Brief Introduction

Former federal agent Rodney Stich and his coalition of other former government agents and insiders had sought to report the corrupt activities in the government's aviation safety offices related to a series of specific airline disasters, and also criminal activities in other areas of overt and covert government activities. The authority for doing this was the federal crime reporting statute and the statute that permits any citizen to seek a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and halt unlawful conduct.

In response to these efforts, large numbers of federal judges, Department of Justice personnel, and over 50 lawyers and law firms embarked on multiple schemes to block the reports of the high-level corruption and silence the former federal agent acting as a whistleblower to expose misconduct resulting in major harm, many deaths, and a series of catastrophic events. Click here for more introductory information. In combination, they inflicted great harm through civil, constitutional, criminal, and human rights violations upon a former federal agent, and made possible the continuation of the prior consequences of corruption, cover-ups, and retaliations, some of which are shown below. The need to coordinate these many parallel efforts to block the reporting of very serious high-level corruption, and protect the participants, from 1982 to 2005 as they engaged in conspiracies involving massive and repeated civil, constitutional, and human rights violations, and criminal obstruction of justice and criminal retaliation against a former federal agent and witness, strongly suggests that a powerful group in the federal government was involved. The consequences of their enabling conduct is shown below.

Lawyers Seeking Court Order to Seize Books
Exposing High Level Corruption And
Related Catastrophic Consequences

Expanding on the prior 25 years of continuous sham legal actions involving over 50 lawyers and law firms to halt the attempts by a former federal agent to expose high level corruption and the tragic and often deadly consequences, another series of lawyers and law firms continued the schemes. On January 3, 2007, Pasadena lawyer John Guerrini filed a motion for a court order seizing the books written by former federal agent Rodney Stich.

The tactic to seize the books involved filing a sham lawsuit in a remote South Carolina court, where local judges do the bidding of large law firms. The sham lawsuit used as a plaintiff and straw man, Steve Gratzer, formerly of Elko, Nevada, and believed to be a prison guard in South Carolina.

Gratzer's wife, Doris, was murdered. But before she was murdered, the distraught woman told an Elko physician (the National Guard medical officer) that if she was found dead, it would be her husband who did it. The statement of that medical officer, word-for-word as told to Stich, was put into the book, Drugging America. Although the book did not imply Steve Gratzer killed his wife, the South Carolina law firm of David Collins, using Gratzer, as the straw man, claimed that Stich had charged Gratzer with murder, and then claimed jurisdiction over Stich, residing in California, on the basis that the information was on the Internet. Using that argument, a Somalia judge could obtain jurisdiction over anyone in the United States, including such figures as former U.S. President George Bush!

It was ironic that a possible murderer was being used in the latest attempt to seize the books, and thereby keep the public from learning about the vast areas of criminal activities in certain government offices that Stich and a group of other former government agents discovered as part of their official government duties.

Stich never appeared in the South Carolina court on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Even if he had appeared, the culture in the legal fraternity insured that the local judges would have carried out the wishes of the law firm. Information appearing in a San Francisco legal newspaper indicated that the Gratzer law firm was a front for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a common practice.

As expected, the South Carolina judge issued a $3 million default judgment against Stich. The law firm knew that Stich had no assets−having been corruptly seized and liquidated through the combined schemes of lawyers, California judges, federal judges, and Department of Justice personnel. The only remaining target would be to seize the books and destroy them.

Using the Guerrini lawyers and law firm to have the South Carolina default judgment entered as a local judgment, legal actions were filed in California. As expected, the long involvement by California judges in these schemes readily conveyed the South Carolina default judgment into a local judgment, and increased it to $4 million, along with an order seizing the books. Stich filed an objection to the seizure of the books (January 3, 2007), but this was ignored because of the large number of California judges already implicated−and named in the books: Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America.

That filing, objecting to the seizure of the books, also highlights the tactics used to block the public from learning about these matters. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

The facts strongly indicate that Collins and his law firm were acting for unknown sources in government, not only against Stich, but against those who were exposing President George Bush's delinquent air national guard record. Similar acts were done to discredit Operation Tailwind.

