud, supreme court fraud, judicial corruption, judicial cover-ups, </p> <p>civil rights violations, human rights, civil liberties, civil rights, </p> <p>Supreme Court justices, Supreme Court, divorce, sham divorce actions, </p> <p>First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, </p> <p>interference with civil rights, RICO, Civil Rights Act, federal courts, federal </p> <p>court forum, retaliation, government retaliation, commerce clause,</p> <p>interstate travel, divorce recognition, full faith and credit, full faith and </p> <p>credit clause, full faith and credit statute, foreign divorces, foreign divorce, </p> <p>absence of jurisdiction, res judicata, due process, procedural due process, </p> <p>substantive due process, privileges and immunity clause, unabridge interstate </p> <p>travel, motion to quash, conspiracy, judicial conspiracy, judicial corruption, </p> <p>judicial anarchy, California courts, California judges, federal courts, federal </p> <p>judges, Declaratory Judgment Act, Civil Rights Act, misprision of felony, Chapter 11,</p> <p>chapter 11 courts, Chapter 11 corruption, court corruption, judicial corruption,</p> <p>trustee corruption, Charles Duck, Edward Jellen, Robert Jones, Milton Schwartz,</p> <p>Raul Ramirez, Marilyn Petal, Vaughn Walker, contempt of court, criminal contempt of court, </p> <p>attorney fraud, attorney misconduct, lawyer fraud, lawyer misconduct, absence of jurisdiction, </p> <p>jurisdiction, void orders, obstruction of justice, judicial obstruction of justice, Rodney Stich,</p> <p>judicial immunity, immunity, civil rights abuses, civil right abuses, civil rights violations, </p> <p>civil right violations, human rights, human rights violations, constitution, </p> <p>constitutional rights, supreme court misconduct, federal judges, supreme court justices, </p> <p>corrupt attorneys, corrupt lawyers, Ninth Circuit, Ninth Circuit judgments, Ninth Circuit </p> <p>judges, Judges, judicial corruption, judicial misconduct, public</p> <p>corruption, corrupt judges, federal judges, court misconduct, congress,</p> <p>members of congress, congressional cover-ups, congressional obstruction of</p> <p>justice,judicial fraud, supreme court fraud, judicial corruption,</p> <p>judicial cover-ups, civil rights violations, human rights, civil liberties,</p> <p>civil rights, Supreme Court justices, Supreme Court, divorce, sham divorce</p> <p>actions, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, interference</p> <p>with civil rights, RICO, Civil Rights Act, federal courts, federal court</p> <p>forum, retaliation, government retaliation, commerce clause, interstate</p> <p>travel, divorce recognition, full faith and credit, full faith and credit</p> <p>clause, full faith and credit statute, foreign divorces, foreign divorce,</p> <p>absence of jurisdiction, res judicata, due process, procedural due process,</p> <p>substantive due process, privileges and immunity clause, unabridged interstate&nbsp;</p> <p>travel, motion to quash, conspiracy, judicial conspiracy, judicial corruption,</p> <p>judicial anarchy, California courts, California judges, federal courts,</p> <p>federal judges, Declaratory Judgment Act, Civil Rights Act, misprision of</p> <p>felony, Chapter 11, chapter 11 courts, Chapter 11 corruption, court</p> <p>corruption, judicial corruption, trustee corruption, Charles Duck, Edward</p> <p>Jellen, Robert Jones, Milton Schwartz, Raul Ramirez, Marilyn Petal, Vaughn</p> <p>Walker, contempt of court, criminal contempt of court, attorney fraud,</p> <p>attorney misconduct, lawyer fraud, lawyer misconduct, absence of jurisdiction,</p> <p>jurisdiction, void orders, obstruction of justice, judicial obstruction of</p> <p>justice, Rodney Stich, judicial immunity, immunity, civil rights abuses, civil</p> <p>right abuses, civil rights violations, civil right violations, human rights,</p> <p>human rights violations, constitution, constitutional rights, supreme court</p> <p>misconduct, federal judges, supreme court justices, corrupt attorneys, corrupt</p> <p>lawyers. federal courts, federal judges, due process, government, contempt of</p> <p>court, civil rights, civil rights abuses, human rights, constitution, commerce</p> <p>clause, due process, due process denial, due process violation, due process</p> <p>violations, judicial immunity, judicial corruption, corrupt judges,</p> <p>obstruction of justice, judicial obstruction of justice, corrupt federal</p> <p>judges, crooked judges, crooked federal judges, supreme court justices, rule</p> <p>of law, constitution, constitutional violations, due process violations, human</p> <p>rights, human rights violations, corrupt supreme court justices, judicial</p> <p>misconduct, judicial corruption, due process, Richard Armitage, state</p> <p>department. Documented pattern of judicial corruption, judicial obstruction of</p> <p>justice, judicial retaliation, judicial anarchy, while using federal courts to</p> <p>block a whistleblower's exposure of corruption in high government offices and</p> <p>in covert activities.<</p> <p><META NAME="Classification" CONTENT="federal<font COLOR="#0000c0"> courts, federal judges, due process,</p> <p>government, contempt of court, civil rights, civil rights abuses, human rights, </p> <p>constitution, commerce clause, due process, due process denial, judicial corruption,</p> <p>due process violation, due process violations, judicial immunity, corrupt judges,</p> <p>judicial corruption, corrupt judges, obstruction of justice, </p> <p>judicial obstruction of justice, corrupt federal judges, crooked judges, </p> <p>crooked federal judges, supreme court justices, rule of law, constitution, </p> <p>constitutional violations, due process violations, human rights, federal judges,</p> <p>district courts, U.S. district court, U.S. district courts, supreme court, supreme court justices,</p> <p>justices of Supreme Court, justices of U.S. supreme court, supreme court corruption,</p> <p>human rights violations, corrupt supreme court justices, judicial misconduct, </p> <p>judicial corruption, due process, Richard Armitage, state department</font>."></p> <p><META NAME="<font COLOR="#0000c0">Descriptio</font>n" CONTENT="<font COLOR="#0000c0">Documented pattern of judicial corruption, </p> <p>judicial obstruction of justice, judicial retaliation, judicial anarchy, </p> <p>while using federal courts to block a whistleblowe</font>r's exposure of corruption </p> <p>in high government offices and in covert activities."></p> <p> </p> <p><META NAME="description" CONTENTS="This site provides documented information on years of judicial corruption, judicial cover-ups, judicial obstruction of justice, misuse of judicial offices by corrupt federal and state judges, and the tragedies arising from the cover-ups of crimes against the United States."></p> <p><NOFRAMES></p> <p><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"></p> <p><P> </p> <h3 align="center"><font color="#FF0000"><b><font size="6">Judicial Tactics <a name="TOP">to</a> Block Reporting <br> Criminal Activities in Government Office</font>s</b></font></h3> <p align="center"><b><font size="5">Summary</font></b></p> <ul> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">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 documented.  The question is, What are they trying to hide?<br> </font> </b> </li> </ul> <ul> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">Feloniously charged the former federal agent and witness with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. These are federal crimes for which federal judges should be criminally charged and then impeached.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">Corruptly Issued orders that violated major legal and constitutional rights, taking the $10 million life assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. The orders were issued without the required notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally recognized cause. <br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">After seizing Stich's assets, federal judges issued orders barring him from filing objections to the corrupt seizure and liquidation.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">When Stich did exercise the legal and constitutional right to file objections, the objections were removed in violation of law and then federal judge Edward Jellen charged Stich with criminal contempt of court.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">When Stich filed for relief in a higher court, federal judges and Justice Department prosecutors against charged him with criminal contempt of court.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were repeatedly informed of these corrupt judicial acts by letters and petitions, each of which were ignored.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">After Stich filed a lawsuit in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada in 1999, the pattern of judicial obstruction of justice and violations of federal due process rights were continued.<br> <br> </font> </b> </li> <li> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">Reno district judge Reed ordered Stich to pay $3300 to the State of California in retaliation for naming California judges as defendants, despite the fact that they repeatedly violated dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protection, any single one of which justified naming them as defendants. </font></b> <hr> </li> </ul> <p align="center"><b><a name="moredetails"><font color="#FF0000" size="5"> MORE DETAIL</font><font color="#FF0000" size="4">S</font></a></b></p> <p align="left"><b><font size="4">The start of the documented obstruction of justice occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as former FAA inspector Rodney Stich attempted to report to a federal court the pattern of air safety and criminal violations associated with a series of specific airline crashes. Stich filed these actions in the U.S. District Court at San Francisco, which were then dismissed without receiving the evidence, at which time Stich appealed, and the same tactics were used. Stich then filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and the same block was repeated.