Six Years of Repeated Violations of Massive Numbers of State and
Federal Laws by California judges and CIA-FBI-Front Law Firm
 

The following state and federal laws, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections, were repeatedly violated in the  first of a series of judicial attacks to halt the exposure of high-level and tragedy-enabling corruption by corruption-fighting activist Rodney Stich.

 

Bizarre Scheme That Needed Massive Complicity
Throughout the Federal Judicial System—
And the California Judicial System

The scheme used a former wife living  in Texas, acting as a straw plaintiff, declaring herself married to the corruption-fighting, and wanting a divorce and half of his assets, with most of the remaining going to the attorneys filing the sham action under the California Family Law Act. Showing the fraudulent nature of the action included the following factors, and law:

 

Fraud Pushed by CIA-Front San Francisco Law Firm

 

Blatant fraud was instigated by the CIA-front San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, and made known to California and federal judges:

Dozens of Laws Barred the Lawsuit

Despite these matters, California judges continued to issue orders, from 1982 to 1988, that caused the loss of valuable properties, the corruption-fighter to be sentenced to county jail for seven days. When legal defenses were filed on the basis of these matters, California judges labeled them frivolous acts and ordered him to pay thousands of dollars to the Friedman lawyers carrying out the scheme.

 

Absence of Personal Jurisdiction In California Courts


Absence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Attacks upon prior divorce judgments could be filed under the California declaratory judgment statute, but state and federal law required recognition of the prior judgments. The reason for labeling the action a dissolution of marriage action arose from the need to immediately block Stich's assess to his funds on the argument that these were community properties.
 


Statutes Requiring Recognition of the Prior
Prior Judgments That Settled the Matters

 

If the prior judgments were recognized, as required by dozens of state and federal laws, the sham lawsuit had to be immediately dismissed as a sham and barred by law. The remedy? Ignore the judgments!
 

Under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1713.1 (2) defines a "foreign judgment" as "any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money. The foreign judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit, ...

Code of Civil Procedure Code § 1908. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment. (a) The effect of a judg­ment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive be­tween the par­ties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.]

The effect of a judicial record of a sister state is the same in this state as in the state where it was made, except that it can only be enforced here by an action or special proceeding ....  

Final judgment of a foreign country has the same effect as final judgment rendered in California.

The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

"A foreign judgment ... is conclusive between the parties ..." (This protection is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure § 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; Civil Code § 5164; California Civil Code section 5164 provides that the registration of the 1966 divorce judgment with the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, and Superior Court, Solano County, shall provide not only the same recognition and protection against collateral attacks and relitigating (See e.g., Civil Code Section 4554) as is granted to California divorce judgments, but also enforcement of the judgments: A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.

(a) The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive between the parties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.]


Absence of Jurisdiction over Separate
Property Under the Family Law Act

Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried.

(a) Transmute community property to separate property of either spouse.

Civil Code § 5110.730. Marital Property−Written Declaration of Consent. [leg. in 1984. Does not affect transmutations occurring prior to its enactment.]
 

(a) A transmutation of real or personal property is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.
 

(c) This section does not apply to or affect a transmutation of property made before January 1, 1985, and the law that would otherwise be applicable to such a transmutation shall continue to apply.

Either spouse may make a gift of separate or community property to the other, which results in the property becoming the separate property of the donee. Estate of Cudworth (1901) 133 Cal. 462, 65 P. 1041; Estate of Walsh (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 704, 152 P.2d 750.


Repeated Procedural Due Process Violations

 

Refused to recognize Stich’s special appearance status and absence of personal jurisdiction by the California Judges.  All orders were rendered without jurisdiction.
 

Appeal briefs to the judges in the California Court of Appeals were repeatedly dismissed without addressing the issues, in gross violations of California and federal laws.  


Complicity of California Court of Appeal Judges

 

 California court of appeal judges became complicit by approving every violation that occurred during an eight-year period, ordered Stich to pay over $100,000 in sanctions to the CIA-front law firm for exercising California legal defenses specifically intended for such violations. In addition, the court of appeal judges held that it was frivolous to exercise the defenses against the record-setting violations, and then retaliated against Stich. It is a criminal act to retaliate against a person for exercising due process remedies.
 

