Lawsuits against members of Congress based upon felony cover-ups.

<body> Lawsuit Based Upon Obstruction of Justice When former federal air safety agent Rodney Stich repeatedly encountered cover-ups when seeking to provide information and evidence of corruption relating to a series of fatal airline crashes (and other areas of corrupt activities) to members of Congress and federal judges, that fell within their area of responsibilities, he exercised rights provided by federal statutes. He filed lawsuits against several of the Senate and House members, and federal judges, seeking a court order requiring them to perform a mandatory duty and to halt their obstruction of justice conduct. To understand the gravity of the issues, Stich was a federal air safety inspector when he first started contacting members of Congress. He had been assigned the primary responsibility for correcting the conditions that caused the worst series of airline crashes in the nation's history. Many crashes, and many deaths, occurred in his area of direct federal air safety responsibilities as a result of the deep-seated corruption and other problems. The corruption and the resulting crashes--and deaths--continued to occur as the checks and balances engaged in obstructing justice. The corruption that Stich was seeking to report to members of Congress and to act upon created conditions that on September 11, 2001, insured the success of the 19 terrorist hijackers. These conditions included refusal by FAA management to order the simple and inexpensive measures that would have prevented the four groups of hijackers from hijacking the four airliners on September 11, would have prevented 40 years of prior hijackings, and would have prevented many other air disasters arising from known, from reported, and easily corrected safety problems or safety violations. In addition to seeking a court order forcing these members of Congress to receive the information and evidence of corrupt activities in the FAA (and in other government entities), there is a section of the Civil Rights Act that makes a person financially liable if they know of civil rights violations being inflicted upon a person, and who have the power to prevent them, and if they refuse to take such actions. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 provides for this federal cause of action. This cause of action arose on the basis that Justice Department personnel and federal judges were acting in unison, violating Stich's civil rights as part of the scheme to block his reporting of the criminal activities. Another goal Stich sought with the filing of these lawsuits was to make a record of the charges and a record of the response. Probably never in the nation's history have lawsuits been filed against members of Congress claiming they were criminally covering up for criminal activities that were subverting major national interests, including national security. Two lawsuits were filed against members of the U.S. Senate and House. These members named as defendants in the lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia (No. 89-0170 SS) included Senators Edward Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ernest Hollings, Albert Gore, Pete Wilson; Representatives Joseph Biden, Jack Brooks, John Conyers, Harley Staggers, and Henry Gonzalez. Another lawsuit was filed in the United States district court at Reno, Nevada (No. 89-85), in which one of the defendants was California representative Norman Mineta, who was on the House aviation committee and who would in 2001 be head of a major aviation department naming (plus defendants Senator Alan Cranston, and Representatives George Miller, Fortney Stark, Don Edwards, and Daniel Lundgren. The names Biden and Mineta played prominent roles in subsequent aviation disasters arising from the continuation of major air safety problems that was made possible by their cover-ups. In one day's deja vu consequences 3,000 people died. Mineta was the head of a government agency responsible for, would you believe, aviation safety! And Biden would be responsible for, would you believe, an investigation into the conditions that had a major role in the 3,000 deaths. The primary basis for these suits was: They knew of the corrupt and criminal activities in their area of oversight responsibilities, primarily the aviation area, and that they refused to perform their legal duty to receive evidence of such crimes. Those acts met the legal criteria for obstruction of justice through cover-ups. They knew of the misuse of federal courts and the Justice Department that repeatedly violated major civil rights as parallel acts to attempts to halt Stich's exposure of high level corruption. By refusing to act when they had the power to do so, their acts were felonies under federal statute. They knew that federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice, by multiple acts to block the reporting of criminal activities, made these acts meet the legal criteria for government entities becoming racketeering enterprises. To put into this information into a judicial record, with the possibility that the prior media cover-ups would suddenly report these serious matters as part of their duty to do so. Defendant Members of Congress Did Not Deny Charges Lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Washington, D.C. (Adobe PDF) In response to the filing of these actions, the Senate legal counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 27, 1989. The motion to dismiss admitted that the defendant senators and representatives knew of my charges; knew of the consequences in air tragedies and the harms inflicted upon me. They did not deny the relationship between the misconduct and the deaths in the air tragedies Stich listed or the actions taken to silence him. Nor did they deny that they failed to take any actions to prevent the criminal and wrongful acts. Under federal pleading practice, any allegation in the complaint that is not denied is deemed admitted as true. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d): Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided. In response to the filing of these actions, the Senate legal counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 27, 1989. The motion to dismiss admitted that the defendant senators and representatives knew of Stich's charges; knew of the consequences in air tragedies and the harms inflicted upon Stich. They did not deny the relationship between the misconduct and the deaths in the air tragedies listed in that lawsuit. They did not deny that they failed to take any actions to investigate the charges. Under federal pleading practice, the allegation in the complaint that are not denied are deemed admitted as true. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d): Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided. Another lawsuit against members of Congress was filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. (Adobe PDF) Claiming Immunity for Their Obstruction of Justice After these admissions, they then argued that they were immune from the consequences of their acts under the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. To put this response in perspective, picture an air disaster scene in which the crash and deaths were related to misconduct that they could have prevented. They were washing their hands of any guilt. Pictures of people leaping to their deaths from the World Trade Center, from two air disasters that would never have happened if they had exercised their responsibilities, provides an inkling of the consequences arising from their felony cover-ups. Their response had serious implications. No longer could these members of the Senate and House argue they did not know of Stich's allegations or of the corruption related to a series of continuing air tragedies. All they could now argue was that regardless of their inactions, which made possible many of the deaths described within these pages, they could not be sued. The defendants' motion to dismiss stated in part: This suit is barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1, of the Constitution, and (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Stich opposed the motion to dismiss by stating case law showing that the Speech or Debate Clause only related to actions taken on the floor of the Senate and House relating to passage or non-passage of legislation. Stich cited case law that held the clause did not protect illegal or unconstitutional conduct. Stich also argued controlling law that prohibited dismissal of lawsuits that state federal causes of action, and that the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true for the purpose of opposing dismissals. Further, that the court had a responsibility to receive the information of the criminal activities and to consider an order requiring the defendants to perform their legal duties. The law that was cited included: Miller v. Transamerican Press, 709 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1983); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881); Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund 421 U.S. 491, 502. (1975). Motion to Destroy the Lawsuit Records In addition to seeking dismissal before the matter could go to trial, the defendant senators and representatives requested that the judge remove all evidence from the court records that the lawsuit was ever filed. The intent of that motion was to protect the senators and representatives from consequences at a later date if the judicial records were examined by an inquisitive investigative reporter. (Such as an investigation into the aviation tragedies of September 11, 2001.) In this way there would not be any evidence a lawsuit had been filed; that the defendants admitted the charges; and that they continued the cover-ups that would be involved in subsequent air disasters (and the consequences of other criminal activities that were also inflicting great harm upon national security). There is no known legal procedure permitting removal of evidence of the filing of an action. These are public records, protected by the public's right to know. Their destruction would violate federal law. Further, federal law, including Rule of Civil Procedure 60, permits a party to file a motion, years later, to reinstate an action. This right, however, becomes valueless if the record is destroyed. Even though Stich raised federal causes of action which under federal rules of court, case law, statutory law, and constitutional due process, prevented dismissal, U.S. District judge Stanley Sporkin rendered an order on May 8, 1989, granting the motion to dismiss, and to destroy all evidence of the filing: On consideration of the motion of defendants to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, the entire record, and this court's opinion in this case, it is ORDERED that the defendants' motion be and hereby is granted and the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Sporkin was a former legal counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whose role in murky or corrupt activities is described in Defrauding America. Stich immediately filed a notice of appeal of that order. (Appeal No. 89-00170.) The Senators and Representatives then filed a motion with the Court of Appeals requesting that the appeal be dismissed without allowing the appeal to go forward. The Court of Appeals judges promptly came to their rescue and granted the request. A copy of part of the Court of Appeals order follows: United States Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia ____________ No. 89-5163 __________ Rodney F. Stich Appellant v. Edward Kennedy, et al., Appellees __________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of Columbia __________ Motion of Senate Appellees For Summary Affirmance The six Senators named as defendants in this action, Edward M. Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ernest F. Hollings, Albert Gore, Jr., Pete Wilson, and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., move for summary affirmance of the district court's order of May 8, 1989 (Tab A), dismissing the amended complaint in this case with prejudice. Statement The plaintiff has had a longstanding grievance against the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"), which he has pursued through substantial prior litigation. In this lawsuit plaintiff alleges a "conspiracy" between the FAA and United Airlines "to violate federal air safety requirements, and obstruct government inspectors ("FAA inspectors") reporting and correction of the air safety felonies and misconduct which made possible the major air safety misconduct and numerous fatal crashes. Complaint, par. 9, at 5. He asserts that the "misconduct" of the NTSB "played a causative role in several other major airline disasters." Id., at 5. His grievances extend to members of the California courts, id., Par. 18, at 8, and federal judiciaries, id., par 22-26, at 9-12. Plaintiff alleges that the congressional defendants "have responsibilities and the power to prevent and aid in the prevention, of violations of these rights and privileges which were inflicted against plaintiff." Id., par 6, at 3. He states that he "notified members of the Senate and the House of the constitutional violations, and submitted petitions under the First Amendment and other safeguards for relief." Id., § 27, at 12. He asserts that "defendants misused their positions of trust and power, refusing to provide the relief to prevent the violation of rights and privileges suffered by plaintiff," id., par 34, at 14, and that the defendants "actually joined the conspiracy by remaining silent," id., par 36, at 14. In a Memorandum Opinion filed on March 29, 1989, (Tab B), the district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The court first held that the suit was barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, section 6, clause 1, of the Constitution, because "[t]he acts and omissions complained of by the plaintiff clearly fall within the legitimate legislative sphere protected by the Speech or Debate Clause." Memorandum Opinion at 3. The court also held that the action failed to state a claim under the First Amendment upon which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), because "[w]hile the plaintiff's right to petition Congress is guaranteed by the First Amendment, a member of Congress is not required to 'listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues.' Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 285 (1984)." Memorandum Opinion at 3. Shortly before the court's dismissal of the action, plaintiff [Stich] filed a "first amended complaint." Like the original complaint, the amended complaint alleged a conspiracy between the airline industry and the government's air safety regulatory bodies, Amended Complaint, par 3, at 3, and asserted that, notwithstanding his notification to the congressional defendants, id., par 35, at 17, they failed to act to prevent the violations, id, par 4, at 4, and "actually joined the conspiracy by remaining silent," id., par 42, at 19. On April 6, 1989, plaintiff moved to alter or amend the order dismissing his first complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), and on May 8, 1989, the court reaffirmed its earlier judgment and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court's May 8, 1989 order on May 19, 1989. Lawsuit filed in federal courts at Washington, DC (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Motion to dismiss, April 4, 1989. (Adobe PDF) The lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. district judge Samuel Sporkin, former CIA legal counsel. March 29, 1989. (Adobe PDF) Sampling of Tragedies Made Possible By Culture of Congressional Cover-Ups In criminal law, people are accomplices, and guilty, if they know of a criminal act and fail to report it to proper authorities and also to take efforts within their capability to halt their continuation. And there are endless numbers of accomplices that are complicit in these crimes and enablers of the consequences. Little Recognized Role in Housing and Financial Frauds In the book, America's Housing and Financial Frauds, by Rodney Stich, the book details and documents the key role played by bribe-taking members of Congress that brought down upon the American people the greatest tragedy most had ever experienced. And little did they know that the same corrupt congressional culture made possible the conditions enabling four groups of terrorists to so easily hijack four airliners on 9/11 and kill 3,000 people, and then compound that tragedy with the housing and financial debacles. Ignorance, while bliss, has brought upon the American people great tragedies. A Primer on Cause and Ripple Effects: 9/11 As An Example To help understand how the hijackings of four airliners on 911 occurred and the relationship to the problems former federal safety agent Rodney Stich discovered and tried to report and correct, consider the following: Four groups of terrorists were able to hijack four airliners on 9/11 because the known procedures for preventing hijackings were not implemented. Remember, if these were put in place, 3,000 people would not have been brutally killed on that date, and the reason for such peripheral effects such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq would not have occurred. If this is important to you, read on! Why weren't the preventative measures in place? The same reason why many other preventative measures were not taken that allowed decades of preventable airline disasters to occur: the corruption within the FAA that is a matter of records in the possession of former federal agent Stich, and described in the book, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries. What people were involved in covering up for this corruption? The people involved in covering up for the corruption and even criminal activities include, among others, the following: Members of Congress, who for years were informed by letters of the deadly corruption affecting airline safety (as well as criminal activities elsewhere that affected national security). From 1964 to the present date, letters were sent to members of Congress on all of these matters, offering to provide testimony and evidence. Stich even filed lawsuits against members of Congress on the basis of the cover-ups, in an attempt to make a judicial record of their obstruction of justice activities. The corruption in Congress that was publicized in the latter half of 2006 were just the tip of the iceberg. Federal judges, through legal filings seeking to report the federal crimes to a federal judge, as specifically provided by the federal crime reporting statute. Federal judges responded by (a) blocking the reports; (b) issuing unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court; (c) charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report ongoing criminal activities. These judicial acts were obstruction of justice felonies and retaliation felonies. Media people. Starting while Stich was a federal agent attempting to get publicity to the corruption so as to bring it to a halt, Stich repeatedly notified in writing media people, stressing deaths and the great harm resulting to national security, and offering to provide the testimony of himself and numerous other former government agents. None responded, which made possible many of the nation's worst tragedies. Reasons for the non-response would include (a) those who are secretly receiving money from the CIA and other government offices; (b) not wishing to offend their sources high in government; (c) laziness, among other reasons. Department of Justice officials. Starting while Stich was still a federal employee seeking to report the criminal activities that he discovered during his official duties, people in the various divisions of the Department of Justice were repeatedly notified of the criminal activities affecting national security. Instead of acting on the corruption, they charged Stich with criminal contempt of court in collaboration with federal judges at Sacramento, California, among other things. They all made possible the conditions resulting in 3,000 deaths on 9/11, which were only one-day's consequences in only one of the areas involved in the corruption. Oh, one other group: the members of the public who knew of these charges, knew of the cover-ups, knew of the retaliation against the former federal agent, and who were too lazy to help! Email address for the author and activist against corruption in government: stich@unfriendlyskies.com. For more information relating to the author and his activities put "Rodney Stich" into a search engine such as Google or yahoo.com. The links run into many tens of thousands. Consider placing orders for any product from amazon.com through the following links. There is no extra cost or delay in doing this, while it provides us a small commission to help fund this site and our public-spirited efforts. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.druggingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com www.defraudingamericablog.com </body>