New Page 1

<body> Legal Filings While FAA Air Safety Inspector-Investigator After being given the assignment to correct the conditions responsible for the worst series of airline disasters in the nation's history, after discovering massive safety violations and problems, and encountering the standard cover-ups in government offices, Stich used the law to act as an independent prosecutor. During this period he conducted a four-month-long hearing that was turned into an adversary hearing as the FAA hearing officer sought to block the reports. At the end of the evidence gathering process, Stich filed a closing brief warning of continuation of the deadly consequences if the usual cover-up occurred (and which did occur). Experiencing the usual retaliation for exposing corruption in government offices, Stich was forced to resign from the FAA. The airline crashes then continued, as expected, with the cover-ups of the deeply entrenched culture within government offices. The continuation of the crashes and deaths caused Stich to circumvent the standard cover-ups throughout government and in the media and file the first of a long line of lawsuits seeking to expose the corruption and force attention to it. The sequences of the legal filings was basically as follows: In the period from 1978 to 1981, Stich filed several lawsuits seeking to report the corruption and related airline disasters within the two government aviation safety offices: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The political National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Stich then wrote the first of multiple issues of Unfriendly Skies and started appearing as guest and expert on hundreds of radio and television shows, making the public aware of the corruption that had deadly consequences in the airline environment. The publicity resulted in other government agents and insiders contacting Stich and providing him with information on corruption in government operations that they had discovered during their professional duties. Stich then started filing lawsuits that sought to report not only the corruption that continued to have tragic consequences in the airline industry but also in other areas. As with the attempts to report the corruption in the early actions against the FAA and NTSB, in many cases, DOJ lawyers filed motions to block the reports, and in every instance, federal judges unlawfully dismissed the actions before any evidence could be provided. With the first of these actions, in 1986, federal judge Milton Schwartz, Sacramento, not only blocked the reports from being made, but issued the first of many unlawful and unconstitutional orders directed to Stich that barred him for the remainder of his life from filing any papers in the federal courts. These orders knowingly blocked the reporting of crimes against the United States that were having tragic effects, but blocked Stich from exercising federal defenses against parallel legal schemes concocted to halt his exposure action. The 1981 second printing of Unfriendly Skies described in detail the actions taken by federal judges blocking the reporting of the corrupt activities, and the fatal airline disasters that followed, that were enabled to occur by the same corruption that Stich sought to report and the federal judges blocked from being reported. Shortly there, the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco) and their lawyers, filed the first of several sham lawsuits specifically designed to immediately separate Stich from the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities. The history of that CIA-front law firm's lawsuit, and the documented complicity of California and federal judges, are outlined in a lawsuit submitted for filing the the federal court at Oakland, California. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Last Lawsuit Filed Shortly Before 9/11 The last lawsuit filed by Stichprior to 9/11was a filing in the federal court at Reno, Nevada. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Just before the lawsuit was dismissed, and just after 9/11 occurred, Stich filed a declaration with the court showing the relationship between the charges made in the lawsuit and how the misconduct, and those involved in the misconduct, played key roles in the conditions that made the 9/11 hijackings possible. (January 21, 2002) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) As with every other attempt, and as with every other federal judge, the judge blocked the lawsuit from progressing. NYC Lawsuit Addressing Corruption Related to 9/11 Lawsuit filed in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to report corrupt activities that created conditions that enabled hijackers to seize four airliners. This lawsuit, filed by former federal aviation safety agent Rodney Stich, contains insider information that addresses arrogance and corruption that played key roles in decades of aviation disasters, and constitute the primary blame for the successful hijackings of four airliners, the subsequent 3,000 deaths, and the property damage. This information reveals the people and the groups holding primary moral and legal responsibilities for the tragic events of 9/11, far more than any of the presently named defendants. (Word format) (Adobe PDF format). Notice of appeal filed in response to the latest block by federal judges in that lawsuit. Chief judge Mukasey blocked the reporting of the misconduct stated in that federal filing, including those that enabled the catastrophic events of 9/11 to occur. This practice was repeated in the lawsuit filed by a former federal aviation safety agent, thereby continuing the corrupt and criminal