</font></b></p> <p><b><font size="4">The statutory authority <i> requiring criminal</i> activities to be reported to a federal court (or other federal officer), and the <i>mandatory responsibility</i> of any federal judge to receive the information and evidence, arises under the <i>mandatory</i> crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and the <i>right</i> under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.</font></b></p> <blockquote> <p> <span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b><font size="4">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.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";letter-spacing:-.15pt;mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><font size="4"> </font></span><font size="4">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.</font></b></span></p> </blockquote> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; letter-spacing: -.15pt; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">These initial lawsuits that sought to report the documented criminal activities related to a series of specific airline crashes, including several occurring in Stich's area of direct federal air safety responsibilities, included the following:</font></b></span></p> <blockquote> <p><b><i> <span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><font size="4">Stich v. United States, et al</font></span></i><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><font size="4">., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), <i>cert. denied</i>, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct); <i>Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board</i>, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), <i>cert. denied</i>, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, <i>Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America</i>, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.)(addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the cover-up of the DC-10 cargo door problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by Stich seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.</font></span></b></p> </blockquote> <p><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font size="4"><b>The consequences of federal judges blocking the reports of criminal activities were tragic. The very same air safety and criminal violations and the deep-seated culture making the crimes possible also resulted in their continuation, which caused and made possible a number of brutal air disasters. This scenario is described in the third edition of <i>Unfriendly Skies</i> and to a smaller extent in the third edition of <i>Defrauding America.</i></b></font></span></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>It is important to realize that crashes are not clean abstract matters; men, women, and children are cremated alive, dismembered alive, and often suffer long periods of time knowing they are going to die a horrible death.  The moaning of the pain-racked dying, heard at some of these crash sites, reflects the horror arising from the crimes and the crimes of cover-ups. In addition, there are often years of financial deprivation and grief for the survivors and for the families of the dead.</b></span></font></p> <hr> <p align="center"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="5" face="Times New Roman" color="#FF0000">Extension of the Judicial Obstruction Of Justice To Other <br> And More Serious Criminal Activities</font></b></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Commencing in 1986, Stich sought to report criminal activities in other judicial and government offices. He had discovered these matters from his several dozen sources, including agents from the FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, and the CIA, including former heads of secret CIA airlines and secret CIA financial operations. These sources provided to Stich during a 13 year period detailed information concerning the criminal activities, affidavits, and documentation. </b></font></span></p> <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>These criminal activities included evidence of drug smuggling into the United States by people acting under cover of their government offices and covert government operations, widespread corruption in the bankruptcy courts and other courts, involvement of the CIA in the great savings and loan scam inflicted upon the public, and a series of other scandals detailed in the books, <i>Defrauding America</i>, <i>Unfriendly Skies</i>, and <i>Drugging America</i>.</b></span></font></p> <hr> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Times New Roman" color="#FF0000"><b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><a name="felony obstruction justice">Felony Obstruction of Justice</a></span></b></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>From 1986 to the present date, Stich continued his attempts to report to a federal court these criminal activities and to provide evidence of them. Every federal judge refused to receive the information and evidence, promptly dismissing every court filing in which Stich sought to make these reports. These acts were felonies related to obstruction of justice arising from Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4. </b></span></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>When Stich learned of additional criminal activities, he continued to exercise the responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute. Ninth Circuit judges* addressed this matter by issuing a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring Stich, for the remainder of his life, from access to the federal courts. These orders simultaneously voided for Stich the important rights and protections guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States. </b></span></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>When Stich learned of other criminal activities in judicial and government offices, including the evidence provided to him by the increasing numbers of insiders that came to him, Stich again sought to report the matters to a federal court under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute. (Stich was unable to report the criminal activities to any division of the Department of Justice as the culture and lawyers in that government agency had repeatedly blocked these reports while he was a federal agent, and were later revealed to be deeply involved in covering up the criminal activities.)</b></span></font></p> <hr> <p align="center"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="5" face="Times New Roman" color="#FF0000"><a name="felony retaliation">Felonies</a> Arising From Judicial Retaliating Against Former <br> Federal Agent For Reporting  Criminal Activities</font></b></span></p> <p><b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Federal judges and Justice Department lawyers reacted by charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for filing papers in the federal courts. These acts, retaliating against a former federal agent and witness for attempting to report crimes against the United States by federal personnel, were felonies under <span style="mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; letter-spacing:-.1pt;mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 35, 111, 153, 241, 242, 245(b)(1)(B), 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513(b), 1515(a). These felonies were in addition to these related to obstruction of justice, Title 18 U.S.C. § </span></font></span> <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; letter-spacing: -.1pt; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">2, 3, 4,</span></font></b></p> <p><b><font size="4">Justice Department prosecutors initially sought a three year prison term for Stich for exercising this mandatory crime reporting duty. This would have required a jury trial, for which a conviction would have been difficult with any jury capable of understanding the incredible charges. Justice Department prosecutors then dropped the demand for three years, lowering it to six months. Despite the constitutional requirement for a jury trial, Supreme Court Justices had earlier ruled that a prison sentence of six months does not require a jury trial. </font></b></p> <p><b><font size="4">In this Kangaroo Court setting, Stich was held guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced to six months in prison. He was moved from prison to prison, in chains, and spent six weeks in solitary confinement. At that time, Stich was nearly 70 years of age and had recently undergone open heart surgery for six coronary bypasses. This harsh punishment could have resulted in Stich's death.</font></b></p> <p><b><font size="4">Stich repeatedly made the Ninth Circuit appellate courts aware of these serious judicial crimes, as well as the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. By refusing to act, they became criminally implicated under federal criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4. These statutes read as follows:</font></b></p> <blockquote> <p> <span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b> <font size="4" color="#FF0000">Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals</font><font size="4">. (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.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b> <font size="4" color="#FF0000">Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact</font><font size="4">. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.</font></b></span></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p align="center"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font color="#FF0000" size="4"><b>Concurrent Judicial Acts Blocking Reporting <br> Of Criminal Activities</b></font></span></p> <blockquote> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Encountering a total block in the federal government, including the Justice Department, the courts, and members of Congress (which is described elsewhere), Stich used his considerable real estate assets, that he had accumulated as a former airline captain, to publicize these corrupt activities and the people perpetrating them. He published books, appeared as guest and expert on hundreds of radio and television shows throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. His books named federal judges, Supreme Court judges, personnel at United Airlines, and others, all of whom were exposed as being involved in very serious crimes.