Years of Continual Lawyers Complicity

Years of continuous complicity by lawyers and law firms—some with CIA connections, have been parallel efforts to halt the efforts by a former federal agent from reporting and exposing the corruption in certain government offices. By their documented acts of deception, massive civil rights and RICO violations, attention was diverted from these federal crimes, enabling to continue the corruption that had tragic, sometimes catastrophic, and sometimes deadly consequences. In one area, the ripple effects were felt on September 11, 2001.

All of the lawyers involved in the corrupt schemes knew that they were aiding in covering up for continuing criminal activities that were resulting in a continuing pattern of great harm, some of which was resulting in catastrophic airline disasters. These acts constituted felonies under various criminal statutes, including obstruction of justice, interfering with a witness and former federal agent to cover up for criminal activities, and for criminal involvement in violating civil rights.

The continuation of these continuous and contiguous acts includes the attempt by a Pasadena lawyer to keep the schemes going. More details below.

Brief Refresher On The Latest
Series of Lawyers Joined the Ongoing Scheme

•  Stich, a former Naval aviator, airline pilot, and federal aviation safety agent, had discovered extensive corruption related to a series of major airline disasters after he was assigned the task of correcting the conditions responsible for the worst series of airline disasters in the nation's history, at that time.

• The corrupt activities in the FAA that Stich discovered during his official duties had been responsible for conditions that resulted in a number of fatal catastrophic airline disasters. So concerned was Stich for the continuing deaths that he used the law in such a manner that he acted similar to an independent prosecutor, conducting hearings during a four month period that further proved his charges.
   
• Part of his final closing brief warned the hearing officer, William Jennings from the FAA administrator's office (a lawyer), of the catastrophic consequences that would occur if he engaged in a cover-up.
   
• During the hearing, three more airline disasters occurred, each of which were caused by the exact same safety problems and safety violations that Stich had repeatedly reported, for which he received retaliation from FAA management, who sought to destroy the official reports. The most revealing of the deep-seated corruption in the FAA was the United Airlines Boeing 727 crash at Salt Lake City. (Details in History of Aviation Disasters: 1950 to 9/11.)
   
• The standard cover-up then followed, along with retaliation, causing Stich to leave government service. The crashes continued, and with the larger size of the newer aircraft, the death toll in each disaster was higher than in the past.
   
• Having encountered the standard cover-ups by members of Congress and Department of Justice personnel, Stich sought to generate interest in the public by publishing books and appearing as guest on hundreds of radio and television shows. These appearances started in 1978 and now number over 3,000.
   
• The continuation of the airline disasters (including easily preventable hijackings) caused Stich to use another tactic seeking to force any of the several government offices responsible for taking action to cease their cover-ups.
   
• Two federal statutes provided the answer: the federal crime reporting statute; and the statute permitting any citizen to seek a court order forcing a federal official to perform his or her legal duty and to halt their corrupt activities.

• The federal crime reporting statute requires that anyone who knows of a federal crime must promptly report it "to a federal judge or other federal official." Federal judges are then required, by the criminal statute, to receive the information as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties. Refusal to receive the information, or taking any other act to prevent the reporting of a federal crime to a federal judge, would constitute obstruction of justice, or worse.
   
• These lawsuits were filed in the federal courts in California between 1978 and 1982.
   
• Although judges admitted the gravity of the charges, upon objection by Department of Justice lawyers, the judges refused to allow the information of criminal activities to be presented. These were criminal acts under the obstruction of justice statutes.
   
• The crashes and deaths caused or enabled to occur by the same corruption that Stich tried to report, continued to occur. Judges and Department of Justice lawyers were then implicated in the deaths.
   
• In the second edition of Unfriendly Skies, the book described the judicial cover-ups and resulting crashes and deaths, naming the district and appellate judges who were implicated in the cover-ups. This put them at risk of impeachment and possible criminal prosecution (if the cover-ups by Justice Department officials could be circumvented).
   
• Shortly thereafter, the CIA-front San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, and their lawyers, filed a sham lawsuit against Stich, placing a fictitious label on it that permitted the court to immediately separate Stich from these assets.

