Laws sviolated by layers and judges to halt the exposure of corrupt activities that were resulting in repeated tragedies.

<body> The Reason For the Violations The purpose of the massive and repeated violations of state and federal laws during legal actions in the California and federal courts was to: Halt former federal agent Rodney Stich and his group of other former government agents from reporting and exposing corruption in various government offices that they had discovered during their professional and official duties. Retaliate against Stich for attempt to make such reports. Protect the various schemes and the participants from exposure. The Consequences of the Violations The ripple effects of the violations, the cover-ups, the retaliation, included the harm arising from the various criminal activities. For instance: The corruption in the government's aviation safety offices enabled the years of airline disasters to continue, which occurred when corrupt people blocked the implementation of measures to eliminate known safety problems. These disasters are carefully detailed in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries. Among the latest most dramatic consequential airline disasters were the hijackings of four airliners on 9/11. The corruption by people in the CIA and FBI--which were crimes against the United Statesmade possible the culture that ignored evidence of the plot to hijack four airliners on 9/11. When and Why the Gross Violations Started These violations occurred after plaintiff had sought to report corrupt and criminal acts related to a series of fatal airline crashes that he discovered as a federal air safety inspector-investigator, and after filing federal actions that exposed federal judges in a cover-up: 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. Details For Those Who Want to Know More The violations of massive numbers of state and federal laws, inflicting great personal and financial harm upon a former federal agent, were involved in multiple legal schemes to halt his exposure of criminal activities in government offices. It started with a bizarre scheme to immediately separate Rodney Stich from the assets that funded his exposure of judicial and other government corruption, a sham "divorce" action was filed against Rodney Stich even though he had been divorced for the prior 20 years, multiple judgments established that fact, and his former wife had been declaring herself divorced for the prior two decades in real estate sales and purchases and declarations to the Social Security Administration. This lawsuit was filed in the California courts at Fairfield, California, by the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, identified by two reliable sources as a front for the CIA and FBI. Not one, but dozens, of state and federal laws and constitutional protections barred that lawsuit, and required recognition of the judgments showing the parties to have been divorced for the prior 20 years. Stich's former wife, living in Duncanville, Texas, was reportedly promised money if she cooperated, which she did, declaring herself married to Stich in California while continuing to declare herself divorced in Texas. For that lawsuit to succeed despite the violations of dozens of state and federal laws, it required the cooperation of California and federal judges for the next 20 years, including the cooperation of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who had to "approve" the violations of record-setting state and federal laws and constitutional safeguards, and the repeated judicial denial of due process. This was repeatedly done by Supreme Court justices. Although the judicial misconduct targets one individual, in an attempt to silence his exposure of criminal and even subversive activities in key judicial and government positions, the judicial misconduct affects important national interests. This documented pattern of judicial misconduct provides a rare opportunity, providing the platform for those who are outraged by the widespread corruption in state and federal courts, and in the U.S. Supreme Court, and want to do something about it. For those viewers with a deeper interest in the precise laws violated, the following list is presented. The following is a list of the law that was violated and a partial description of the tactics employed by California and federal judges and Department of Justice attorneys to make the scheme succeed. The violation in state courts of any one of these dozens of state and federal laws would invoke federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act. State and Federal Laws That Were Repeatedly Violated by California judges The sham lawsuit filed against former federal agent Rodney Stich by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco) was barred by numerous California and federal laws and constitutional protections. They include the following: Judges' Absence of Personal Jurisdiction in California Courts Rule of court 1230(a)(2). Special appearance challenging the court’s personal jurisdiction by motion to quash based upon a prior divorce judgment terminating the marriage 20 years earlier. Rule 1230. Motion to Quash Proceeding. (a) Within the time permitted to file a response, the respondent may move to quash the proceeding, in whole or in part, for any of the following: (2) That there is a prior judgment .... between the same parties for the same cause. Until a hearing and ruling was made on the motion to quash, the California judges lacked jurisdiction to proceed, as provided by Rule of Court 1234. The motion to quash was based on the legal and factual absence of any marriage. Upon presentation of any of the six prior divorce judgments, it would be established as a matter of law that there was no marriage and the judges could proceed no further. This was avoided by refusing to conduct the hearing, which had to be conducted within 20 days of Stich filing the motion. Since there was no hearing, the California judges never acquired personal jurisdiction. Rule 1234. Motion to Quash Summons. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, a respondent may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service of summons upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or a notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10. Provides for motion to quash challenging the court’s absence of personal jurisdiction, during which time the court has no jurisdiction over the party. Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10. Defendant May Serve and File Notice of Motion to Quash Service of Summons or to Stay or Dismiss Action--Time Limit--Grounds--Conditions--Default. (a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his time to plead or within such further time as the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion either or both: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him. Absence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction In California Courts Rule 1201(c) (defines jurisdiction under Family Law Act, and limits jurisdiction to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, nullity of prior marriage, excluding attacks upon any of the five prior judgments). Rule 1201. Definitions. (c) "Proceeding" means a proceeding pursuant to the Family law Act for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation. Rule 1211(limits parties in Family Law Act proceedings to existing wife and husband). Rule 1211. Parties to Proceeding. (a) ... the only persons permitted to be parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife. Rule 1212(limits cause of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated in the Rule 1281 petition form and 1282 response form, which do not include attacks on prior judgments). Attacks upon prior divorce judgments could be made 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 probably arose from the need to immediately block Stich's assess to his funds on the argument that these were community properties. Rule 1212. Other Causes of Action. Neither party to the proceeding may assert against the other party or any other person any cause of action or claim for relief other than for the relief provided in these rules or the Family Law Act. Rule 1215 (limits causes of action in Family Law Act proceedings to those stated on the Rule 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form). Rule 1215. Pleadings. (b) The only pleadings permitted by a petitioner is the petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281. Rule 1222 (limit jurisdiction under Family Law Act to altering a marital status not previously terminated, as provided on form 1281). Rule 1222. Commencement of Proceeding. A party who seeks a judicial determination altering his marital status pursuant to the Family Law Act shall complete and file in the superior court a petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281. Rule 1229(a) (which prohibits inserting any matter in the 1281 petition for dissolution of marriage form or the 1282 response form that is not printed on the face of the form, and which contains no provisions for attacking prior judgments). Rule 1229. Motion to Strike. (a) Neither the petition or the response shall contain any matter not specifically required by Rule 1281 or Rule 1282, respectively. AT the request of either party, upon noticed motion, or on the court's own motion, any matter not so required may be stricken by the court or otherwise disregarded by it. Rule 1281, being the Family Law Form petition, and Rule 1282, being the response, provides no provision for the cause of action or claim for relief raised by petitioner, or the relief that she requested. Her petition relies upon matters specifically prohibited by 1229 and 1281, attacking the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court, that had already been recognized as local judgments in six different jurisdictions within the United States. To make the cause of action even more preposterous, the attack on the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court was based on the argument that Stich did not intend to reside permanently in that court’s jurisdiction, something held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940s and 1950s. Rule 1230(a)(2) (which deprives court of jurisdiction of personal and subject matter jurisdiction if there is a prior judgment). Rule of Court 1230 Motion to Quash Proceeding. (a)(2) That there is a prior judgment or another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. Civil Code Section 4356. Special Appearance During Pendency of Motion. (a) During the time a motion pursuant to Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending, the respondent may appear in opposition to an order made during the pendency of this part and the appearance shall not be deemed a general appearance by the respondent Rule 1234 (motion to quash summons under Family Law Act). Rule 1234. Motion to Quash Summons. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, a respondent may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service of summons upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or a notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 1239(a)(2) (Motion to quash responsive relief on basis of prior judgment). Rule 1239. Motion to Quash Responsive Relief. (a) Within 15 days after the filing of the response, the petitioner may move to quash, in whole or in part, any request for affirmative relief in the response for any of the following: (1) Respondent’s lack of legal capacity to sue. (2) That there is a prior judgment or another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. (3) That the residence required by Civil Code Section 4530 is lacking. ... (b) The notice of motion to quash pursuant to this rule shall specify a hearing date not more than 20 days from the date of filing such notice. (c) A notice of motion to quash pursuant to this rule shall distinctly specify the ground upon which the motion is based. Unless it does so, the motion may be disregarded by the court. (d) When a motion to quash pursuant to this rule is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter must be specified in the motion or in the supporting memorandum of points and authorities for the purpose of invoking such notice except as the court may otherwise permit. Rule 1281 (petition for dissolution of marriage form, limiting causes of action to those stated on the form--which does not include attacks upon prior judgments). Rule 1281 Petition for Dissolution of Marriage Form. Form clearly shows that the causes of action are limited to "proceedings," as defined by Rule of Court 1201(c)to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, or nullity of marriage. There is no provision on the form to attack prior judgments, or previously adjudicated personal or property rights. Rule 1282 (response form, limiting response to the statements on the form, which provides no provision to answer cause of action attacking prior judgments). Rule 1282 Response Form This form limits the response that can be made, and the responses are limited to those issues stated on the form. Any other response is prohibited. Therefore, appellant could not