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">A bizarre lawsuit was filed against Stich that targeted the $10 million in real estate assets that funded these extensive and costly exposure activities. That lawsuit was filed by the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, reported by two reliable sources to have connections with the Central Intelligence Agency. That lawsuit was barred by dozens of California laws and many federal laws and constitutional protections. <a href="file:///D:/DefraudingAmerica/violations_cal_fed_judges.html" target="_top">Click here</a> for a list of the laws that judges had to repeatedly violate for this scheme to continue. Numerous California statutes and rules of court specifically deprived California courts of jurisdiction for that cause of action and also over Stich's properties. </font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">The lawsuit sought to invalidate six prior judgments that had already adjudicated the same issues and which must be recognized under large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">For six years, California judges issued orders inflicting serious personal and financial harm upon Stich, using that lawsuit as the basis. They repeatedly violated record numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, which raised mandatory jurisdiction of federal judges under the Civil Rights Act for the civil rights violations occurring under color of state law. These violations were hard core and not some abstract violation as is usually the case.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Federal remedies, and mandatory responsibilities of federal judges, arose under the Civil Rights Act and also under the Declaratory Judgment Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57. Federal causes of action under the Civil Rights Act were raised by any one of the multiple orders issued by California judges on the basis of any one of the dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections being violated. </font></b></span></p> <hr> <p align="center"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font color="#FF0000" size="5"><b>Additional Evidence That the Judicial Obstruction of Justice and the Sham Lawsuit Were Part Of the Same Scheme</b></font></span></p> <p align="left"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Federal judges repeatedly refused to provide a federal court forum, repeatedly refused to halt the documented and unprecedented number of civil and constitutional violations, thereby aiding and abetting the violations of major federally protected rights for which they had a duty of trust to enforce and uphold. Every judicial act in the federal courts, from 1983 to 2001, was to protect the scheme, the violators of Stich's civil and constitutional rights, and the conspiracy that violated important federally protected rights.</font></b></span></p> <p align="left"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">The involvement by federal judges in the violations of civil and constitutional rights then invoked additional remedies for Stich in the federal courts, including remedies under the constitutional Bivens doctrine, which provides every citizens the right to file a federal lawsuit on the basis of the violations of a person's civil and constitutional rights under color of <i>federal </i>law. (The Civil Rights Act provides a federal court form for violations of civil and constitutional rights under color of <i>state</i> law.)</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Eventually, in 1986, the combination of the judicial obstruction of justice and the judicial civil rights violations were providing Stich with numerous federal causes of actions for which federal judges must provide a federal court forum and relief. </font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">It was at the juncture of these two matters that federal judges started issuing the unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from access to federal courts and voiding for him--as was never done before--voiding the rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. </font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">The criminal contempt of court charges constituted felony retaliation not only for attempting to report the criminal activities but also for exercising legal and constitutional due process defenses against the unprecedented numbers of civil and constitutional violations. This was getting more bizarre all the time. </font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">The judicial records now indicate that this was the scheme that was concocted somewhere in a powerful government office and that the scheme did not go as planned when Stich exercised federal remedies. The scenario was basically as follows:</font></b></span></p> <ul> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Stich's books and frequent radio and television appearances (which now number over 3,000) were threatening to expose major criminal activities and powerful figures in the courts, in government, and at United Airlines. Stich's assets funded these activities, and it could be assumed that if he was stripped of these assets, at his age, that his poverty would end his exposure activities. <br> <br> </font> </b></span></li> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">The lawsuit filed by the law firm with CIA connections, targeting Stich's activities, then followed. Assurance must have come from a high source in government--which would include the courts--that those who participated in the scheme would be protected. This required protection by every higher court in California, every level of the federal courts, up to and including the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The protection had to also come from the lawyers in the Department of Justice who have a duty to protect against violations of civil and constitutional rights. The protection had to also include members of Congress who have mandatory oversight responsibilities for the federal courts. And that is the way it was.</font></b></span></li> </ul> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">The escalating violations in the California courts, the total denial of all substantive and procedural due process by federal judges, starting with the district courts, going to the appellate courts at San Francisco, and then up to and including the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, caused Stich to file Chapter 11, seeking to force a federal judge to perform his or her duty under the Civil Rights Act, under Bivens, and under the Declaratory Judgment Act. At that time, Stich was unaware of the rampant judicial and legal fraternity corruption in the bankruptcy courts which is detailed in his third editions of <i>Unfriendly Skies</i> and <i>Defrauding America</i>.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">A review of the court transcripts and the audio recordings of the court proceedings reveal an obvious corrupt judicial process. Las Vegas federal judge Robert Jones issued orders in chambers seizing Stich's assets, including his home, his businesses, his assets, and his sole source of income. These orders violated the legal and constitutional requirement of a notice of hearing at which Stich could defend, a hearing, and legally required cause before taking his assets. </font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Stich had no financial problems. On the contrary, his $10 million in real estate assets were subject to only about $4 million in real estate mortgages that were being routinely paid off, and he had no other debts. This is considered an excellent financial picture.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">At the request of the CIA-front law firm whose civil and constitutional violations forced Stich to seek federal remedies in Chapter 11 court, Stich's case was transferred to Oakland, where Chapter 11 judge Edward Jellen started liquidating Stich's assets. He also issued orders barring Stich from filing any objections to the seizure and liquidation of Stich's assets, another due process violations of major constitutional significance.</font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">When Stich did file objections as provided by federal laws and the Constitution, Jellen charged Stich with criminal contempt of court, denied him his own funds to hire legal counsel, denied him court-appointed legal counsel, and then held Stich guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced Stich to federal prison. </font></b></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Stich exercised federal defenses by filing an action in federal district court seeking relief from the corrupt seizure and the prison sentence. District judges also charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for the court filing which violated prior judicial orders barring Stich from federal court access for the remainder of Stich's life. </font></b></span></p> <hr> <p align="center"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font color="#FF0000" size="5"><b>The <a name="latest judicial obstruction of justice"> Latest </a> Documented Pattern of Judicial Contempt for Due Process And the Laws and Constitution of the United States</b></font></span></p> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">In 1999, Stich sought to file a lawsuit raising federal causes of actions:</font></b></span></p> <ul> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Under the Civil Rights Act (for the violations of civil and constitutional rights occurring under color of state law), seeking damages from the California judges and law firms named as defendants.<br> <br> </font> </b></span></li> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Under the constitutional <i>Bivens</i> doctrine (for the violations of civil and constitutional rights occurring under color of federal law) seeking damages from federal judges, lawyers, and law firms action in collusion.<br> <br> </font> </b></span></li> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Seeking a declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act to declare his personal and property rights adjudicated and established in prior judgments that were unlawfully ignored by rogue California judges.