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to ──

(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding:

shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. [1988 amended reading]"


 

Each subsequent judge Enlarged
Upon the Prior Judges' Violations

 

    They violated in addition, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. 

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.


Each Violation of any Single Law
Constituted Separate Federal Causes of Action

 

The massive and repeated violations occurring in the California courts constituted violations of federally protected rights for which federal remedies exist, which federal judge must provide under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Instead, a steady series of federal judges aided and abetted the violations occurring in the California courts, and enlarged upon them.

 


Violated Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

 

The California judges repeatedly violated rights established in U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring recognition of prior divorce judgments and adjudicated personal and property rights, and rights acquired as a divorced person in prior states of residence. They acted as if they had advance approval that they would be protected against lawsuits in the federal courts for their deliberate and repeated civil rights violations:


Dozens of Lawyers and California Judges
In Bizarre Obstruction of Justice Scheme

The sequence of the legal and judicial schemes provides an overview of the heavily documented scheme that had catastrophic consequences for many people and the nation.

The schemes commenced after the publication of Stich's second edition of Unfriendly Skies. That book named federal judges involved in cover-ups and the resulting fatal airline disasters made possible by their cover-ups. The facts strongly indicate that a power high in government, that could control state and federal judges and lawyers, orchestrated the 20 years of continuing legal and judicial attacks. The following are the violations that occurred in the California courts involving the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco), their lawyers, and over a dozen California judges.

The initial scheme consisted of filing a sham lawsuit against Stich that could immediately seize Stich's assets. The bizarre lawsuit was a divorce action, claiming that his alleged wife living in Duncanville, Texas, wanted a divorce, and claimed everything that Stich owned was community property.

The problem with that lawsuit was that Stich had been legally divorced for nearly 20 years; the original divorce judgment had been entered as a local judgment in five other states, including California; the Duncanville woman had been declaring herself divorced for the past two decades and continued to do so during the six years of the California lawsuit; and all the properties that Stich had were legally established as separate property.

There was no jurisdiction, under California statutes, in the Family Law Courts, when there is a prior judgment. Further, under California and federal law, including Supreme Court decisions, these judgments must be recognized. All of these matters were ignored, violated, and every attempt to obtain relief from these civil and constitutional violations was blocked by California and federal judges.


 

California Laws Repeatedly Violated By
California judges to Carry Out the Scheme

 

Absence of Personal Jurisdiction In California Courts


Absence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
 

Attacks upon prior divorce judgments could be filed under the California declaratory judgment statute, but state and federal law required recognition of the prior judgments. The reason for labeling the action a dissolution of marriage action arose from the need to immediately block Stich's assess to his funds on the argument that these were community properties.
 


Statutes Requiring Recognition of the Prior
Prior Judgments That Settled the Matters

 

If the prior judgments were recognized, as required by dozens of state and federal laws, the sham lawsuit had to be immediately dismissed as a sham and barred by law. The remedy? Ignore the judgments!
 

Under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1713.1 (2) defines a "foreign judgment" as "any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money. The foreign judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit, ...

Code of Civil Procedure Code § 1908. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment. (a) The effect of a judg­ment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive be­tween the par­ties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.]

The effect of a judicial record of a sister state is the same in this state as in the state where it was made, except that it can only be enforced here by an action or special proceeding ....  

Final judgment of a foreign country has the same effect as final judgment rendered in California.

The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

"A foreign judgment ... is conclusive between the parties ..." (This protection is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure § 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; Civil Code § 5164; California Civil Code section 5164 provides that the registration of the 1966 divorce judgment with the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, and Superior Court, Solano County, shall provide not only the same recognition and protection against collateral attacks and relitigating (See e.g., Civil Code Section 4554) as is granted to California divorce judgments, but also enforcement of the judgments: A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.

(a) The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive between the parties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.]


Absence of Jurisdiction over Separate
Property Under the Family Law Act

Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried.

(a) Transmute community property to separate property of either spouse.