activities and the series of obstruction of justice tactics--including those perpetrated by federal judges--and continues the series of deja vu consequences. (Word format) (Adobe PDF format) Letter to U.S. district court judge Mukasey in New York City (November 1, 2002) making a record of the judge's involvement in blocking the reporting of corrupt activities that played key roles in the events of September 11, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appeal brief filed in the New York lawsuit. Reply brief filed in the New York lawsuit. Oral argument before the court of appeals in New York City. Appeal en banc to all of the appeal judges in the 2nd judicial circuit at New York City. Lawsuit Filed a Decade Earlier in New York Federal Courts Lawsuit filed a decade earlier in the federal courts at New York City (August 15, 1990) seeking to report criminal activities, some of which related to a prior major airline disaster in New York City, and which would enable to occur the 9/11 airline hijackings that included two additional catastrophic airline disasters in the city. The filing also addressed the retaliatory harm being inflicted for attempting to make such reports. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Attempts to Report 9/11 Corruption in DCA Federal Courts Stich also attempted to report the corrupt activities related to the catastrophic events of 9/11 through filings in the U.S. district court in the District of Columbia, where one of the hijacked airliners crashed. (June 20, 2002) (Word format) (Adobe PDF format) This lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. district judge Henry Kennedy, sua sponte, within a week of being filed, seeking support in a 1991 order by U.S. district judge Stanley Sporkin (former legal counsel for CIA) that permanently barred Stich from access to the federal courts. That order permanently blocked Stich from reporting the criminal and subversive activities that he and his group of other federal agents discovered (including those that aided the success of the hijackers on September 11), and blocked Stich from exercising the federal defenses against the record-sitting civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by a coalition of CIA-front law firm and federal judges. In response to that unlawful dismissal, a notice of appeal was filed and Stich submitted his appeal brief. That appeal brief, as with every other legal filing, made federal judges aware of the serious allegations that could not be cavalierly ignored, and the additional criminal acts of federal judges. (Word format) (Adobe PDF format) The three appellate judges (Chief judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph) violated federal filing rights and refused to allow an appeal brief to be filed. They fabricated the excuse that Stich was permanently barred access to federal court by an order issued in 1991 by former federal judge Stanley Sporkin permanently barring Stich from access to the federal courts. That unlawful and unconstitutional order by Sporkin (former CIA legal counsel) was uphold by the most powerful appellate court in the United States, the violations compounded by feloniously blocking the reporting of corrupt, criminal, and even subversive activities, some of which played major roles in the events of 9/11. Obviously, this is a serious matter of major national impact. But there is much more to this, as detailed in Stich's books and federal court filings. Earlier Filings that Put Washington Judges on Notice Several earlier lawsuits filed in federal district and appellate courts at Washington, D.C., a decade earlier, made the federal judges aware of the criminal and subversive activities, the obstruction of justice by federal judges in California, and the felony relation for attempting to make such reports. These were filed in the federal courts at Washington, D.C. because of their greater attention to matters affecting government operations. Lawsuit seeking to reinstate civil rights that were terminated by a series of orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in federal courts, which barred him from exercising federal defenses against the record-setting number of violations of state and federal laws that were inflicted upon him during the various schemes to halt his exposure activities. (May 18, 1991.) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit against members of Congress, on the basis of their pattern of felony cover-ups of crimes against the United States. (March 24, 1992) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) March 9, 1992, seeking to report criminal activities of people in the CIA. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit seeking a return of $10 million in property assets that were unlawfully, unconstitutionally, and corruptly seized without the necessary notice of hearing, hearing, or cause, by 9th Circuit judges in San Francisco. (May 17, 1991) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Lawsuit seeking to report the criminal activities within the FAA and related airline disasters. (August 1, 1987) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Although these lawsuits seem excessive, they were requiredand authorized by lawon the basis of the numerous unlawful actions taken by California and federal judges on the West Coast, and the constant denial and violation of appeal remedies, AND, the steady stream of information from government insiders on matters that were, and would, inflict catastrophic harm upon the United States and many of its people who were victimized by the corruption. Legal Basis for the Lawsuits Reporting Criminal Activities to A Federal Court