• The intent of that lawsuit, filed by the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, was to strip that former federal agent of all his assets and thereby halt his costly exposure activities. The exposure activities included publishing the not-for-profit books, and appearing on radio and television shows throughout the country. Starting in 1978, he has to this date appeared as guest and expert on over 3,000 of these shows.
   
• That lawsuit, filed in the state courts at Fairfield, California, violated blocks of state and federal laws, any one of which required immediate dismissal. Incredibly, every judge of the California appellate courts approved the massive violations of state and federal law, insuring that the CIA-front law firm was protected, along with its goal of stripping Stich of the assets that funded his exposure activities.
   
• Since the violations occurring in the California courts constituted violations of federally protected rights, for which multiple federal remedies existed, that guaranteed an right to federal court access and orders halting the violations.

The same federal judges who blocked the reporting of the criminal activities, and were implicated in the resulting deaths, then repeatedly violated every protections that they were paid and entrusted to provide. Their actions protected the scheme, protected the CIA-front law firm and lawyers, and protected the California judges who became part of the scheme.

Without going into detail on this page, for those who are interested in these details, they are described in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That lawsuit raised several issues, including:

• Seeking to report the corrupt activities in the FAA, FBI, and CIA that would shortly thereafter be the areas of primary and secondary blame for the conditions that enabled four groups of Middle East personnel to hijack four airliners on September 11, 2001. These areas have been meticulously avoided in congressional hearings and by the 9/11 Commission personnel. At this stage Stich had acquired considerable more information on corruption in various government offices, partly from years of information that he received from agents of then FBI, CIA, DEA, ONI, Customs, FAA; former drug smugglers carrying out drug smuggling operations for CIA agents and during the Contra operation; and former Mafia figures, including Gregory Scarpa, Jr.
   
• At this stage, federal judges were so heavily implicated that they blocked the lawsuit from proceeding. During the proceedings, the 9/11 hijackings occurred. Stich then filed into that lawsuit a declaration showing the relationship of the lawyers and judges in multiple legal schemes to block the reporting of the tragedy-related corruption.
   
• Orders seeking to halt the massive civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by the CIA-front law firm and lawyers, California judges acting in unison with them, and the federal judges who aided and abetted the scheme.
   
• Damages against the lawyers and others who participated in the parallel schemes to block the exposure of the criminal activities that had such tragic consequences.
   

• Before U.S. District Judge Edward Reed stopped the action, thereby covering up for the corruption and the participants, the 9/11 hijackings occurred. Since the hijackings were made possible by the corruption Stich sought to report, and the various roles played in the cover-up of such corruption by each of the lawyers, law firms, and judges that Stich named in the lawsuit, Stich filed a declaration into that action. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• Without going in the many other details, federal judges and the CIA-front law firm seized Stich's assets, violating the requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legally required cause. From 1987 to 1997, they stripped Stich of his life's assets, converting him from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. Today, in his eighties, he lives on his modest Social Security payments.

Last Lawsuit by Whistleblower, Prior to 9/11,
Seeking to Report the Corruption That Subsequently
Making the 9/11 Hijackings Possible

The former federal agent filed a lawsuit, prior to 9/11, in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada, seeking to report the corrupt activities that he and a group of other government agents had discovered. Also, the action named as defendants, lawyers and judges who were covering up for the crimes and engaging in multiple parallel legal schemes to inflict great personal and financial harm upon him. Among the various federal claims were that that fell under the RICO act for a series of predicate acts to obstruct justice and inflict great harm. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)  More details on this lawsuit at other pages on this site.

During the attempt to provide these reports, the events of 9/11 occurred. A declaration was filed in that lawsuit related to the blame for 9/11, emphasizing the need for the judge to receive reports of the criminal activities (that he had been blocking). (MS Word) (Adobe pdf)

That declaration was ignored by federal judge Edward Reed at Reno and the Ninth Circuit court of appeals judges.

Federal Lawsuit Filed in New York City—After the
9/11 Hijackings—Seeking to Report the Corrupt Activities
That Enabled 9/11 to Occur: Blocked Again.

