Efforts to Report High-Level Corruption
Under Federal Crime Reporting Statute

Former federal agent Rodney Stich and his coalition of other former agents and insiders attempted to report the corruption they had discovered during their official or professional duties, to a federal judge. The statute that provides for that reporting is the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. A federal judge, or any other federal officer, to whom anyone knowing of a federal crime seeks to report it, must receive the information, or be guilty of obstructing justice.

The federal crimes they sought to report were those of people within the government's aviation safety offices that were resulting in a continuing series of preventable aviation disasters, and criminal activities of people in overt and covert operations.

Every attempt to report the federal crimes via a federal filing was blocked by federal judges, assisted by employees of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Legal Actions Taken
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 FAA and the political arm of the NTSB.
   

• 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)

Lawsuit Seeking to Report FAA Corruption
Related to Specific Aviation Disasters

The first legal filing was to report serious problems in the government's aviation safety offices, and was filed in the federal courts in San Francisco. It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Schnacke. Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to have the attempt to report the federal crimes dismissed. They argued in their motion that former federal agent Rodney Stich lacked standing to file the action.

Judge Schnacke, after admitting the seriousness of the charges, then dismissed the attempt to report the continuing federal crimes in the government's aviation safety offices. That action, combined with the U.S. attorney, constituted criminal obstruction of justice and made them early enablers to a continuing series of major American aviation disasters.

Stich then filed a notice of appeal, filed appeal arguments, and then appeared for oral argument before a three-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel. One of the judges admitted the gravity of the charges, stated that it was the responsibility of Congress to investigate these matters. Stich responded that every member of Congress, who also admitted the gravity of the charges, refused to get involved, stating the matters were not in their areas of responsibilities. Stich added that he wasn't expecting the courts to conduct an investigation; he was primarily interested in presenting the evidence into a judicial record, which would then be turned over to whatever government entity had a responsibility to conduct an investigation. (Stich v. United States, et al, 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.).)

Stich then filed an appeal (known as a petition for writ of certiorari with the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, which included filing copiers of all the papers filed in the district and appellate courts. The filing of that petition put the Justices on notice of major ongoing crimes against the United States and notified the Justices of the obstruction of justice conduct by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. The federal crime reporting statute also required them to receive the information. Further, the perpetration of the crime of obstruction justice by judges in the federal courts was a serious matter affecting major national interests.

Despite the requirements of the federal criminal statutes, the responsibility of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the ongoing corruption and the ongoing resulting brutal aviation disasters didn't register with them. They dismissed the petition without allowing it to be heard. (Stich v. United States, et al, 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)).

Lawsuit Reporting Cover-Ups In
Official Accident Reports By
NTSB Political Board Members

In 1978, a Pacific Southwest Airline (PSA) jet crashes into San Diego. Stich discovered serious misconduct consisting of all-night drinking and partying by the flight crew prior to the 7 a.m. departure. This information was covered up by the political NTSB board members. NTSB board members apparently feared that if the public received that knowledge that the outrage would bring attention to the corruption in the FAA that Stich had been trying to expose−and reveal the cover-ups by NTSB board members of these serious matters.

That action was assigned to U.S. District Judge Browning. Initially, assistant U.S. attorney George Stoll supported the filing, and even called Stich at home, stating his concern over the matter, and stating that the was requesting approval from his Washington superiors to support the filing. Stoll wasn't aware of the long series of cover-ups by Department of Justice personnel, starting while Stich was still a federal agent had even appeared before a federal grand jury in Denver, over Justice Department objections.

A week after Stoll was supporting the filing, he suddenly reversed his position and filed a motion for the judge to dismiss the action. The judge then repeated the prior judicial obstruction of justice tactic and dismissed the lawsuit.

Against, Stich filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, and again, the Justices refused to hear the action. Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982).

Subsequent aviation disasters from FAA corruption, even worse than what Stich was trying to expose, occurred. Judicial records now showed a series of federal judges involved in obstruction of justice crimes that enabled to occur some of the nation's worst aviation disasters. It was now necessary to expand on the cover-ups. The details are found in Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries.

Amicus Curiae Brief in DC-10 Disaster

The continuing corruption in the FAA−made possible by the cover-ups−continued theconditions responsible for the continuing aviation disasters. The harbinger of the corruption in the same FAA region that was most heavily involved was also responsible for the certification of the DC-10. A series of near catastrophic events finally resulted in the forewarned and expected crash of a DC-10 near Paris.