<br> <br> </font> </b></span></li> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Seeking a declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act to declare the orders taking his life's assets in violation of due process to be void orders (as provided by Supreme Court decisions).<br> <br> </font> </b></span></li> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Seeking a declaration holding that the injunctive orders barring Stich from federal court access and voiding for him all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States to be void.<br> <br> </font> </b></span></li> <li> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Another attempt to report to a federal court the criminal activities in key judicial and government offices that Stich and his group of other federal agents had discovered. This demand was made under the mandatory requirement of the federal crime reporting statute. </font></b></span></li> </ul> <p> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font size="4">Federal judges had a mandatory duty to provide a federal court forum, provide for a jury trial on all factual matters, render a decision on the validity of the prior judgments and Stich's personal and property rights, render a judgment on the orders seizing Stich's assets, and render a judgment that no federal judge has the authority to void for any citizen the legal and constitutional due process rights guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.</font></b></span></p> <hr> <p align="center"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> <font color="#FF0000" size="5"><b>Collapse Of the Scheme If Federal Defenses Were Not Voided</b></font></span></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>If any single one of these many federal remedies was provided, the entire scheme would collapse. A decision upholding the prior judgments would reveal the 20 years of uninterrupted judicial violations of dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.</b></span></font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>A decision returning to Stich his civil and constitutional rights would reveal the unlawful and felonious nature of the retaliatory imprisonment for exercising legal and constitutional due process against the record-setting violations of federally protected rights.</b></span></font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>A decision holding the orders seizing Stich's assets would not only undermine the scheme to seize Stich's assets but would publicize to the dozens of people in possession of Stich's many properties the corrupt  activities that enabled them to gain possession of Stich's assets. </b> </span></font></p> <hr> <p align="center"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b> <font color="#FF0000" size="5"> The Following Links Provide More Legal Details </font></b></span></p> <b> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">July 26, 2000</font><font size="4">. U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., Reno, Nevada, signs an <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/order_dismissing_federal_judges.html" target="_top">order</a> 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." Reed was upholding judicial anarchy. (Click <a href="order_dismissing_federal_judges.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the order in Adobe Acrobat, or click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/order_dismissing_federal_judges.jpg" target="_top">here</a> to view it as a .jpg file) The allegations in the Amended Complaint, which under law must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceedings,  reveal 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: </font> <blockquote> <p><font size="4">* <u>Acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction</u> 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. </font> <p><font size="4">* <u>Blocking the reporting of criminal activities in government</u> 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. </font> <p><font size="4">* <u>Retaliated against Stich, a former federal agent and witness</u>, for seeking to report the criminal activities in key government offices (as detailed in <i>Unfriendly Skies</i>, <i>Defrauding America</i>, and <i>Drugging America</i>). These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513. </font> <p><font size="4">* Engaged in long <u>continuing conspiracy that violated large numbers of federal laws and constitutional protections</u> as part of a long-continuing scheme to block the reporting of these criminal activities. </font> <p><font size="4">* And much more, revealing a l<u>iteral judicial anarchy that has become the culture in the federal courts</u> 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. </font> </blockquote> <ul> <li><font size="4" color="#FF0000">August  4, 2000</font><font size="4">. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/motion_reconsideration.html" target="_top">Motion for Reconsideration</a> of the dismissal of the defendant federal judges, and second request for the judge to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law, as required by federal law. <a href="RecFedDenied.jpg" target="_top">Alternate viewing</a> with Adobe Acrobat Reader.<br> <br> </li> </font> </b> <li><b><font size="4">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.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><font size="4" color="#FF0000">Dismissed each of the attorneys and law firms</font><font size="4"> 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 <i>Bivens</i> 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.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><font size="4" color="#FF0000">Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing Stich's personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments</font><font size="4">, 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.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><u><font size="4">Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing the void orders by federal judges that seized Stich's $10 million in assets</font></u><font size="4"> 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.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><u><font size="4">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</font></u><font size="4"> 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. <br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><u><font size="4">Voided Stich's rights under the Civil Rights Act and the <i>Bivens</i> doctrine</font></u><font size="4">, 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. <br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><u><font size="4">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</font></u><font size="4"> 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.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><u><font size="4">Orders Stich to pay over $3300 to the State of California for naming California judges in the lawsuit</font></u><font size="4">. 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.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><font size="4">Concurrent with these judicial acts, the California and federal tax boards suddenly claimed Stich owed taxes from 15 years ago, the total of which were far beyond Stich's financial ability to pay.<br> <br> </font> </b></li> <li><b><font size="4">All in all, Stich has paid a high price for seeking to halt the corruption that resulted in hundreds of people being cremated alive and dismembered alive in airline programs for which he has direct federal air safety responsibilities. This should be a lesson to anyone who feels a sense of responsibility.</font></b></li> </ul> <hr> <p align="center"><b><font color="#FF0000" size="5">Ominous Implication</font></b></p> <p><b><font size="4">Apparently, federal judges, and the California judges and "officers of the court" who acted in unison with them, knew that a higher and powerful force somewhere in government would protect them against the consequences of their corrupt, unlawful, unconstitutional, and even criminal acts. The fact that the law firm filing the initial lawsuit was a front for the CIA, and the fact that the Justices of the Supreme Court were repeatedly made aware of the criminal obstruction of justice, the massive violations of civil and constitutional rights, lends credence to that probability.</font></b></p> <hr> <p align="center"><b><font color="#FF0000" size="5">Other Court Filings Revealing More Obstruction of Justice and Judicial Contempt For Constitutional Rights and Protections</font></b></p> <p><b><a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/blocking_the_reno_lawsuit.html" target="_top"> <font size="4">Click here</font></a><font size="4"> to learn the documented actions taken by U.S. district court and Ninth Circuit appellate judges to keep from the people the corrupt and criminal activities in the federal courts, the criminal activities that Stich and his group of government agents sought to report under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4), the corrupt and conspiratorial misuse of federal courts, and the actual undermining of the laws and Constitution of t the United States by the same judges entrusted to protect and enforce these rights and protections.</font></b></p> <b> <hr> <p align="center"><font color="#FF0000" size="6">Additional Details</font></p> </b> <p><u><b><font size="4" color="#FF0000">March 14, 2000</font></b></u><b><font size="4">. The lawsuit was first submitted to the U.S. district court at Oakland, California on March 14, 2000. The clerk of the court refused to file the complaint, stating that an order by U.S. district judge Marilyn Patel in 1986--15 years earlier--had forever barred Rodney Stich from access to the federal courts.  </font></b></p> <blockquote> <p><b><font size="4">The lawsuit addressed a pattern of civil rights violations judicially perpetrated upon the plaintiff whistleblower, and sought to report a pattern of criminal activities that he, a former federal investigator, and his group of government insiders sought to report. </font></b></p> <p><b><font size="4">That order effectively voided for Stich the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States and barred him from reporting criminal activities implicating people in control of key government offices and in the federal courts that he and his group of government whistleblowers had discovered over the years.</font></p> <p> <font size="4">That order by Judge Patel was unlawful and unconstitutional, and Judge Patel had rendered it after Stich filed a federal lawsuit addressing the judicial violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections that were involved in the scheme to silence Stich's exposure activities.<br> Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Oakland U.S. district court rendered a further order upholding the unlawful and unconstitutional order by Judge Patel.  </font> </p> <p><font size="4">In doing this, Judge Wilkin obstructed justice by refusing to receive the hard evidence that Stich and his group of insiders sought to report. These criminal activities included such matters as widespread judicial corruption in the bankruptcy courts, CIA drug smuggling and activities with organized crime groups, and much more.</font></p> </blockquote> <p><u><font size="4" color="#FF0000">March 24, 2000</font></u><font size="4">. After being denied the right to file a lawsuit at Oakland, Stich then filed the lawsuit on March 24, 2000 in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada. An <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/lawsuit_reno.html" target="_top">Amended Complaint</a> was filed on May 12, 2000. The Amended Complaint was 66 pages long, and stated facts showing a 20-year pattern of judicial corruption. Most of the allegations in the complaint are supported by judicial records in the California and in the federal courts. To view that lawsuit in Adobe Acrobat Reader <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/lawsuit_reno.pdf" target="_top">click here</a>.</font></p> <p><u><font size="4" color="#FF0000">May 12, 2000</font></u><font size="4">. On May 12, 2000, Stich served the Amended Complaint and <font color="#FF0000"><a href="Admissions_Wolters.html" target="_top">Request For Admissions</a></font> upon 26 California and federal judges, and attorneys who colluded with them in the attacks upon Stich. RFAs sent to former short-time California Judge Wolters is shown here.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">July 6, 2000</font><font size="4">. U.S. Attorney at Reno, Nevada, filed a <a href="justice_motion_dismiss_federal_judges.pdf" target="_top">Motion To Dismiss Federal Judges</a>, claiming they were absolutely immune from any lawsuit. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">July 20, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich files <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/opposition_dismiss_federal_judges.html" target="_top">Opposition To Dismissal of Federal Judges</a>. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">July 24, 2000</font><font size="4">. U.S. attorney at Reno, Nevada, filed <a href="justice_reply_dismiss_federal_judges.pdf" target="_top">reply</a> to Stich's opposition to dismissal, claiming a judge can do any act and not be responsible for the consequence.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">July 25, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich files <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/findings_of_fact.html" target="_top">Request For Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law</a> and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. The intent of doing this was to make it more difficult for the judge to simply dismiss the defendant federal judges without stating a reason and without addressing the facts and the law that stripped the judges of self-imposed judicial immunity. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">August 5, 2000</font><font size="4">. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/goldberg_motion_dismiss.html" target="_top">Motion to dismiss by a group of San Francisco attorneys seeking an order to be dismissed from the lawsuit</a>. These included attorneys who worked for and with infamous trustee Charles Duck, accused of the nation's worst trustee embezzlement, who liquidated much of  Stich's $10 million in real estate assets. These attorneys included Lawrence Goldberg, Terrance C. Stinnet, Iam Macdonald, Merle C. Meyers, Melanie Darling, and the law firms of Goldberg, Stinnett, Meyers & Davis; and Goldberg, Stinnett, and Macdonald.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">August 10, 2000</font><font size="4">. <u>California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed motion  on behalf of the defendant California judges</u>. The motion was filled with misstatements of law, misstatements of facts, withholding of key facts and law that would have altered the position he was taking. He did not deny any of the allegations Stich made in his lawsuit. The California attorney general simply held that no matter what the judges did, they were totally immune from the consequences. Ironically, one of the defendants in the lawsuit was former California Court of Appeal judge Harry Low, who was selected by Governor Grey Davis to be the head of the California Department of Insurance. </font> <blockquote> <p><font size="4">Former California court of appeal judge Harry Low was being heralded for his alleged respect for the law and civil rights, when in reality he played a role in massive violations of these state and federal civil rights protections. He misused his judicial position and the courts as if they were a corrupt arm of government. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/laws_violated_by_california_judges.html" target="_top">here</a> for a list of the California and federal laws and constitutional violations that Low approved being violated in a bizarre lawsuit that was filed by a CIA-front law firm in an attempt to silence a former government agent and whistleblower.  </font> </blockquote> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">August 15, 2000</font><font size="4">. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/opposition_goldberg_motion.html" target="_top">Stich's opposition to motion by attorneys to be dismissed</a>. </font> <p><font size="4">Stich served, again, a <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/request_admissions_macdonald.html" target="_top">Request For Admissions</a> to the above attorneys. They refused to answer the first set, each one claiming they did not receive the RFAs. Rather than seek a court order forcing them to answer, another set was sent to them on August 14, 2000.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">August 16, 2000</font><font size="4">. <a href="RecFedDenied.html" target="_top">Order by Judge Edward C. Reed</a>, Jr., denying Stich's motion for reconsideration, holding that federal judges are above the law, are totally immune from the consequences of the conduct stated in Stich's Amended Complaint. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">August 23, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/objection_dismiss_california_judges.html" target="_top">objection to the motion</a> by California's attorney general to dismiss the California judges from the lawsuit. <a href="exhibit_california_federal_laws_violated.html" target="_top">Attachment to that motion</a>, to be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader, which lists many of the laws and constitutional protections that were repeatedly violated against Rodney Stich by California and federal judges in a continuing series of inter-related acts. To read without the Reader, click here. </font> <hr> <p align="center"><font size="5" color="#FF0000">Key Filing That Would Expose 20 Years Of Systematic Civil Rights Violations By California and federal judges Acting In Unison</font><font size="5"> </font> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">September 7, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich f<u>iled a motion for declaratory judgment declaring the validity of seven judgments that established Stich's personal and property rights, and which were the target of the bizarre lawsuit against Stich</u>. The motion was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2201, which requires federal judges to conduct a hearing and then render a judgment declaring the rights and legal relations of the parties. The motion and its points and authorities and exhibits required U.S. district judge Reed to render an order declaring the validity of the seven divorce judgments that legally established Stich's divorced status and property rights in 1966. The significance of these facts and law is that it was the violation of these legally established rights that was the center of the 20 years of subsequent taking of Stich's $10 million estate (which in the year 2000 would be worth easily in excess of $15 million, almost without any liabilities). Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/motion_dec_jdg_divorce.html" target="_top">here</a> to see the motion. </font> <blockquote> <p><font size="4">The bizarre lawsuit and scheme involving over a dozen attorneys and over a dozen California and federal judges commenced with a sham lawsuit claiming Stich was married to an Emma Stich in Duncanville, Texas, and that she wanted a divorce and half of Stich's personal and corporate assets on the allegation that these assets were community properties.  </font> <p><font size="4">Every law stated in this September 7, 2000 motion had been raised by Stich during the California lawsuit. (None of his attorneys raised any of them, and he had to proceed on his own.) As shown in the motion, California judges acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction and violated dozens of California and federal laws and constitutional protections, any ONE of which barred that cause of action.  </font> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">California judge Dennis Bunting</font><font size="4"> rendered a "divorce" judgment on September 28, 1988, allegedly terminating the marriage (that had been terminated 22 years earlier), and seized Stich's properties. Making matters worse, Stich was barred from the hearing and barred from filing any oppositions (so much for constitutional due process, but that right was a casualty from "day-one." Bunting is in the year 2000 with the Solano County district attorney's office in Fairfield, California. His pattern of civil rights violations as a short-time elected judge doesn't bode well for anyone charged with an offense in Solano County.  </font> <p><font size="4">California judges, and federal judges, in unison, charged Stich with being a vexatious litigant and with frivolous filings for exercising state and federal remedies against these violations. Any ONE of the dozens of California and federal laws, or constitutional violations, would have justified filing objections.  </font> <hr> </blockquote> <p><font color="#FF0000"><u><font size="5">Here are the very serious problems</font></u><font size="5"> facing Judge Reed which have national implications and which could help the public understand the rampant corruption in the courts and the legal fraternity:</font></font><font size="4"> </font> <p><font size="4">His mandatory and non-discretionary duty to render a declaratory judgment is clear. Dozens of California statutes and rules of court require recognizing the seven prior judgments that established Stich's personal and property rights 20 years before they were attacked in the sham California lawsuit. Federal statutes, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, multiple constitutional protections, all require recognition of these rights. </font> <p><font size="4">It was the violation of these rights, and the systematic refusal by federal judges to address the violations, to refer to render a declaratory judgment, that led to the great personal and financial harm inflicted upon Stich. </font> <p><font size="4">If Judge Reed now renders the judgment that he musts be law, but probably will not if the past 20 years of judicial misconduct continues, he would expose every one of the over two dozen judicial and legal fraternity defendants in a pattern of unprecedented misconduct corruptly misusing the California and the federal courts. This in turn would reveal the judicial obstruction of justice and the scheme that was part of it. And from there, the criminal activities that Stich and his group of other government agents have sought to report, including the decades of CIA  drug smuggling into the United States, the judicial corruption in the bankruptcy courts, and much more. </font></b> <p><b><font size="4">The <font color="#FF0000">violations of state and federal laws, the violations of civil rights, are so extreme, and so obvious</font>, that if he refuses to render a declaratory judgment requiring recognition of the seven divorce judgments and declaring the void nature of the California "divorce" judgments, he will be clearly shown as aiding and abetting every single wrongdoing that is detailed and documented in Stich's Amended Complaint and the attached exhibit, his third edition of <i>Defrauding America</i>. And this could have serious ramifications.  </font> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">If Judge Reed acts to protect the pattern of corrupt actions by the large numbers of California and federal judges and attorneys</font><font size="4"> named in the lawsuit, than he becomes implicated with the civil rights violations, the criminal cover-ups, the corrupt misuse of judicial positions and the courts, and more. He would have to count on a continued cover-up by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal judges (which is probable), and a cover-up by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (which is also probable), and a cover-up by the media. But what is unknown is how people will react when they find out about this practice through publicity on the Internet. If those people and groups complaining about intangible or subjective matters will instead focus on these hard-core documented acts of judicial corruption, then there is a risk to the entrenched judges and their compatriots in the legal fraternity. </font> <p><font size="4">Remember, it isn't the person that the judges and legal fraternity targeted that is of main concern to the American public; it is the willingness of such a large group of judges and attorneys to engage in a conspiracy, to misuse the courts and the judicial positions, to destroy the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States that are fundamental to our form of government. Their perpetrating of these fundamental protections is on a par with the subverting of the American people by the CIA and others who have been smuggling drugs into the United States for the past 50 years, and inflicting chaos throughout the nation. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">September  1, 2000</font><font size="4">. Motion filed by U.S. trustee Jerome Robertson to be dismissed from lawsuit.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">September 14, 2000</font><font size="4">. Plaintiff's Opposition to Robertson's motion. The points raised in the opposition refer to every argument raised by Robertson in seeking to be dismissed. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/objection_robertson_dismissal.html" target="_top">Click here</a> to read Stich's opposition to Robertson's dismissal motion as converted from Microsoft Word. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 1, 2000</font><font size="4">. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Nevada Attorney General filed motions to dismiss the California judges from Stich's lawsuit. These two top law enforcement agencies of the states of California and Nevada were aiding and abetting and protection the California judges who for six years engaged in record-setting numbers of civil and constitutional violations against Stich. Check the complaint filed by Stich to see the great numbers of civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by renegade California judges, and how the state's top law enforcement agencies protected the corrupt judges. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 2, 2000.</font><font size="4"> Defendant attorney Paul G. Sloan, a partner in the law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross that filed the original sham lawsuit against Stich that targeted Stich's assets that Stich used to fund his exposure of corruption in key government offices and in the federal courts. That law firm was identified to Stich by two reliable sources as being a front for the Central Intelligence Agency. If so, that law firm would have considerable control over federal judges, and be possibly the reason Sloan was dismissed from the lawsuit. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 3, 2000.</font><font size="4"> Justice Department opposition to reinstatement of Plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights. This is the federal agency that is entrusted in protecting civil and constitutional rights and prosecuting those who commit the violations. The attorneys in the Justice Department were objecting to the return of Stich's civil and constitutional rights that were unlawfully, unconstitutionally, taken from him in an effort to block his defenses against the judicially-inflicted civil and constitutional violations and to block Stich from reporting the criminal activities that he and his group of government insiders had discovered. Stich sought to report them to a federal judge under the mandatory crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4 that provides for a federal judge to exercise his administrative duties and receive the reports. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/justice_opposition_return_civil_rights.jpg" target="_top">here</a> to view the Justice Department's opposition to the return of Stich's civil rights. There are ominous implications to this opposition.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 4, 2000</font><font size="4">. Plaintiff (Stich) filed a <u>motion to have his civil and constitutional rights reinstated,</u> that had been taken from his by unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders rendered by a series of federal judges acting in unison. The purpose of these injunctive orders was to block Stich and his group of other former and present government agents from reporting criminal activities to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and blocked Stich from exercising federal remedies and protections against the onslaught of civil and constitutional violations that focused on seizing the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of the corruption in government. Reed's refusal to reinstate Stich's civil and constitutional rights was the latest in a 20-year pattern of judicial corruption related to blocking the reports of government corruption. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/motion_reinstate_civil_and_constitutional_rights.html" target="_top">Click here</a> for a copy of the motion filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act.   </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 4, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed a motion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to have the <u>orders seizing his $10 million in assets declared void</u>. These orders were void under U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Orders rendered without jurisdiction, or that violated constitutional due process, are considered void orders, and all orders rendered on the basis of such void orders are void. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/motion_declare_property_seizure_void.html" target="_top">Click here</a> for a copy of the motion filed in the U.S. district court at Reno under the authority of the Declaratory Judgment Act.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 5, 2000.</font><font size="4"> Justice Department's <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/justice_opposition_return_property.jpg" target="_top">opposition</a> to declaring orders seizing Stich's $10 million in assets to be void. Under U.S. Supreme Court decisions, orders are void, forever void, and orders based upon such orders are void, when they are rendered without jurisdiction or violated constitutional due process. The orders rendered by Las Vegas federal judge Robert Jones were signed in chambers, a week after he signed orders refusing to accept jurisdiction over the matter, and the orders signed in chambers taking Stich's assets were signed without any notice of hearing, without a hearing, and without cause. The property was simply taken, and then orders rendered barring Stich from filing objections to the seizure and liquidation.