Stich made one last effort to report the corrupt activities and the felony cover-ups that made 9/11 possible. He filed a lawsuit submitted on August 15, 2002, for filing in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York by former federal agent Rodney Stich. The purpose of the lawsuit was to report and expose the corrupt activities that created the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners, and the misconduct adversely affecting major national issues, including national security. That lawsuit also addressed the massive civil rights violations that were part of the parallel efforts to block the reports of these crimes against the United States. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) 

Further information on that lawsuit can be found at another page.

After Stich filed his latest lawsuit that threatened to expose the entire pattern of judicial and legal fraternity corruption, various tactics were commenced to again halt his activities. One of these legal fraternity stunts was the filing of a lawsuit against Stich by the Charleston, South Carolina, law firm of Smith and Collins, and their attorneys, David Athell Collins and Steven L. Smith. 

Although the lawsuit was directed at Stich and the publishing company, people who would be harmed by it would be those who are victimized by the corruption Stich seeks to publicize through his book publishing. That includes the victims of fraud related to air safety; the victims of the arrogant and corrupt was on drugs; the victim of the bankruptcy court fraud; and the victims of the many other criminal activities implicating people in key government positions, federal and California judges, and many others.

That same lawyer and law firm several years later filed a lawsuit seeking to discredit CBS 60-Minute exposure of President George Bush II Texas Air National Guard record, further suggesting links to government sources.

The allegations in the lawsuit were immediately disproved by the facts to which they referred. By filing the lawsuit in a state court where judicial corruption is even worse than in federal courts, and where one-time state judges act to reward certain legal friends, the chances of Stich prevailing were virtually nil.

The law firm knew that Stich had no assets to pay for legal counsel 3,000 miles away, before a judge who is often in the pocket of certain law firms and attorneys. They knew that the publishing company had no assets other than the books, and that it was literally a non-profit operation. Their goal apparently was to obtain a default judgment and then seize control of the books and the name of the books. This scheme would protect the California and federal judges, the legal fraternity whose involvement in the corruption goes back 40 years, as stated in each of Stich's books, would protect Justice Department personnel, members of Congress, and the corruption at United Airlines that caused such brutal consequences for the victim of its fraud.

It is of interest that the very first in a long series of sham lawsuits was filed by the San Francisco CIA-associated law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross and vigorously pursued by their lawyers, violating blocks of state and federal laws, aided and abetted by over a dozen California judges and over a dozen federal judges. They all knew they were blocking the efforts of that former federal agent feverously attempting to halt the great harm resulting from the cooperation that he and his coalition of former intelligence, ,law enforcement, and aviation safety professionals had discovered during their official duties.

In the lawsuit filed against former federal agent Rodney Stich in South Carolina, the law firm and lawyers used as the plaintiff, Steve Gratzer, who formerly lived in Ely, Nevada, until his wife was found murdered. A week before her murder, she confided to her doctor, Jed Cserna, M.D., that "If I'm ever shot, Steve [her husband] did it." A week later she was found murdered. Her husband, a friend of the sheriff, moved from Nevada thereafter and moved to South Carolina, where he is reportedly a prison guard.

No Basis for Jurisdiction in South Carolina Court

Judges in South Carolina insured that the sham lawsuit would succeed. They had to ignore, and violate the following:

• Stich had no connection to the State of South Carolina. Neither did Diablo Western Press. It had no office there and solicited no business there.
   
• Repeating in the book, Drugging America, what the doctor told the author of the book, which was included with other comments on the refusal of the national guard to join in the attack on the Ruby Ridge family, was not in any way libelous, as claimed by series of lawyers and law firms going after Stich.
   
• In the default decision by the South Carolina judge, he used inflammatory language against Stich that showed he was carrying out a scheme that was not based upon any legitimate legal or factual basis.

Attorney David Athell Collins first contacted Stich through a June 8, 2000 letter, falsely stating:

• "Stich makes certain accusations against my client. Essentially, Mr. Stich has accused my client of killing his ex-wife and that the murder was covered up."