Under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 Reporting federal crimes to a federal court, as specifically provided by the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. That statute requires anyone who knows of a possible federal crime to promptly report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer). That federal judge or federal officer must receive the information as part of his or her administrative duties, and has no authority to block the reports. The statute's wording is clear: 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 under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. In addition to the mandatory requirement to report the federal crimes to a federal judge, another statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361, guarantees to any person the right to file a federal action seeking a court order to force a federal officer to perform his or her legal duty and to halt unlawful conduct. That statute reads: 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. Legal Basis for Seeking Relief in Federal Courts Numerous legal justification existed for seeking relief in federal courts for issues other than reporting criminal activities. These other issues arose from the multiple legal efforts to halt Stich's reporting and exposure activities. The basis for each of the federal remedies occurred repeatedly, over a period of many years, and federal law provides that if federal remedies are not exercised for violations of federally protected rights, then these remedies are waived. Among the federal defenses that existed included: The Civil Rights Act for the multiple and repeated violations perpetrated by the CIA-front law firm and lawyers, and the California judges who were acting in unison with them. The Civil Rights Act provides for relief in federal courts for violations of civil rights occurring in state courts. The Bivens doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Civil Rights Act protection and defenses to violations of civil and constitutional rights occurring in federal courts. Civil RICO, for a pattern of violations as part of a conspiracy. Declaratory Judgment Act for a federal judge to declare a person's legal rights and obligations that are in dispute. This federal defense related to: Establishing the validity of five judgments that established Stich's divorced status and property rights. The sham divorce action filed by the CIA-front law firm that served as the means to immediately separate Stich from the assets that funded his exposure activities. There was no marriage, as Stich had been divorced for two decades, and five judgments established his divorced status. Further, his former wife, living in Duncanville, Texas, had been declaring herself divorced for the prior 20 years, and continued to declare herself divorced in Texas while the CIA-front law firm claimed she wanted a termination of the marriage. The federal courts are the proper forum to settle the matter. To this day, this matter, as in every other one, is in "dispute." Having his right to federal court reinstated, which at least technically, restored his rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Having the corrupt seizure of his life assets declared as void, under the void judgment doctrine, based upon the seizure of the assets without the constitutional right to a notice of hearing, a hear, and legal cause. This right exists to this day, where his former $10 million in real estate is worth in excess of $20 million, and which would be free and clear. FRCivP 57 provides that federal judges provide priority for declaratory judgment actions. Instead, every effort was blocked, and is still blocked. Parallel Efforts to Block Exposure of Criminal Activities The efforts to block Stich's reporting of the criminal activities combined the refusal by federal judges to allow the reports to be made with sham lawsuits filed by a CIA-front law firm (Friedman, Sloan and Ross, San Francisco) and others, to divert his attention and strip him of the $10 million in real estate that funded his exposure activities. This sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm violated large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections for which there were multiple federal defenses. It thereby became necessary for federal judges to block Stich from exercising these defenses despite the guarantee in the laws and Constitution of the United States. The following are some of the defenses that Stich had a right to exercise, and which were denied to him by corrupt actions of federal judges--the same judges who blocked every attempt to report the criminal activities and included judges who inflicted great personal and financial harm upon him for his efforts to report the crimes and his exercise of due process rights. The sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm imitated 16 years of legal actions and legal schemes to: Block the reporting of criminal actions that had been and continues to this day to inflict great harm upon people and major national issues, including national security. California judges acting in unison to violate unprecedented numbers of California and federal laws and constitutional protections. California judges acting in unison to violate large numbers of procedural due process protections and defenses. California judges acting in unison to retaliate against Stich for exercising major procedural defenses against the massive numbers of civil and constitutional violations. Repeated Involvement of Federal Judges Federal judges blocked every effort, from 1969 to the present date, to reporting criminal activities to a federal judge as required to