make a response to the legally prohibited causes of action stated in the Rule 1281 petition form. Civil Code § 4351(limits jurisdiction to causes of action stated in Rule 1201(c) and 1281). Civil Code 4351. Jurisdiction of Superior Court. In proceedings under this part, the superior court has jurisdiction to inquire into and render any judgment and make such orders as are appropriate concerning the status of the marriage, the custody and support of minor children of the marriage and children for whom support is authorized ... [Requires a marriage for jurisdiction.] Civil Code § 4503 (limits cause of action to those stated on Rule of Court form 1281 and 1282 (which excludes attacks upon prior judgments). Civil Code 4503. Petition for Dissolution-Forms, Contents, and Service. A proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or for legal separation shall be commenced by filing in the Superior Court a petition entitled, “In re the marriage of ____________ and ________________” which shall state whether it is a petition for the dissolution of the marriage or a legal separation. A copy of the petition together with a copy of a summons in form and content approved by the Judicial Council shall be served upon the other party to the marriage in the same manner as service off papers in civil actions generally. Statutes Requiring Recognition of the Prior Judgments Civil Code §§ 4554. Effect of final judgment constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against relitigating, and bars collateral attack being prior divorce judgments.] Civil Code § 5004. Full faith and credit must be given to each of the six divorce judgments entered as local judgments in the states of Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. Civil Code § 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. 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. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of divorce judgment from another state must be accepted as judgment of the state of California. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk--Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. 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. Code of Civil Procedure § 1699(b). Foreign support order must be treated in the same manner as one rendered by a California court. Code of Civil Procedure § 1699: Upon registration the registered foreign support orders shall be treated in the same manner as a support order issued by a court of this state. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.1. Foreign state judgments must be recognized as local judgments. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.1. Foreign State and Foreign Judgment Defined. As used in this chapter: (1) “Foreign state “ means any governmental unit other than the United States, or any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (2) “Foreign judgment” means any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine, or other penalty, or a judgment for support in matrimonial or family matters. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.3. Defines “foreign judgment” as a judgment of another nation. 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 § 1908. Effect of foreign state or sister state judgment must be recognized as a local judgment. 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.] Code of Civil Procedure § 1910. Parties to the prior divorce judgment are precluded from attacking the judgment (as is also stated in the 1966 judgment). Code of Civil Procedure § 1910. Parties Concluded by Judgment. The parties are deemed to be the same when those between whom the evidence is offered were on opposite sides in the former case, and a judgment or other determination could in that case have been made between them alone, though other parties were joined with both or either. Code of Civil Procedure § 1913. Conclusiveness of sister state judgment the same as a local judgment. This conclusiveness is extended to foreign nation judgment by Civil Code §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915. The registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in courts of California, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas invokes the protection of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, and the statutory embodiment of that clause in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1913 (as well as Civil Code Section 5004). California Code of Civil Procedure section 1913. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment of Sister State: 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 .... The protection of this statute is extended to foreign country judgments by California Civil Code § 5164; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915. The full faith and credit clause is statutorily embodied in California Civil Code § 5004. Section 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. 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. Section 5004 reinforces similar protection in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1908 and 1913. Code of Civil Procedure § 1915. Final judgment of a foreign country has the same effect as final judgment rendered in California. Civil Code § 1915. A final judgment of any tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction, according to the laws of such country, to pronounce the judgment, shall have the same effect as final judgments rendered in this state. Additional Statutes Requiring Recognition of the Prior Judgments Entered as Local Judgments in Five Different States Civil Code § 5004. Requires full faith and credit be given to the six judgments entered as local judgments in Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano. Civil Code § 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. 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. Civil Code § 4554. Entry of prior judgment constitutes final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against the relitigation and collateral attack being prior divorce judgments. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of custody decree of another state shall be treated as custody decree of local judgment. Civil Code Section 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk--Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. 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. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713. Prior judgment is conclusive between the parties, and this is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; civil Code § 5165. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1713.3. Conclusiveness of Foreign Judgment: "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 relitigation (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. Code of Civil Procedure § 1908. Conclusiveness of prior California divorce judgment, and extended to sister state and foreign country judgments by other statutes, including Civil Code § 5172 and Code of Civil Procedure §§1653(j) and 1713.3. 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.] Evidence Code § 622. Recitals in prior judgment are presumed to be true between the parties, including the recital of proper exercise of jurisdiction. Evidence Code § 622: Recitals in Written Instruments. The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; Evidence Code § 665. The parties to the prior divorce proceeding in 1965-1966 are presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of their voluntary act. Evidence Code § 665. Ordinary Consequences of Voluntary Act Intended. "A person is presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act." The protection of the quasi estoppel doctrine is further provided by the common law Quasi estoppel doctrine, as articulated in controlling federal law, and in California decisional law, including inter alia, In re Shank's Estate (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 888: [O]ur courts have recognized another species of estoppel, called 'quasi-estoppel,' which is based upon the principle that one cannot blow hot and cold .... 31) Evidence Code § 666. States that any court of California or of a foreign nation is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. Conclusive presumption that the prior court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction protects appellant against the sole basis stated in the May 10, 1983 decision refusing appellant's motion to quash: Evidence Code § 666: Judicial Action Lawful Exercise of Jurisdiction. [A]ny court of this state ... or ... any other nation ... is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction ... when the act ... is under collateral attack. Absence of jurisdiction over separate property under the Family Law Act Civil Code § 5102. (If, for argument, there had been a marriage, all of Stich’s properties were separate and outside the jurisdiction of a judge under a Family Law Act proceeding. Section 5102 provides that neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other. All of Stich’s properties were separate.) Civil Code Section 5102. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other, ... Civil Code § 5103. (Provides for acquiring property as separate property.) Civil Code § 5103 provides that either spouse may enter into any transaction with the other, respecting property, and this would include conveying their interest in joint tenancy or community property. 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. Civil Code § 5108 Provides for separate property transfer, and provides that either either spouse may hold property as his or her separate property, and that they may convey such property to others. CC § 5108. Separate Property of Husband. All property owned by the husband before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof, is his separate property. The husband may, without the consent of his wife, convey his separate property. 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. Civil Code § 5110.720. (Provides for conveying community to separate property status, as was done before the 1966 divorce.) Civil Code § 5110.710. Marital Property--Transmutation. [legislated in 1985.] Subject to Sections 5110.720 to 5110.740, inclusive, married persons may by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration, do any of the following: (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. Civil Code § 5118. (Provides that property acquired while living separate becomes separate property. All of Stich’s properties were acquired while living separate before the 1966 divorce and again, after the 1966 divorce.) Civil Code Section 5118. Earnings of Separated Spouse as Separate Property. The earnings and accumulations of a spouse and the minor children living with, or in the custody of, the spouse, while living separate and apart from the other spouse, are the separate property of the spouse. Due Process Procedural Protections Violated By California Judges Refused to recognize Stich’s special appearance status and absence of personal jurisdiction. Code of Civil Procedure § 632. Statement of Decision. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. The statement of decision shall be in writing unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure § 634. No Inference That Trial Court Decided in Favor of Prevailing Party. When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or if the statement is ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was brought to the attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal or upon a motion under Section 657 or 663 that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to those facts or on that issue. 38) Refused to conduct a hearing on the Rule 1230 Motion to quash. California judges refused to conduct a hearing on the court's challenged jurisdiction in response to a motion to quash, and four years later, converted the limited hearing on the motion to quash to a full blown hearing relitigating the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court. Avoided the Gross Violations by Refusing to Issue Mandatory Findings Repeatedly refused to issue mandatory findings of facts and conclusions of law when timely requested. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 632 and 634, and Rule 23. Code of Civil Procedure § 632. Statement of Decision. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. The statement of decision shall be in writing unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure § 634. No Inference That Trial Court Decided in Favor of Prevailing Party. When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or if the statement is ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was brought to the attention of the trial court either pCalifornia and federal laws and constitutional protections that were repeatedly Violated by California and Federal judgesrior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal or upon a motion under Section 657 or 663 that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to those facts or on that issue. Rule 23, Findings and Additional Evidence on Appeal. (A) Request for findings. A request that the reviewing court make findings of fact shall contain a draft of the proposed findings, and may be made in a brief, or a separate application may be served and filed. If opposing counsel has not had an opportunity in his brief to object to the request, he may serve and file written opposition thereto. Federal Law Violated By California Judges Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1738. Title 28 United States Code § 1738: full faith and credit. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession ... Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such states ... from which they are taken. Article IV, § 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause), requires recognition of the personal and property rights in the California divorce judgment, its entry for recognition as local judgments in the courts of Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas. Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Fourteenth Amendment due process, equal protection, property, liberty, freedom rights, by denying to Stich due process, equal protection, and the protections of California and federal law. Privileges and Immunity Clause rights under Article IV, § 2, and under the 14th Amendment (depriving right to obtain divorce on universally recognized residence basis, and right to change residence). 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. The right to unabridged interstate travel, under the Commerce Clause, without losing rights and privileges acquired in prior jurisdictions of residence. Article IV, § 2. Interstate Privileges of Citizens. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Violated Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions 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: Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment or personal and property rights adjudicated therein). Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378 (prohibited state judge from attacking prior divorce judgments and rights adjudicated in the judgment). Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment). Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment). Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment). Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969) (prohibiting state judge from voiding personal and property rights adjudicated in foreign country judgment and refusal to recognize one day residence as basis for exercising jurisdiction or recognizing validity of judgment and adjudicated personal and property rights). In United States v. Guest (1966) 383 U.S. 745, the Supreme Court held: “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another [occupies] a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” The constitutional right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated or acquired personal and property rights has been held to arise under (a) the privileges and immunities clause of Article 4, § 2 of the Constitution; (b) privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (c) Article 1, § 8, clause 18 of the Constitution; (d) Ninth Amendment, in that the power to deal with violations of the right of interstate travel was "delegated to the United States by the Constitution; (e) the power to interfere with this right was not "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; (f) position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union and a basic right under the constitution. (See e.g., Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) 400 US 112, 27 L Ed 2d 272, 91 S Ct 260; Slaughter House Cases (1872, US), 16 Wall 36, 21 L Ed 394; California Court of Appeal Judges Repeatedly Dismissed Appeals Without Addressing the Issues California law makes it mandatory that court of appeal judges must addressed each and every issue raised in the appeal. This was never done. Otherwise, the gross violations would have been obvious in the appeal decision. Besides violating their appeal responsibilities, and approving the massive violations of state and federal laws by the lawyers for the CIA-front law firm, the California court of appeal judges repeatedly ordered Stich to pay huge financial sanctions for exercising the specific appeal remedies that would have been proper for any single one of the dozens of violations that were repeated time and again during a six year period. Criminal Nature of Actions by California Judges Retaliated against Stich for exercising due process remedies, a criminal offense under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. 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; Each subsequent judge violated their duty to halt the violations of Stich’s civil rights, violating, inter alia, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. 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 therefor, 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. Federal Judges Expanded on Gross Violations by California judges and CIA-Front Law Firm Federal judges engaged in a systematic aiding and abetting of the record-setting civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by the California judges and the CIA-front law firm. Starting in 1983 and continuing to this date, federal district and appellate judges 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) Federal Judges Violated Their Duty to Provide a Federal Court Forum 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 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, ... Violated the Declaratory Judgment Act 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. Violated Civil Rights Act 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..] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Defendant federal judges are 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 When Facts Were Alleged That Stated a Federal Cause of Action "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. Attorneys who conspire with immune state officials may be held liable under § 1983. Id. at 371. Rendered Injunctive Orders Barring the Victim From Relief 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. These injunctive orders violated every requirement for such orders. They: Protected the parties perpetrating the unlawful acts instead of protecting the victim. Insured the continuation of the civil and constitutional violations instead of halting them. Instead of protecting public interests, these reversals harmed the public interests. Refused to make findings of facts and conclusions of law showing that these requirements were met. 