• The book, Drugging America, clearly did not make any such statement or insinuation. (However, the information provided by the Army medical doctor to Stich suggests such a possibility, but this was not addressed in the book, and the focus of that section was on the DOJ retaliation against the media doctor for his Army reserve unit refusing to provide helicopter involvement in the Ruby Ridge siege and murders. Stich had written the following information in the book, Drugging America, where Steve Gratzer's name wasn't even mentioned:

  Imprisoning A Doctor On Perjured Testimony

  In 1997 I started receiving information from a physician who had been targeted in a similar gun-charge. Dr. Jed Cserna was an MD with a private practice in Ely, Nevada, and a Lt. Colonel in the Idaho National Guard, with 16 years of military service behind him. His problems started in Ely, Nevada, where he was a physician. Cserna told me how it appeared to start. While he was treating a patient, Doris Gratzer, she told him, "If I'm ever shot, Steve [her husband] did it." Dr. Cserna told this to the hospital staff and they said that she always had problems, and this occasion was no different than others. A week later, she was found dead, killed by a bullet wound to the head.

  Cserna said her husband, Steve Gratzer, was influential in the town, especially with the sheriff, who was responsible for conducting an investigation into his wife's killing. Cserna was now a danger to Gratzer. According to Cserna, false statements were made by a government informant, seeking to justify his position and pay, that resulted in a raid by ATF agent Doreen on his doctor's office. His home was broken into and possessions disappeared. Participating in the ATF raid was the sheriff who he referred to as Burnie (Ronero), who would soon participate in sham charges filed against the doctor.

  Government agents arrested Cserna a short time later and charged him with possession of a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. The guns in question were an AR-15 that was not an automatic, and a Uzi 9mm that had been sold to him with a folding stock and various barrels. He had used both guns two and three times a week at the local police firing range and was never questioned about their legality.

  The question arises as to whether Gratzer was forced to allow his name to be used in the lawsuit to avoid possible prosecution in his wife's murder. The question applies to the over one-dozen lawyers and half a dozen law firms that got involved in carrying out the scheme, the latest bring Pasadena, California lawyer, John D. Guerrini, and his law firm, The Guerrini Law Firm.

  Another person with the Gratzer name, a resident of Nevada, was charged with the Las Vegas murder of casino owner Binion. (It is not known whether there is a relationship between that Gratzer and Steve Gratzer.)
   

• Stich responded with a June 29, 2000 letter, making it clear that no such charge was made by the clear wording in the book. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• Another South Carolina law firm involved was Horger, Horger, Lanier & Knight, and Troy Guerard Knight, of Sommerville, South Carolina. The number of lawyers involved in the scheme far exceeded any money they could obtain from Stich, who had already been stripped of his assets and survived on modest Social Security payments. The intent was to seize the books and thereby end Stich's ability to expose the corruption that by then implicated many groups in many related tragedies.
   
• Stich filed the following papers with the South Carolina courts in a special appearance status, not submitting to the court's jurisdiction: (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• South Carolina judge, Jackson V. Gregory, rendered a $3 million default judgment against Stich and Diablo Western Press. That judgment was rendered despite:
   
  • Not having jurisdiction over Stich or Diablo Western Press, California and Nevada resident and corporation.
     
  • The name Steve Gratzer was never mentioned.
     
  • The book, Drugging America, simply repeated the statements written by an Ely, Nevada physician and given to the author Rodney Stich, which was a constitutionally protected right as stated in Supreme Court decisions, including Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991).
     
  • Nothing was libelous in the words stated by the physician.
     
• That South Carolina law firm then paid California lawyers to file an action in the California courts to enter the South Carolina default judgment as a local California judgment, and then seize the books exposing the corruption in government offices.
   
• California judges, the same group that were initially involved with protecting the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, and who were now implicated in the tragedies, some catastrophic, made possible by their role in helping to block Stich's exposure activities.
   