be reported by the federal crime reporting statute. Federal judges blocked Stich from exercising the federal defenses against the massive violations of state and federal laws perpetrated by the CIA-front law firm and California judges acting in unison. Federal judges thereby aided and abetted the violations of federally protected rights that they were paid, and entrusted, to protect. These violations were in unison with the blocks to reporting the criminal activities, and the two sets of violations were working hand-in-hand to halt the exposure of major criminal activities. Among the criminal acts perpetrated by federal judges, as shown by the prima facie evidence in the federal filings, were: Federal crime reporting statute, thereby repeatedly committing the criminal act of obstruction of justice. Federal criminal statutes by retaliating against Stich for attempting to report the deadly criminal activities. Federal criminal statutes by retaliating against Stich for exercising federal defenses against the massive violations of civil and constitutional rights. Documented Complicity by Supreme Court Justices Compounding the obstruction of justice and other criminal violations by the federal district and appellate judges was the role played throughout this period by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who were repeatedly notified of these criminal acts by judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. In every instance, the Justices aided and abetted the corrupt activities by the district and appellate judges, including the obstruction of justice, the misuse of the courts to inflict harm upon Stich for attempting to report these crimes, and for refusing to receive the information and evidence that even they were required to receive under the crime reporting statute. If any one of the dozens of federal judges who had become implicated had met their legal and moral duty to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of other former government agents had sought to provide, it is highly improbable that the conditions could have continued that encouraged and enables four groups of hijackers to seize four airliners on 9/11. If the facts were thoroughly understood, it would show that even the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court played repeated key roles in continuing the various forms of criminal activities, including those that resulted in the 9/11 hijackings. This is another reason why, so many key people are implicated, that these matters will never be brought to light, or to justice. Sampling of letters and actions that put each of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court justices on notice--making them also complicit in the underlying criminal activities and in the resulting catastrophic consequences. Sampling of letters to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sampling of the legal filings submitted to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bizarre as it may sound, a careful examination of the facts, the sequence of particular actions, strongly suggest that the scheme against Stich, starting with the CIA-front law firm, had its origin somewhere in the federal judiciary. And that it spun out of control when Stich vigorously exercised--without success--the numerous remedies "guaranteed" by the laws and Constitution of the United States. Also bizarre, but the facts and the law supports the action. Stich filed a lawsuit against the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of their repeated felony cover-ups of the criminal activities, including those of federal judges over whom they have supervisory responsibilities. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) WILL BE UPLOADED SHORTLY. The Justices responded to the suit, admitting that they knew of Stich's charges of criminal misconduct, that they did nothing in response, but that they were immune from lawsuits. Not a word appeared in the media about this unusual lawsuit with its very serious and documented charges. To have made any reference to it would have risked exposing the long line of criminal activities and blowback consequences--an occurrence that media people have avoided for decades. Additional Miscellaneous Information Return of $10 Million In Real Estate Seized in Violation of Federal Due Process and Under Corrupt Conditions Federal judges seized and liquidated Stich's $10 million in real estate assets without the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legal cause. Then, orders were rendered barring Stich from filing objections to these lawful acts, and when he did file an objection, federal judges charged him with criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to federal court. In another instance, Justice Department prosecutors and federal judges charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for filing a federal action seeking to report the criminal activities that insured the success of 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, following earlier orders permanently terminating his right to federal court access. Under the Supreme Court's void judgment doctrine, orders rendered without due process are void orders, remain void forever, and the issue raised in any court at any time. That means that an action can be filed now and these $10 million-value real estate properties returned to Stich. This right has been repeatedly denied to Stich by federal judges. If they had not denied this due process right, a can of worms would be exposed that exceeds any scandal ever exposed in the nation's history, with ties to September 11, 2001, on the basis of the judicial cover-ups. Declare Legal Rights