Civil Code § 5110.730. Marital Property−Written Declaration of Consent. [leg. in 1984. Does not affect transmutations occurring prior to its enactment.]
 

(a) A transmutation of real or personal property is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.
 

(c) This section does not apply to or affect a transmutation of property made before January 1, 1985, and the law that would otherwise be applicable to such a transmutation shall continue to apply.

Either spouse may make a gift of separate or community property to the other, which results in the property becoming the separate property of the donee. Estate of Cudworth (1901) 133 Cal. 462, 65 P. 1041; Estate of Walsh (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 704, 152 P.2d 750.


Repeated Procedural Due Process Violations

 

Refused to recognize Stich’s special appearance status and absence of personal jurisdiction by the California Judges.  All orders were rendered without jurisdiction.
 

Appeal briefs to the judges in the California Court of Appeals were repeatedly dismissed without addressing the issues, in gross violations of California and federal laws.  


Complicity of California Court of Appeal Judges

 

 California court of appeal judges became complicit by approving every violation that occurred during an eight-year period, ordered Stich to pay over $100,000 in sanctions to the CIA-front law firm for exercising California legal defenses specifically intended for such violations. In addition, the court of appeal judges held that it was frivolous to exercise the defenses against the record-setting violations, and then retaliated against Stich. It is a criminal act to retaliate against a person for exercising due process remedies.
 

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to ──

(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding:

shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. [1988 amended reading]"


 

Each subsequent judge Enlarged
Upon the Prior Judges' Violations

 

    They violated in addition, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. 

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.


Each Violation of any Single Law
Constituted Separate Federal Causes of Action

 

The massive and repeated violations occurring in the California courts constituted violations of federally protected rights for which federal remedies exist, which federal judge must provide under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Instead, a steady series of federal judges aided and abetted the violations occurring in the California courts, and enlarged upon them.

 


Violated Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

 

The California judges repeatedly violated rights established in U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring recognition of prior divorce judgments and adjudicated personal and property rights, and rights acquired as a divorced person in prior states of residence. They acted as if they had advance approval that they would be protected against lawsuits in the federal courts for their deliberate and repeated civil rights violations:


 

Federal Judges Enlarged Upon The
Massive Civil Rights Violations

Federal judges previously placed aided and abetted these record-setting violations of state laws and federally protected rights even though they had a duty of trust to uphold and enforce the laws being violated. They immediately dismissed each and every attempt by Stich to obtain relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 18 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202 and FRCivP 47)
 

In Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 117 S.Ct. 2238, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997), the Court held what was plainly stated in the statutes: “Congress has implemented the Constitution’s grant of federal question jurisdiction by authorizing federal courts to enforce rights arising under the Constitution and federal law. The federal courts have an obligation to exercise that jurisdiction, ....”  
 

Violated Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331. which requires federal judges to provide a federal court forum to a person for civil actions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which included the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.  
 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question. "The federal courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
 

Violated due process right to federal defenses and the right to a federal court forum, which requires district court judges to provide a federal court form for anyone whose civil rights had been violated.

Title 28 United States Code Section 1343: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

 (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42:  To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
 

   (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
 

   (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, ...

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Declaratory Judgment Act,  to “declare the rights and other legal relations” adjudicated and stated in seven divorce judgments. These personal and property rights were being taken by California judges acting without personal jurisdiction, acting without subject matter jurisdiction, and violating dozens of California and federal statutes, rules of court, and fundamental constitutional rights. If any of the defendant federal judges had exercised their responsibilities under this statute, the onslaught of civil rights violations would have immediately halted.
 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Creation of remedy. "In a case of actual controversy within its juris­diction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
 

Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988, Civil Rights Act, for the unprecedented numbers of violations occurring in the California courts, and the violations of federally protected rights by every preceding defendant federal judge.
 

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides: Every person who, under color or any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State of Territory, subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

[Applies to anyone acting under color of state law who violates these rights, with no exception for judicial violations; the clear wording of the statute supersedes the self-serving judicial immunity in judge-made case law..]