• Stich filed the following oppositions to entry of the South Carolina judgment: (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• Various legal filings related to Steve Gratzer and the lawyers and law firms using him as the catalyst for seeking to halt the exposure of the deadly corruption, for those with a more sophisticated interest in these matters:
   
  • Initial objection filed to the entry of the South Carolina judgment as a local judgment, March 27, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Subjection objection filed to the order entering the South Carolina judgment as a California judgment, filed in the Superior Court, Martinez, California on April 14, 2002 (shortly after the corruption made possible the 9/11 hijackings. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Response to Gratzer's reply brief in California, April 22, 2002, (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

  Blocked from Exercising Defense Remedies in Oakland Federal Courts
   

  • Lawsuit rejected against Gratzer by federal court at Oakland, California on April 1, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The sham vexatious label applied by over half a dozen federal judges to block the reporting of criminal activities, and block federal defenses against the massive violations of federally protected rights in parallel legal tactics, blocks Stich from ever defending against the retaliation that is following him to his grave.

  Attempting to Circumvent Termination of Federal Due Process by
  Filing in Federal Courts at Reno, Nevada
   

  • Lawsuit filed against Gratzer and lawyers in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada on January 18, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Interrogatories served on Gratzer and his lawyers named as defendants in the Nevada lawsuit, February 10, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Federal judges protected the Gratzer lawyers, and Gratzer, from answering the questions, violating due process.
     
  • Stich filing a notice of appeal, February 13, 2003, of the dismissal by federal judges in Reno, Nevada. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • General overview of the scheme by the lawyers and law firms in the Gratzer action.

  Overview on the Grazer Scheme to Halt Exposing High-Level Corruption

  The judicial and legal tactics in the Gratzer scheme revealed again several matters that should be of concern to thinking Americans. For instance:
   

• It showed again how one individual, who foolishly attempts to expose corruption that is responsible for thousands of deaths and harm to major national interests, can be stripped of every legal and constitutional protection and the courts corruptly used in the process.
   
• It showed the power of some powerful force that corrupted the judges in the California courts.
   
• It showed the power of that powerful force to continue the corruption by judges in the federal courts.
   
• It showed the extent to which lawyers and law firms will go to continue the corruption that made such events at 9/11 possible.

The record-setting violations of substantive and procedural due process by California judges from the lowest courts to the California Supreme Court, had to have been orchestrated at some unknown powerful source in the federal government, and in unison with the CIA-front law firm. In the process, these California judges knowingly blocked Stich and his group of other former government agents from reporting the criminal activities that were continuing to inflict deaths in airline disasters arising from the misconduct in the government's aviation safety offices (the area of primary blame for the successful 9/11 hijackings), and responsible for continuing the corruption in such other offices as the FBI-DOJ and CIA−where the area of secondary blame existed for carrying out the 9/11 scheme.

Eventually over a dozen lawyers became involved in the actions against the former federal agent, even though they knew that prior legal schemes had stripped him of all assets and that he was literally judgment-proof as a result. No group of lawyers and law firms would have invested so much time and money in going after a person who had already been stripped of his life assets and was living on Social Security. There were other motives: seize the books exposing the corruption (Defrauding America, Drugging America, and Unfriendly Skies.)

Although Collins knew that federal judges had seized all of Stich's assets and that he had none to seize, tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees were spent to continue the action, solely to seize the books that would have no value to them. The California lawyers were Irwin J. Eskanos and Barry Adler of Concord, California.

The same California judicial system that had played key roles against Stich in unison with a CIA-front law firm, then refused to recognize California law that barred the filing, including Stich's protection under the SLAPP doctrine. That doctrine provides defense against lawsuits seeking to retaliate against people exposing corruption, including corruption in government offices. In this case, the 3,000 deaths on 9/11 were only one-day's consequences of the corruption. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Among the defenses Stich filed, under California law, was a defense against the default judgment from South Carolina being entered as a local judgment in California. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Initial defense in California courts at Martinez, California. April 14, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Reply to the deceptive brief filed by the Eskanos and Adler law firm. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

California judge William E. McGuiness, ignored Stich's protests, joining the many California judges who several years earlier joined with the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco, insuring the success of the initial legal action to block Stich's reports of the corrupt activities.