Established in Five Judgments Enter an order declaring Plaintiff’s legal rights and legal obligations as previously adjudicated and established in five judgments. The scheme initiated by a CIA-front law firm and aided and abetted by federal judges required taking of personal and property rights established in those judgments. This taking required violating dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional rights and the aiding and abetting by many others in the legal fraternity, including Ninth Circuit federal judges. A CIA-front law firm (Friedman, Sloan and Ross, San Francisco) initiated a scheme in the California courts to strip Stich of the $10 million in real estate assets that funded his exposure activities. The scheme required violating the rights adjudicated in a prior judgment that was entered as a local judgment in Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, and California. The conduct by that law firm and lawyers, and California judges, constituted massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections and invoked Stich's due process right to file federal actions to obtain court orders under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act. This right was repeated denied to Stich, which protected the scheme by the CIA-front law firm and protected the California judges who participated in the scheme. Since there is now a controversy between the legal rights and legal obligations Stich has a legal right to have the personal and property rights in these judgments declared by a federal court. But to do so would expose the scheme to strip Stich of the assets that funded his exposure activities, the CIA-front law firm, and the judges who corruptly aided and abetted the scheme through major and repeated violations of civil rights. Financial Damages Against U.S. Government Under Federal Tort Claims Act Stich has a valid cause of action to sue the U.S. government for financial damages based upon the wrongful acts against him by people acting in their government position. This right arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401, 2672-2675, when any person suffers damage from a tort perpetrated by a federal employee in the same manner as if the tort was perpetrated by a private person. Financial Damages Against Violations of Federally Protected Rights Perpetrated by Lawyers, Law Firms, California and Federal Judges There exists federal causes of actions against lawyers, law firms, California and federal judges, whose documented violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections raise multiple federal causes of actions under the Civil Rights Act and Bivens. What Started the Attacks Upon Former Federal Agent Stich, a former federal air safety agent, and his group of other government agents (FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, CIA, and others) sought to report criminal and even subversive activities that they discovered. These include, for instance: Deep-seated pattern of corruption affecting aviation matters (including fatal hijackings and other aviation disasters) within the Federal Aviation Administration, the falsification of accident reports by the political NTSB board members. Stich initially discovered these matters after the government assigned him the task to correct the conditions resulting in the worst series of airline crashes in the nation's history. One of these was a DC-8 that crashed into New York City, the world's worst at that time. The same corrupt conditions that made that crash possible continued with many other crashes, the latest aviation tragedies being the hijackings of four airliners by hijackers. Due to either ignorance or to keep from opening a very extensive scandal in government, this obvious cause for the successful hijackings has been covered up and the focus on more innocent "intelligence failures." Drug smuggling into the United States by people acting under cover of government positions and secret government operations. This practice is not only criminal but subversive, and includes felony cover-ups by people in the three branches of government. Widespread corruption in the bankruptcy courts as judges, lawyers, law firms, trustees, with ties to the CIA, strip people of their assets after the people exercise the statutory protections of Chapter 11. Many other areas of corruption affecting national interests and the lives of many people, as described in the books written by Rodney Stich with input from dozens of courageous insiders. Every attempt by Stich and his group of other government agents to report these criminal activities to a federal judge had been repeatedly blocked, constituting criminal obstruction of justice. The result has been a worsening of the corruption and escalation of the resulting consequences. The conditions permitting 19 hijackers to succeed in hijacking four airliners could not have occurred without this corruption and cover-up. That statute provides to the American people the most important defense against corruption in government, permitting anyone knowing of federal crimes perpetrated by federal officials to circumvent the standard obstruction of justice by those in control of the system. It was very important that federal judges block every effort by Stich and his group of other government agents from making these reports. Not only was it necessary to eviscerate the crime reporting requirement of this statute to prevent others from duplicating what Stich was doing, but also to prevent Stich from reporting the criminal and subversive activities that he and his group were seeking to report. Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. RETURN TO TOP </body>