Federal judges were liable to Stich for damages under the clear all-encompassing wording of this statute.

 

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.”

Repeatedly violated case law that barred dismissal of the multiple lawsuits when facts are alleged that stated federal causes of actions.  

"With regard to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a § 1983 complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can provide no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 696 F.2d 901, 907 (11th Cir. 1983) (Hatchett, J. specially concurring); Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1981). For purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Richardson, 651 F.2d at 368.

Prima facie proof of the existence of a conspiracy arising high in the federal government, and most likely in the federal judiciary, was by the response of dozens of federal judges to these massive violations.

Systematic aiding and abetting of the record-setting civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by the California judges.

 

Starting in 1983 and continuing to this date, federal district and appellate judges blocked Stich from exercising the defenses in numerous federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections.

 

This repeated violation of due process, the repeated aiding and abetting of the massive violations of federally protected rights occurring in the California courts, were similar to the blocks in which federal judges prevented Stich from reporting the criminal activities related to a series of fatal airline disasters.


 

Converted Former Federal Agent
Into a Man Without A Country

 

Federal district and appellate judges repeatedly issued unlawful and unconstitutional Orders Barring Stich for the Remainder of His Life From Filing Any Papers in the Federal District or Appellate Courts

 

The effect―and surely the intent of denying Stich access to the federal courts―was to:

FRCivP65 injunctions. Rendered unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from federal court access and voiding all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The injunctive orders reversed the clear legal requirements: the injunctive orders were rendered against the party suffering great and irreparable harm (Stich); were rendered in favor of the parties perpetrating the harm and responsible for the record setting violations of state and federal laws and federally protected rights; were rendered against the public interest rather than in the public’s interest; failed to stated these requirements in the decisions; and in the process misused their judicial positions to aid and abet the violations of federally protected rights that they were paid and entrusted to uphold and enforce.

 

Violated Fifth Amendment protection. The federal judges misused their judicial positions and the courts to destroy for plaintiff, and setting precedence, the rights and protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

Fifth Amendment, Section 1. No person [shall be] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The federal judges aided and abetted the violations of the Fourteenth Amendment by the CIA-front law firm and the defendant California judges.  

 Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

Federal judges engaged in a continuous pattern of reversing the clear wording and intent of every statute, rules of court, Supreme Court decision, and constitutional right. They, exactly like the California judges, sought to support their unlawful and unconstitutional acts by reversing the legal and common sense definition of frivolous, and placing a frivolous label on Stich’s filings, each of which stated serious and multiple federal causes of action that were backed up with judicial records of such violations.  

The United States Supreme Court defined the legal definition of frivolous in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738: An appeal [or complaint] is not frivolous if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ..."

Federal judges, like the California judges, sought to support their unlawful and unconstitutional acts by reversing the legal definition of vexation and called Stich a vexatious litigant.

Applying this definition to the American people, the exercise of constitutional due process for only one of the dozens of legal and constitutional violations inflicted upon Stich would, instead of creating a cause of action, would be frivolous and vexatious, In this manner, the mindset in the federal courts could void and eliminate every legal right and protection guaranteed under the form of government in the United States, and show how dangerous the judicial system is to the people of the United States. Ironically, it was the repeated violations of civil and constitutional rights judicially inflicted upon Stich, and the repeated denial and violation of constitutional due process specifically provided by such laws and the Declaratory Judgment Act and Rule 47, and the Civil rights Act, and related case law and rules of court, that caused Stich to have to repeatedly seek relief, to no avail.  

 

Black's Law dictionary defines "vexatious proceedings" as follows:              

Proceeding instituted maliciously and without probable cause. Paramount Pictures v. Blumenthal, 256 App.Div. 756, 11 N.Y.S.2d 768, 772. When the party bringing proceeding merely wishes to annoy or embarrass his opponent, or when it is not calculated to lead to any practical result. Such a proceeding is often described as "frivolous and vexatious," and the court may dismiss it on that ground.  "An appeal [or complaint] is not frivolous if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ..." Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; "The objective standard looks at the merits of the appeal from a reasonable person's perspective. ... whether any reasonable person would agree that the point is totally and completely devoid of merit, and therefore, frivolous. ... an appeal is not frivolous if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits." In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649.