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 10, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed opposition to dismissing the California judges. Click here to see part of that opposition.  </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 11, 2000</font><font size="4">. Plaintiff's response to Justice Department's opposition to reinstatement of Plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights. Click here to see the opposition. </font> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 20, 2000</font><font size="4">. U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr. Reno, Nevada, signed six orders, including: </font> <ul> <li><font size="4">Order r<u>efusing to return to Stich the civil and constitutional rights that were taken from him,</u> that continues for the remainder of Stich's life, by a series of federal judges, including Marilyn Patel, Samuel Conti, Milton Schwartz and others. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/order_refusing_return_civil_rights.jpg" target="_top">here</a> to view it.<br> <br> </font> </li> <li><font size="4">Order <u>dismissing the federal judges that Stich listed as defendants. Judge Reed held and implied that the federal judges were totally immune from the consequences of their acts</u>, and that the victims of such wrongful acts have no redress in law. These acts included felony retaliation against Stich for attempting to report major criminal activities to a federal judge; felony retaliation against Stich for exercising constitutional due process remedies against the record-setting number of civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by the judges. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/order_dismissing_federal_judges.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the order.<br> <br> </font> </li> <li><font size="4">Order <u>holding that California judges are totally immune from the consequences </u>of their pattern of conspiratorial corrupt acts, and that the victim of such wrongful acts have no remedy under law. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/order_dismissing_california_judges1.jpg" target="_top">Click </a>here to view the order.<br> <br> </font> </li> <li><font size="4">Order dismissing short-time California judge Dennis Bunting, whose unlawful and unconstitutional order violated several dozen California and federal statutes, rules of court, federal statutes, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections, while acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction. His orders seizing Stich's properties were based on the premise that he was terminating a marriage that had been terminated 22 years earlier, that had been established in a 1966 divorce judgment and its entry as a local judgment in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. The lawsuit was a scam to seize the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities.</font></li> </ul> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 24, 2000</font><font size="4">. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/denial_appeal_remedies.pdf" target="_top">Order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> at San Francisco denying to Stich the legal and constitutional right to appeal any orders rendered in the Reno lawsuit. This order, rendered by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges Pregerson, Kleinfeld, and Gould, refused to proceed with Stich's Notice of Appeal relating to the dismissal of the federal judges named in the lawsuit. In this way, the entire Ninth Circuit has solidified the total denial of all civil and constitutional due process to Stich in what has become one of the worst documented judicial scandals in U.S. history.  Here is the significance of that order. A series of orders by district court judges have barred Stich, for the remainder of his life, from access to the federal courts, which is outrageously unlawful and unconstitutional. By denying Stich the right to file papers in federal courts, he is unable to file appeals of these unlawful orders. When Stich filed a lawsuit in Nevada, outside of the California area controlled by the judicial orders voiding for Stich all legal rights and protections under our form of government, federal court of appeal judges refuse to recognize appeals that Stich is forced to file when federal judges elsewhere continue the tactics by the federal judges in California. These corrupt judicial acts have national implications. </font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 31, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed, strictly for the record, a motion for reconsideration of the order <u>refusing to reinstate civil and constitutional rights</u>. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/reconsideration_return_civil_rights.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the motion. Without such an order, Stich will continue to be stripped of all rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. This will protect the judges, will block Stich and his group of insiders from reporting criminal activities in key government offices and the courts, and bar  Stich from ever seeking relief from the record-setting violations of California and federal laws and Constitutional protections. </font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 31, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed, for the record, motion for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 order <u>refusing to declare the validity of the seven judgments</u> that established Stich's personal and property rights, which had been unlawfully and unconstitutional taken by short-term California judges, and primarily Dennis Bunting, now a prosecutor in Solano County at Fairfield, California. It was the violations of these rights that served as the platform for the scheme against Stich in the California and federal courts. If the judge had exercised his mandatory responsibility under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and applied the many laws and constitutional protections requiring recognition of these judgments, and Stich's personal and property rights, it would focus attention on the pattern of judicial misconduct by the California and federal judges. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/reconsideration_divorce_judgment_recognition.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the motion for reconsideration. </font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 31, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 order <u>dismissing the California judges who rendered orders for six years while lacking personal and subject matter jurisdiction</u>, and that violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and major constitutional protections. Federal judges have to protect each of the California judges, subsequent federal judges, law firms, and attorneys, who knowingly played a key role in the scheme to strip Stich of the assets that funded his exposure of the corruption in key government offices and the courts. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/reconsider_dismissal_california_judges.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the motion for reconsideration.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">October 31, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 order <u>dismissing defendant and trustee Jerome Robertson</u>, who helped loot Stich's $10 million in assets. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/reconsider_robertson_dismissal.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the motion.</font></p> <hr> <p><font color="#FF0000"><a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/reconsider_sloan_dismissal.html" target="_top"> <font size="4">October 31, 2000</font></a></font><font size="4">. Stich filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 order dismissing attorney Paul G. Sloan. Sloan was a partner in the law firm that filed the sham lawsuit against Stich. That law firm was reported to Stich by two reliable sources to be a front for the Central Intelligence Agency, and if so, could be expected to have considerable control over federal judges.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 3, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 order <u>refusing to rule on the motion for return of Stich's $10 million in properties</u> (today worth over $15 million) that was seized without any notice, without hearing, without cause, which violated major constitutional due process protections, and which were seized after the judge had signed orders refusing to accept jurisdiction over the legal filing which involved the properties. The seizure of these assets culminated years of judicial and legal efforts to destroy them and thereby eliminate the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/reconsider_returrn_of_seized_properties.html" target="_top">here</a> to view the motion for reconsideration. </font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 6, 2000.</font><font size="4"> The San Francisco law firm of Goldberg, Stinnett, Meyers & Davis filed a second motion to be dismissed from the lawsuit. This law firm was active with trustee Charles Duck for several years during the time that people repeatedly complaint was looting their assets. Newspaper publicity charging Duck with the nation's worst trustee embezzlement finally forced a slap-on-the-wrist reaction from the Justice Department with a subsequent announcement that the fraud in the bankruptcy courts had been eliminated. Duck went to a federal prison camp for a short stay, where he received favored treatment. Stich included in his lawsuit the firm that worked hand-in-glove with Duck, and they subsequently filed their second motion to be dismissed. (Stich's opposition was filed on November 15, 2000.