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. FRCivP65 injunctions. The purpose of the injunction was outrageously unlawful and unconstitutional, barring Stich for the remainder of his life from the legal rights and legal protections that are guaranteed by law and constitution and under our form of government to every citizen. The mere fact that Stich sought to report corrupt and criminal acts in government and judicial offices was no justification for converting him, as a matter of law, to a man without a country. Violated Fifth Amendment Rights and Protections Fifth Amendment. Defendant 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; Violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights and Protections Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant 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. Reversing the Legal and Common Sense Definition of Frivolous Federal judges (as well as 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 ..." In California courts the interpretation of frivolous is found in C.C.P. 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. Another Legal Trickery: Calling Defense Actions Against Massive Violations the Acts of a Vexatious Litigant 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. Reporting Criminal Activities Concurrent With Defending Against Legal Schemes to Halt Such Reports One of the means that Stich used seeking to circumvent the cover-ups in government so as to make the public aware of the deadly criminal activities was to publish books and appear as guest on radio and television shows. This publicity caused other present and former government agents to contact Stich with information on criminal activities in other areas of government operations, implicating people in key government positions. Stich responded, as required by the federal crime reporting statute, by filing papers in federal court to report these crimes. The first such report was filed in 1986 in the U.S. district court at Sacramento, California. That action was assigned to Judge Milton Schwartz. Initially, Schwartz admitted during the first hearing that the charges were very charges and that he should obtain legal counsel to present the information. However, a week later, without a hearing, Schwartz issued an order dismissing the attempt to report the criminal activities and also issued the first of a series of unlawful and unconstitutional injunctions barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court for the remainder of his life. Some months later, as Stich learned of still other criminal activities that were inflicting great harm upon major national interests, he again sought to report. This time, not only were reporting the charges blocked, but Stich was charged with criminal contempt of court (on the basis that he filed papers in federal court when a prior order permanently blocked him from court access). Stich was denied a jury trial, and sentenced to six months in federal prison, which included two months in solitary confinement. Compounding Massive Civil Rights and Procedural Due Process Violations with Criminal Acts It was a criminal act to block the reporting of a criminal act. The reports were being made under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony). “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Also authorizing the filing of the action was the statute that any citizen can use to address misconduct of a government official: 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. Original Obstruction of Justice Started With Blocking Reports of Deadly Corruption in the Government's Aviation Safety Offices This obstruction of justice commenced in the late 1970s when Stich filed federal lawsuits under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Stich had sought to report the corrupt and criminal acts he documented while he was an FAA air safety inspector-investigator. Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982)) Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.) Stich v. U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214. 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. Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965, Civil Rico. Federal judges conspired with others 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. 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. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. 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; It is a felony for anyone to retaliate against a witness, informant, whistleblower for having sought to report federal crimes. 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; or (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. Title 18 U.S.C. § 242, Federal judges wilfully 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; Title 18 U.S.C. § 245. 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; Title 18 U.S.C. § 246. 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. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant── (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]" 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 ..." Combination of Gross Violations of State and Federal Laws and Denial of Defense Due Process Caused Stich to Seek Relief in Chapter 11 Suffering enormous personal and financial harm from the unprecedented judicial violations and denial of defense due process, Stich sought to circumvent the Catch-22 situation by seeking relief in Chapter 11 courts. That was a big mistake. He was unaware, but would soon learn, of the massive corruption throughout the bankruptcy court system involving federal judges, federal trustees, lawyers, law firms, and those seizing the opportunity. This corruption is described in the books, Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries. Void Orders Seizing Assets Funding Exposure Activities Judge Jones rendered a verbal order refusing to accept jurisdiction, which was followed by a signed order refusing to accept jurisdiction. The written order was never vacated and a motion was never filed to again regain jurisdiction. While these orders refusing to accept jurisdiction existed, Judge Jones signed two orders on October 8, 1987, seizing Stich's personal and corporate assets and appointing Charles Duck as trustee. The orders falsely stated there had been a hearing on that date. Court records show there was no hearing on either the personal or the corporate cases on that date, or any other date, or any notice of such hearing. (Two years later, while Duck was liquidating Stich's assets, Duck was sentenced to federal prison. The media reported he committed the worst trustee looting in the nation's history.) At the request of the CIA-front law firm, the case was