 Interpretation of a frivolous filing in California, under Code of Civil Procedure 907 and Rule of Court 26(a).  

"For the purpose of determining whether a complaint is "frivolous," the court presumes that the plaintiff's allegations are true." Hernandez v. Denton, 88 C.D.O.S. 8132 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 1988); quoting Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228.


Obstruction of Justice by Federal Judges,
And Other Felonies

Federal judges, by refusing to receive reports of criminal activities being offered under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, obstructed justice:

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 not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

 

To address the corruption in government offices, Stich also sought a court order under 1361, ordering a federal official to perform his duty and halt his unlawful acts, directed to the FAA and NTSB). The earlier obstruction of justice focusing primarily on a pattern of covert corrupt and criminal acts documented by Stich while he was an FAA air safety inspector-investigator made possible the continuation of the federal violations that played key roles in subsequent fatal airline crashes. The obstruction of justice by the present defendant federal judges related to such crimes as the CIA drug smuggling, corruption in bankruptcy courts, and others are described in Stich’s various books, especially: Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries; Blowback, 9/11, and Cover-Ups; and Lawyers and Judges: American Trojan Horses.

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.

This obstruction of justice by federal judges commenced in 1976 when Stich filed federal lawsuits under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (tab­le), cert. denied, 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); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 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, Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, 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 claimant seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.


Criminal Offenses Perpetrated by Federal Judges

 

By blocking Stich and a group of other former federal agents from reporting criminal and even subversive activities, federal judges repeatedly were guilty of criminal acts that had catastrophic consequences for the nation. The involved criminal statutes included:

 

Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4, violated by the defendant’s obstruction of justice and harm inflicted upon Stich to prevent his reporting of the criminal activities.  
 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only anyone who directly commits an offense and anyone who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. 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.

 

Federal judges conspired with other judges and lawyers, among other people, as they perpetrated predicate acts in a racketeering enterprise, to strip Stich of the assets that funded his exposure of criminal acts that continue to undermine the internal security of the United States. Their predicate acts enlarged upon the harm being inflicted upon the American people and the government.  

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1961. Definition. As used in this chapter-(1) "racketeering activity" means (A) any act or threat involving ... relating to 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering, ...  

 

Title 42 U.S.C.  § 1962. Prohibited Activities. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly 9 or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. ...

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern or racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
 

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
 

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section. ...  
 

Title 42 USC § 1964. Civil Remedies.

    (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divert himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions of the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person  from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.

       (b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.

       (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

        (d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.  

Title 42 USC § 1965. Venue and Process. (Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

       (b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal thereof.

           (c) In any civil or criminal action or proceeding instituted by the United States under this chapter in the district court of the United States for any judicial district, subpoenas issued by such court to compel the attendance of witnesses may be served in any other judicial district, except that in any civil action or proceeding no such subpoena shall be issued for service upon any individual who resides in another district at a place more than one hundred miles from the place at which such court is held without approval given by a judge of such court upon a showing of good cause.

    (d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.


Judicial Felonies Committed by Retaliating Against
Former Federal Agent for Reporting
High-Level Criminal Activities

 

Federal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising due process remedies specifically provided by the laws and Constitution of the United States. They retaliated against Stich for attempting to report criminal acts under the federal crime reporting statutes that he and his group of government whistleblowers had discovered.  

 

It is a felony for anyone to retaliate against anyone for having exercised due process remedies guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.  

Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both;

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

Title 18 USC § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.  (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.  (b) As used in this section, the term "criminal investigator" means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States. [Stich was a federal inspector-investigator responsible for air safety at the most senior program at United Airlines, when he discovered an ongoing pattern of criminal activities related to a series of fatal airline crashes.]

 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for──(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ...

 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1515. Definitions of terms in criminal statutes (as used in sections 1512 and 1513).