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 6, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed <font color="#FF0000">opposition to Judge Reed's intent to order Stich to pay financial sanctions to the defendant California judges</font>. These judges were unlawfully and unconstitutionally dismissed by Judge Reed on the claim that they were totally immune from the consequences of their acts. This decision was contrary to Supreme Court decisions that state judges lose their limited immunity when they act without jurisdiction or if they violate clear and settled law. These California judges knowingly rendered orders for six years, knowing they lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and while concurrently violating over 36 California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional provisions, as clearly defined in the lawsuit. Further, the evidence clearly showed the California judges acted in a conspiracy that carried out the sham lawsuit filed by a reported CIA-front law firm that targeted the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities of corruption in government offices and in the federal courts. Click <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/opposition_sanctions_california_judges.html" target="_top">here </a>to view the opposition papers.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 9, 2000</font><font size="4">. U.S. district judge Reed signs an orders that violates large numbers of federal statutes and Supreme Court rules, and protects every defendant who played a role in the record-setting and documented series of unlawful and unconstitutional acts. If he hadn't done this, any of the federal causes of action would unravel the sordid series of judicial misconduct detailed and documented in the lawsuit. This November 9, 2000 order violated numerous constitutional and legal due process rights and protections. The order:</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4">Blocked the adjudication of the order rendered by Las Vegas federal judge Robert Jones that seized Stich's $10 million in property assets while violating the legal and constitutional requirement of a notice of hearing, the requirement for a hearing at which Stich could defend, and legally recognized cause for taking the assets. Further, the orders seizing the assets were rendered after the judge had refused to accept jurisdiction over that case. Supreme Court decisions hold that orders rendered without jurisdiction or that violate constitutional due process are void orders and are forever void. Judge Reed violated the rights and protections under the Declaratory Judgment Act and FRCivP 57, which provides for a jury to decide these matters if a jury was requested, as Stich had requested. <br> <br> </font> </li> <li><font size="4">Dismissed two attorneys named as defendants, Las Vegas attorneys Joshua Landish and Rene Feinstein, despite the federal law barring their dismissal under the allegations stated by Stich in his lawsuit and opposition to their motions to dismiss. <br> <br> </font> </li> <li><font size="4">Protected the defendants against having to answer Stich's Request For Admissions, which, if answered honestly, would have revealed the ugly nature of the combined judicial and legal fraternity civil and constitutional violations. <br> <br> </font> </li> <li><a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/november_9_order.pdf" target="_top"> <font size="4">Click</font></a><font size="4"> here to see that November 9, 2000 order rendered by Reno district judge Reed. (Stich filed notice of appeal on November 20, 2000.)</font></li> </ul> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 15, 2000.</font><font size="4"> Stich filed his <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/opposition_goldberg_dismissal2.html" target="_top">opposition</a> to the second motion to be dismissed that was filed by the law firm of Goldberg, Stinnett, Meyers & Davis. This opposition includes key material, including reference to the law firms' partnership with the trustee accused of perpetrating the nation's worst trustee embezzlement (occurring while federal judges had put Stich's $10 million in property assets in his control).</font></p> <hr> <p align="left"><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 20, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed his notice of appeal. Since 1986, Ninth Circuit court of appeal judges have refused to recognize any appeals filed by Stich. This unlawful and unconstitutional refusal protected the series of documented judicial corruption, protected the scheme commenced in the California courts by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (member of the ACLU), that focused on seizing the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of corruption in key government offices and in the federal courts. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/notice_appeal_nov20.html" target="_top">Click here</a> to view the notice of appeal.</font></p> <hr> <p align="left"><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 22, 2000</font><font size="4">. Motion to dismiss was filed by the San Francisco law firm and attorneys Friedman, Sloan and Ross, PC., Stanley Friedman, and Jeffrey Ross. </font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" color="#FF0000">November 30, 2000</font><font size="4">. Stich filed opposition to the motion to dismiss by the defendant law firm that had been identified to Stich by two reliable sources as a front for the Central Intelligence Agency. That is the law firm that filed the California lawsuit that was barred by dozens of California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections. For 20 years that sham lawsuit was ongoing in the California and federal courts, with total refusal by California and federal judges to order a halt to the unlawful and unconstitutional action. The details are in the lawsuit. <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/opposition_dismiss_friedman.html" target="_top">Click here</a> to view a copy of the opposition, which also provides an exhibit at the end which lists many of the dozens of California and federal laws and constitutional provisions that were violated as California and federal judges, and the CIA-front law firm, stripped Stich of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure of criminal activities in key government and judicial positions. To go right to a list of some of the dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections that were violated as a group of California and federal judges misused the courts to silence him, <a href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com/exhibit_law_violated.html" target="_top">click here</a>.</font></p> <hr> <p align="center"><u><font size="6">Note</font></u><font size="6"> </font> <p><font size="4">It is important to recognize that in this lawsuit there is presented documented evidence of a pattern of judicial obstruction of justice, the misuse of federal courts and judicial positions to inflict harm upon a former federal agent for attempting to report very serious criminal activities that he and his group of other government agents discovered. The court reports document the years of judicial attacks upon one individual for exercising his rights and his responsibilities. When an entire Ninth Circuit federal court system can do that to any citizen, it documents their willingness to subvert the laws and Constitution of the United States, which they are now doing. </font> <p><font size="4">If the various groups disturbed about judicial corruption would use this material instead of their vague arguments showing displeasure with certain judicial acts, massive changes could be made. Most of them have myopic vision and will never use the most explosive documented evidence available. </font> <hr> <p align="center"><font color="#FF0000" size="6">Related Web Sites</font></p> <ul> <li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chronology of decades of corrupt activities by the CIA, U.S. politicians, and other members of the system, as described in the book, <i> <a target="_top" href="http://www.defraudingamerica.com">Defrauding America</a></i>.</font></li> </ul> <ul> <li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chronology of the arrogant and corrupt war on drugs--against the American people--as described in the book, <i> <a target="_top" href="http://www.druggingamerica.com">Drugging America</a></i>.<br>  </font></li> <li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chronology of arrogant and corrupt activities in the deadly politics of aviation safety, as described in the book, <i> <a target="_top" href="http://www.unfriendlyskies.com">Unfriendly Skies</a></i>.<br>  </font></li> <li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chronology of covert and corrupt activities in which the American people suffered the consequences of blowback, as described in the e-book, <i> <a target="_top" href="http://www.blowback911.com">Blowback, 9-/11, Iraq, Lies, and Coverups</a></i>.<br>  </font></li> <li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Story of a CIA operation based in Honolulu and its titular head, who was made a scapegoat by CIA and Justice Department personnel and a federal judge, after its cover was blown, and as described in the e-book, <i> <a target="_top" href="http://www.disavow.com">Disavow</a></i>.<br>  </font></li> </ul> <p><a name="Informational print and e-books books"><font size="4">Informational print and e-books books</font></a><font size="4"> describing these matters can be ordered by <a target="_top" href="https://www.defraudingamerica.com/order_form.html">clicking here</a>.</font></p> <p> </p> </b> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         &p;                                                                                                                                                                                                                       </b> </span></font></p> <p align="center"><b><a href="#TOP"><font size="4">Return To Top</font></a></b></p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><P> This website requires a browser that supports "frames".</p> <p></BODY></p> <p></NOFRAMES></p> <p></HTML></p> <p> </p> </body>