Stich filed a notice of appeal on May 3, 2002. A notice was then sent to Stich that he was barred from filing a notice of appeal. The notice stated:

This court has received notice from the Superior Court of Contra Costa County that you are seeking to appeal the superior court's judgment or order. This court has determined that you were previously found to be a vexatious litigant. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 391.7, you may not appeal to this court.

Stich then filed a petition for emergency writ with the California Supreme Court on May 16, 2002, and this was refused, stating he had been forever barred from filing an papers in the California courts because California judges called him a vexatious litigant. That label was applied after Stich exercised the specific California defenses remedies against the sham lawsuit filed by the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (a key ACLU law firm).

Just as every level of the California judiciary did during the sham CIA-front law firm, the same happened again. The California Supreme Court sent a notice back saying Stich was barred from filing any papers with the California Supreme Court. The May 20, 2002, notice stated:

Dear Mr. Stich: Returned unfiled is your petition for writ of mandate received today because as a vexatious litigant you are required to have a prefiling order beforehand.

The only litigation Stich had in the California courts arose from the sham lawsuit filed by the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. That lawsuit was barred by, and violated dozens of California statutes and Supreme Court decisions, and federal statutes and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Judges repeatedly issues orders without personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Every time that Stich exercised a defense specifically provided by California law, the California judges protecting the CIA-front law firm labeled it a frivolous filing and declared Stich a vexatious litigant. In the process, Stich was stripped of his multi-million real estate assets, made homeless, and converted from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty.

A description of the legal scheme is found in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. March 28, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

By obvious "coordination" between California and federal judges, numerous orders were rendered barring Stich from exercising any of the many defenses guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State of California and of the United States to the multiple schemes to halt Stich's reporting of the criminal activities that were subverting national interests and causing to be inflicted great harm to the United States, including many deaths. And these corrupt outrages were done in full view of hundreds of lawyers and law firms, who knew the harm being inflicted upon the United States. A powerful group in the federal government was required to carry out the multiple sham and unlawful attacks, involving a hoard of lawyers from multiple states, and large numbers of state and federal judges from multiple jurisdictions, and to repeatedly protect the perpetrators.

The Unprecedented Legal and Judicial Participation
Involved in Repeated and Massive Violations Required A
 Powerful Group in the Federal Government for The
Multiple Schemes and Protection of the Perpetrators

One of the most unrecognized causes of most of the nation's prior tragedies is the ripple effect, sometimes called the "butterfly effect." For simplicity, let's look at the events of 9/11 and the 3,000 people who were horribly killed, and look at the many people who hold a complicity role in those events:

• The people with the legal responsibility for preventing airliners from being hijacked are the people in the government's aviation safety offices: the FAA. This area has been carefully avoided during congressional hearings and by the 9/11 Commission members. This is one of the key areas of FAA corruption that Stich sought to report, for which lawyers and judges joined together to halt Stich's exposure actions and to retaliate against him for attempting to make such reports. All of them committed criminal acts that were involved in thousands of deaths, in only one of the affected areas!
   

• Secondary responsibilities for the 9/11 hijackings were with the FBI-DOJ and CIA. Although the 9/11 Commission blamed them for neglect, they covered up for the criminal culture in these two groups. It was the corrupt culture in the FBI-DOJ that blocked individual agents from completing their investigations of the terrorists. It was the corrupt CIA culture that devoted more time to their corrupt actions that were crimes against the United States than they spent in trying to find intelligence relating to the scheme to hijack U.S. airliners.

---

Pasadena Lawyer John Guerrini Joined the Scheme

On July 20, 2006, Pasadena lawyer John Guerrini took over to exert efforts to halt Stich's exposure of the corruption that included that which made 9/11 possible. How he would proceed was to be seen, as:

• Stich had no assets.
   
• He had no income other than Social Security.
   
• The books that were part of  Diablo Western Press were no longer in the possession of Diablo Western Press.

Prior to Guerrini joining the "enterprise," another attorney, Mark Wray of Reno, was asked to take over the collection of the judgment. During a telephone conversation on August 8, 2003, Wray advised Stich he would have nothing to do with the action.