    (a)(2) the term "physical force"  means physical action against another and includes confinement; (a)(3) the term "misleading conduct" means──

(A) knowingly making a false statement;

(B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement;

(C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false ... or otherwise lacking in authenticity; 

(D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a ... object that is misleading in a material respect;

(E) knowingly  using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead;

(4) the term "law enforcement officer" means an officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant──

    (A) authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; (5) the term "bodily injury" means──

    (E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.

   (a)(1) the term "official proceeding" means ... 

    (C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law. 18 U.S.C. § 1515 (a)(3)(A). Misleading conduct means knowingly making false statements.

Federal judges repeatedly and willfully deprived Stich of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.  

Title 18 U.S.C. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

It is a felony for anyone to inflict harm upon a former federal investigator for seeking to report corrupt and criminal acts that he discovered as a federal air safety investigator.  

Title 18 U.S.C. § 245. Federally protected activities. ((b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with–(1) Any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons [whistleblower, witness, informant] from–(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States.

It is a felony to deprive any member of a class, the class being whistleblowers, of benefits provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress.  

Title 18 U.S.C. § 246. Deprivation of relief benefits. Whoever directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation, ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.


Exercising Chapter 11 To Seek Relief, And
Encountering Further Judicial Corruption
and Attacks

 

Suffering enormous personal and financial harm from the unprecedented numbers of judicially perpetrated civil and constitutional violations, corruptly blocked by U.S. district and appellate judges from relief, Stich was forced to seek relief in Chapter 11 courts, seeking to force a federal judge to exercise his duties under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Civil Rights Act and the case law and rules of court entitling Stich to a federal court forum and relief. The systematic judicial violations spanning the California and federal courts then escalated. Instead of providing relief, which a mere addressing of Stich’s personal and property rights under the declaratory judgment act would have accomplished, federal judges expanded on the civil and constitutional violations:  

 

Federal judges corruptly seized Stich’s life’s assets, combining corrupt judicial acts with major violations of constitutional and legal due process:

Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)("a void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect.") Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."); U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985)

A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. A void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. 30A Am Jur Judgments §§ 43, 44, 45. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments § 44, 45.

An illegal order is forever void. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.


Opportunity for Patriotic Law Firm to
Collect Sizable Legal Fees While
Exposing High-Level Tragedy-Related Corruption

 

Since there is not statute of limitations on void orders, an aggressive law firm could combine a federal action, in any federal jurisdiction, with a legal action to reclaim all of the assets. Their value, when seized, exceeded $10 million. In 2007, these same properties are valued at approximately $20 million.

 

In addition, there would be numerous lawsuits that could be filed against the lawyers, law firms, and state and federal judges implicated in these schemes that also played a role in major national tragedies.

Repeating the Unlawful Orders Voiding For Stich all Due Process

Federal judges expanded on their constitutional due process violations. After seizing Stich’s $10 million in assets—that funded his exposure of government and judicial corruption—federal judge Edward Jellen (Oakland) rendered an order barring Stich from filing objections to the seizure and liquidation. Numerous federal district court judges had already rendered orders barring Stich the right to federal court access, for the remainder of Stich's life. And Ninth Circuit appellate judges rendered orders refusing to recognize any appeals filed by Stich. All of these corrupt judicial acts were known to thee Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court through submission of papers and letters to the court and to individual justices.


Oakland Federal Edward Judge Jellen Feloniously
Expanded on Legal and Judicial Attacks

 

These repeated constitutional due process violations were followed by felony misconduct. Federal judges, with the assistance of Justice Department prosecutors in several cases, charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for exercising constitutional due process. He was charged with criminal contempt of court by Oakland federal judge Edward Jellen with criminal contempt of court for filing objections to the taking and liquidation of assets. These included filings showing that trustee Charles Duck was looting his assets. Justice Department prosecutors were forced to later enter a wrist-slap plea bargain with Duck after the media in the San Francisco area charge trustee Duck with the nation’s worse trustee embezzlement—which included looting of Stich’s assets. For objecting to Duck’s looting, federal judges and Justice Department attorneys charged Stich with criminal contempt of court.