transferred to the Oakland, California bankruptcy court and assigned to Judge Edward Jellen. Jellen appointed bankruptcy trustee Charles Duck to seize and liquidate the assets. Jellen simultaneously issued an order barring Stich from filing any objections to the seizure and liquidation. Stich filed an objection, as provided by federal laws and constitutional due process. Jellen ordered the filed objection unfiled, and then charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for having exercised the most basic of legal and constitutional due process. Jellen refused to release funds to Stich to hire legal counsel to defend against the criminal contempt charge. Judge Jellen issued an order holding Stich in criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to federal prison. That sentence was never carried out. The $10 million in assets were then distributed to the CIA-front law firm and others who participated. Stich was converted from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty, ordered out of his home, and he was homeless for a period of time. Throughout these actions, Stich sought relief from the 9th Circuit court of appeals (of which Judge Anthony Kennedy was a part of), and from the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. They all acted to support the massive violations and obstruction of justice. Under controlling U.S. Supreme Court decisions, orders rendered without jurisdiction, or that violated constitutional due process, are void orders, and remain void, and continue to be void even when affirmed by appellate court decisions. 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. After Seizing Assets, Judge Edward Jellen, Oakland, Rendered Unlawful Orders Barring Filing Objections Federal judges expanded on constitutional due process violations. After seizing Stich’s $10 million in assets—that funded his exposure of government and judicial corruption—federal judges rendered orders barring Stich from filing objections to the seizure and liquidation; district court judges rendered orders barring Stich the right to federal court access; and Ninth Circuit appellate judges rendered orders refusing to recognize any appeals filed by Stich. 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. Corrupt Judges Responsible for Continuation of Corruption Leading to Airline Disasters and Other Tragedies 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: Obstructed justice related to a series of fatal airline crash. Stich sought to exercise his moral and legal responsibilities as he filed federal actions, as a recent FAA inspector, seeking to report specific criminal acts that he discovered as a federal inspector-investigator related to a series of fatal airline crashes, especially at United Airlines. These actions were filed under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Their refusal to receive Stich’s evidence caused the continuation of the pattern of air safety and criminal acts, which were then linked to other crashes made possible by the judicial cover-up. Stich described this scenario in his second and then his enlarged third edition of Unfriendly Skies. Harm Inflicted Upon the United States by the Schemers The acts by the California and federal judges, initiated by the CIA-front law firm, enabled to be inflicted upon the United States the harm arising from the criminal acts that were being covered up. If the facts will be carefully understood (as described in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries and Blowback, 9/11, and Cover-Us, it will be seen that the corrupt conditions within the government's aviation safety offices, and within the CIA and FBI, made possible the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11. Harm Inflicted Upon Former Federal Safety Agent Rodney Stich Converted from a multi-millionaires to a state of poverty. He is now 83 years of age, and not capable of earning income. $10 million in assets, that would be worth over $20 million today, were corruptly taken in the conspiracy involving large numbers of California judges, federal judges, and the CIA-front law firm. Made homeless, as his home was taken from him and the proceeds liquidated, with the lawyers for the CIA-front and others receiving the proceeds. Loss of his income started with the filing of the sham California action, in 1982. Destruction of his credit worthiness. Incarceration by California judges when Stich was ordered to pay funds that were tied up by the unlawful and unconstitutional orders, rendered without jurisdiction, by California judges. Incarcerated for six months under extremely difficult conditions, bussed from prison to prison in chains, in retaliation for attempting to report criminal activities and in retaliation for exercising constitutional due process against the unprecedented numbers of judicially inflicted civil and constitutional violations. Confined in isolation for over four weeks of this time, while Stich was recovering from open-heart surgery. From 1986 through 1995, continuously, charged with criminal contempt of court, during which time he was in prison, and when he wasn’t, he was restricted to a small area around his home. Personal stress that came with almost daily crisis events associated with these corrupt judicial activities. These were the consequences of attempting to halt the tragedies arising from the corruption that he discovered, starting with the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices that constituted the area of primary blame for 9/11, and then the people in other areas of government that are described in the various books. Complicity of U.S. Supreme Court Justices From 1968 to the present date, each of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were made aware of these criminal acts, including the corrupt acts of federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilitiesand vicarious liability. Ordinary citizens have been sent to prison, sometimes for life, for crimes and consequences far less then these judges and Justices committed. Sampling of letters sent to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawsuit filed against the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of their felony cover-ups and obstruction of justice. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Miscellaneous Files Sampling of corruption-related airline crashes--of which the judicial misconduct played key roles. Information on lawsuits connected to judicial corruption. List of print and e-books, some of which are available at no charge. Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. RETURN TO TOP </body>