LAWSUIT ADDRESSING CRIMINAL COVER-UPS BY MEDIA SOURCES OF
CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES
The
same federal statutes and case law
that justified federal lawsuits against other people and groups engaged in
obstruction of justice crimes were used to file federal lawsuits against
several media sources that covered up for the criminal activities that I
brought to their attention and which they covered up. Admittedly, this was a
highly unusual lawsuit, but the nature of the corruption occurring in
government offices, the harm to the United States and its people, justified
taking unusual, but legally supportable, actions. Many lives could have been
saved if these lawsuits were not blocked. The main advantage of the lawsuits
were to make a record of those who knew of the corruption and who covered up
for it. The filing of the lawsuit and the media's response made a record of
these matters.
Commencing in 1965, the
Wall
Street Journal,
the
Washington Post, the
New
York Times,
San Francisco
Chronicle,
and
other media sources, were made aware of the criminal activities and the
continuing grave consequences. They could have halted the spreading corrupt
activities and halted the deja vu deadly consequences if they had exercised
their moral and legal responsibilities. Instead they engaged in felony
coverups.
The lawsuit
was filed in the
United
States
District Court at San Jose, California (Number
C 89 20262 WAI), naming
these newspapers
as
defendants. The basis for filing that lawsuit included:
-
The media defendants repeatedly covered up for the corrupt and criminal
activities that they had a duty under the federal crime reporting statute to
report to a federal official, and their duty as newspapers to inform the
public of corruption in government offices that were gravely affecting
national security interests, and in some areas, such as aviation, resulting in
repeated preventable deaths.
-
The media defendants repeatedly covered up
for the felony obstruction of justice by federal judges.
-
An attempt to make a record of their
responses.
-
An attempt to report the criminal activities
to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute.
Although this and similar filings were unusual, the gravity of the criminal
misconduct, the catastrophic consequences in the pasts, and the coverups by
other government checks and balances, justified using the law in a creative
manner. If these efforts had not been blocked by federal judges, the
corruption that created the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four
airliners on 9-11 could very probably have been prevented. And the events of
9-11 were only one-day's results from the misconduct, and in only one of the
areas affected.
That lawsuit
was assigned to Judge Robert Aguilar. Shortly
thereafter, Justice Department prosecutors charged Aguilar with using his office as a
racketeering enterprise to obstruct justice. The specific acts that Aguilar
allegedly committed were peanuts compared to the crimes committed by the
Justice Department attorneys
who
filed the criminal charges against Aguilar. Aguilar had rendered decisions
unfavorable to the Justice Department, and many charged that the U.S. Attorney,
Russoniello
at
San Francisco, and the Justice Department were retaliating. The lawsuit
against the newspapers
that
threatened to blow the lid on the entire scandal was then removed from Aguilar
and assigned to another judge.
RESPONSE BY
WALL STREET
JOURNAL
The
Wall Street Journal
and
its managing editor, Norman Pearlstein, filed a reply (June 15, 1989),
requesting that the federal complaint be dismissed. They responded, as did
members of Congress,
that
they knew of the charges; they did not dispute the relationship between the
misconduct and the consequences; but that they were immune from liability,
based upon the First Amendment to the United
States
Constitution. They argued that they did not have to print what any person
requests them to print. But Stich wasn't requesting the media to print what he
wanted printed. Stich expected them to exercise their responsibilities under
federal law to report the serious charges, as they had a
responsibility under federal law
to aid in the prevention of the civil, constitutional, and the criminal
offenses.
The
press, and anyone else that had the ability to do so, had a responsibility
under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 to aid in preventing the civil rights
violations being perpetrated against Stich as part of the scheme to block his
exposure activities. They had a responsibility under the federal crime
reporting statute,
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, to bring the information of criminal
activities to the attention of responsive law enforcement personnel, and they
had a responsibility to their readers to make known the criminal activities
that were inflicting great harm upon the lives of the people and upon national
interests, including national security.
They had the responsibility to at
least check Stich's evidence. They had the responsibility to report his charges even
if they had no information to determine their accuracy. If they had exercised their multiple
responsibilities, many air tragedies--and resulting harm--could have
been prevented.
DENYING
LIABILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR COVER-UPS
The
Wall Street Journal
and
its publisher, Norman Pearlstein argued, in effect, that they should not be required
to report these charges (which would be obstructing justice), and that they
should not be liable for the consequences (of their cover-ups). They implied that the liberal First Amendment
freedoms given to the press eliminates any requirement to report government
corruption (that undermines national interests and national security), and
that the courts should protect
them from the consequences.
The
responsibility of the media under the First Amendment was articulated in a
Supreme Court
decision relating to the
Pentagon Papers and the New
York Times
publication
of their content. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in that decision:
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively
expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of
a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the Government from deceiving
the people ... The New York Times,
the
Washington Post and other newspapers
should
be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so
clearly. In revealing the workings of government ... the newspapers did
precisely that which the founders hoped and trusted they would do.
Without a
hearing, in violation of due process, the
district judge dismissed the complaint against the newspapers,
and despite
the fact that numerous federal causes of action were stated, and that criminal
misconduct was stated.
Stich
didn't appeal the complaint as he accomplished the primary goal of making a
judicial record of the news media's complicity and their responses. Despite the
news worthiness of the lawsuit
against
these papers, none of them printed anything about the precedent-setting lawsuit
and the serious implications in air tragedies.