 

Federal judges financially rewarded every attorney involved in the civil and constitutional violations in the sham California action, which carried over into the federal courts, by fire sale liquidation of Stich’s assets and giving them the results. These assets were distributed to the attorneys perpetrating the violations of federally protected rights while denying any assets to Stich for hiring legal counsel.  


Federal Judges Became High-Ranking Enablers in Series Of
Corruption-Related Major National Disasters

By their concerted pattern misusing the courts and their judicial positions, federal judges defrauded and continue to inflict great damage to the internal security of the United States. They:

Federal judges obstructed justice relating to the attempts by Stich and his group of other government agents to report and produce evidence of drug smuggling (and other crimes) into the United States by people in key government positions, and the cover-up of such criminal and subversive actions by other government personnel. The government agents read to provide this evidence included agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, the Central Intelligence Agency, including the former heads of secret CIA airlines and secret CIA financial operations. These obstruction of justice tactics, which continue to this day, are felonies under such statutes as Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.

 

Federal judges compounded these record-setting violations of federal civil, constitutional, and criminal statutes by charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report these criminal and subversive activities. The initial scheme involving the sham California lawsuit was part of the efforts to block Stich’s reports of these crimes against the United States in which the defendant California and federal judges were implicated.  


Great Harm Judicially Inflicted Upon Former
Federal Agent
in Scheme to Cover Up For
High-Level Tragedy-Enabling Corruption

For attempting to protect major national interests that were already suffering great harm, federal judges and their shills in the legal fraternity and in the California courts inflicted great personal and financial harm upon Stich, corruptly misusing the nation's courts while concurrently violating massive numbers of civil and constitutional protections.

 

The acts by the California and federal judges, including federal court of appeal judges not named in Stich’s lawsuit filed at Reno, Nevada (CV—N00-0152-ECR-PHA) caused Stich to suffer grave personal and financial harm. This harm included years of repeated acts that resulted in converting him from a successful real estate investor with over $10 million in assets to a state of poverty, and included:


An Obvious Well-Orchestrated Conspiracy Involving
Lawyers, California and Federal Judges, and CIA

The pattern of documented acts by the federal judges far exceeded the legal definition of a conspiracy, constituting a conspiracy to subvert the laws and constitution of the United States, a conspiracy to violate Stich’s civil and constitutional rights, a conspiracy to obstruct justice by block the reporting of criminal acts that Stich, a former federal agent and his group of other government agents sought to report under the federal crime reporting statute.  


Powerful Force in Government Orchestrating The
Multiple Cover-Ups and Retaliatory Actions

To understand the following subject, take a look at the introduction to systemic corruption in the United States, the efforts of several courageous former government agents, and the enormous number of people and groups protecting the guilty. That will help understand the existence of a powerful group in government that was orchestrating the retaliatory actions to prevent the information becoming known to the American people.

The evidence indicates that a powerful force in government was orchestrating the multiple parallel actions that blocked the reporting of high-level corruption, and that force was properly key people in the U.S. Department of Justice. Examples of these indicators included the following:

The lawyers, whose actions hindering the exposure of the high-level corruption by activist Rodney Stich, paralleled the block by federal judges and Department of Justice personnel, appeared to be acting for a powerful force somewhere in the federal government. Their actions were similar to the thugs in Egypt hired by the government officials in power, called "Baltagiya," or the hired thugs in Iran called "Basij"


     Documentaries by Unique Insiders On 50 Years of
High-Level Corruption In Government—
And Resulting Consequences
Unprecedented in any Modern Industrial Nation

(Print available at www.amazon.com and  www.amazon.co.uk)
EBooks Worldwide

 

   

  

      

        

   


All of the books are available at amazon.com, in print and on digital formats, and at many other Internet sites. They bring together the various pieces of the puzzle to better understand the overall picture, and why the same conditions continue year after year. Information on the books by former government agent Rodney Stich

Sampling of early books reviews

Sampling of complimentary letters/faxes to author/activist Rodney Stich.

Credibility information:

More information about these books by clicking here.


EBook Sources

Print books from Amazon.com in Europe: http://www.amazon.co.uk./s/ref=nb_sb_noss/277-4275297-4922359?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22Rodney%20Stich%22.