Stich's initial response to Guerrini sought to put him on notice of the continuation of various coordinated legal schemes that he was joining, and would become part of the conspiracy. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

On August 29, 2006, Guerrini served Stich with papers, based on the $4 million default judgment obtained in South Carolina. The only purpose could be to halt Stich's publication of the e-books and print books, and thereby keep from the public the information about the criminal activities, the cover-ups of such activities by lawyers, law firms, and judges.

Without funds, and near death from severe heart condition, barred from filing any defense in court on the sham vexatious litigant label, it looks like Stich's foolish David versus Goliath battle is near an end. It looks like those who joined the corruption won after all. (Stich has total blockage of his main left coronary artery and the bypass had failed. Doctors state that he is not suitable for another coronary bypass surgery or stents.)

The latest tactics by the lawyer, John Guerrini, his law firm, and the other lawyers that were part of that particular legal tactic continues the long line of RICO and civil rights violations that could be the basis of a law suit in state court and another in the federal court−the basis being to expose the underlying corruption. For instance, if a law firm could be found that wanted to:

• Expose the corruption in the various government offices, such as the government's aviation safety offices that made possible decades of preventable deadly airline disasters—and the four hijackings of 9/11 would be typical examples−a lawsuit name Guerrini and others would be ideal.
   
• Expose the corruption of judges, and show how such corruption has had major tragic consequences, starting with the aviation tragedies.

The action by the Guerrini law firm provides the material to bring out these matters through a lawsuit in the State of California, focusing on the state torts, and a lawsuit in the federal courts focusing on the federal torts (RICO and Civil Rights violations). Based on the sordid record of lawyer involvement in these areas of corruption for the past 30 years, the chance of a law firm addressing these matters is remote.

Lawsuit filed in the State of California (Martinez, California) on September 7, 2006, against lawyers filing this sham South Carolina lawsuit, who are trying to seize all books exposing the corruption that Stich and his group of other government agents had discovered. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That lawsuit raised only the state issues and not the federal causes of actions. Either the state or the federal lawsuit has the potential to bring publicity on the real areas of blame for 9/11, not the abstract allegations being raised. Unless a powerful legal group takes over the lawsuit, the pattern of California judges involved in the initial scheme to block Stich from reporting the corruption will continue and the lawsuit will be dismissed.

A lawsuit in the California courts would be based upon conspiracy, fraud, and other charges. Draft of a possible lawsuit filed in the California courts that could use the latest legal scheme by the Guerrini Law Firm as a catalyst for a RICO and Civil Rights action based upon the attempt to halt the exposure of corrupt activities that Stich and his group of other former government agents had discovered.

A lawsuit in the federal courts would be under the RICO statute, based upon the numerous continuous contiguous actions by lawyers and judges against former federal agent Rodney Stich, arising from a desire to halt his efforts to expose corruption in government. Draft of a possible lawsuit filed in the federal courts to make another record of the relationship between the corruption, cover-ups, retaliation, and related tragedies. Draft for a lawsuit in the federal courts: (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

However, there is little likelihood of any law firm wanting to expose these matters. Years of prior cover-ups and prior indifference would expose the sordid nature of the legal fraternity to the American public.

With over a dozen lawyers and half a doze law firms involved for over five years in just this one of many parallel legal schemes, and with no chance of getting any money for the hundreds of hours of legal activity, the question arises as to who is paying and protecting them.

The facts show that the scheme was concocted and controlled from high in the Department of Justice, with the help of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. Although it is hard to imagine, the overwhelming evidence is that the scheme was controlled by powerful forces in the federal judiciary. At any rate, the judicial records clearly show heavy involvement by federal judges.

The initial scheme using sham lawsuits started in 1982 with the filing of the sham action by the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross and their lawyers. Dozens of state statutes, and numerous federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions, barred that action. Yet, every California judge that had a role in the sham action, openly violated these major protections. They were then protected by federal judgesthe same ones who were blocking the reporting of the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute.

It is difficult to comprehend that the federal courts of the United States would be involved in criminal activities, and implicated in the deadly consequences that they knew would follow their felony cover-ups and felony retaliation. But that is what the evidence shows!