The litigation into that disasters occurred in the federal courts in Los Angeles. Stich had inside information about the pattern of corruption by the same people certifying that aircraft that he felt obligated to file a friend-of-the-court brief. This required obtaining the approval of the lead attorney in the multi-litigation. That approval was given.

Stich filed a friend of the court brief in the Paris DC-10 crash litigation, offering evidence of a pattern of FAA corruption that would explain why the major safety defects on the DC-10 were part of the politics of air safety in the FAA Western Region.

That filing was promptly dismissed by the federal judge. If he hadn't dismissed that filing, the prior cover-ups by federal judges--that enabled the corruption in the FAA to continue, which obviously played a key role in certifying an aircraft that had major safety design faults, would have been revealed.

Stich filed a notice of appeal, encountering the same block, and then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, the Justices refused to hear the action, thereby continuing to support the obstruction by lower court judges. (Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.)

Making Report To
District of Columbia Judges

In the early 1990s, the former federal agent attempted to circumvent the judicial corruption in the 9th Circuit courts in San Francisco by filing papers in the federal courts in the District of Columbia. He encountered the same almost instant dismissal of the actions.

One of the judges dismissing the attempt to report the corruption was Lawrence Silberman, a judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, preventing Stich and his coalition from exposing drug trafficking, savings and loan fraud, among others, involving CIA assets.

Another judge blocking the reporting of these matters was U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Stanley Sporkin. Sporkin was earlier head legal counsel for the CIA, legal counsel for the covert CIA operation, Southern Air Transport, and identified by Terry Reed in his book, Compromised, as involved in CIA Arkansas drug smuggling activities.

On September 11, 2001, the District of Columbia would experience one of the many consequences of their earlier cover-ups.

• Lawsuits filed in the 1990s in the Washington courts

Judicial Blocks by New York City
Federal Judges in the 1990s

Also in the early 1990, former federal agent Stsich sought to find a judge willing to receive the information by filing in the federal courts in New York City. Some of the same areas of corruption that Stich sought to report to federal judges in New York City were the same areas of corruption responsible for the conditions enabling 19 terrorists to inflict the great terrorist attack in the nation's history, killing nearly 3,000 people in the city.

• Lawsuits 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. 

Last Attempt Before 9/11

A year before the 9/11, Stich made one last attempt to report the corruption that by than involved much worse misconduct than simply that in the FAA. Stich filed a federal action in the U. S. district court in Reno, Nevada, which was assigned to  U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr. That lawsuit raised several major federal causes of action that, if federal law was followed, barred Reed from dismissing the action.

As part of his discovery rights, Stich filed Request for Admissions that required all of the defendants to answer questions that would, if answered, have admitted the roles that they played in the various parts of the conspiracy to cover up for major criminal activities. Judge Reed protect the defendants from answering the discovery questions.

Shortly before Judge Reed dismissed the action, another consequence of the corruption and cover-ups occurred: Four groups of terrorists hijacked four airliners and killed nearly 3,000 people. It was obvious to Reed that the information that he was preventing from being reported had made possible the 9/11 attacks. He then rendered an order, without a hearing, dismissing the action, thereby protecting the enablers of 9/l1, and those that were not named as defendants in that lawsuit:

It is hereby ordered that motion to dismiss filed July 6, 2000, by defendants Federal Judges Milton Schwartz, Raul Ramirez, John Moulds, Marilyn Patel, Vaughn Walker, Robert Jones, and Edward Jellen, is granted.

The Federal Judges have absolute immunity. Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Moreover, judges are absolutely immune from a § 1983 or Bivens liability even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. The acts complained of by plaintiffs were not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or non judicial in nature. An act is judicial if it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity.

Stich filed a notice of appeal, paid the filing fees, and submitted the required filing papers. But Ninth Circuit court of appeal judges, who played major roles in the many years of judicial cover-ups, in a February 5, 2002 order, refused to allow the appeal to proceed.

They claimed that prior orders of district and appellate judges permanently denying Stich the right to court access, as available to everyone else−including murderers and terrorists−did not apply to Stich. That February 5, 2002, appellate court order was made after those judges had seen the catastrophic consequences of their earlier cover-ups, and disregarded the future consequences of their conduct.

• Lawsuit at Reno, Nevada.

• 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.

New York City Post-911
Judicial Cover-Ups

Self protection required federal judges to continue the cover-ups, ignoring the consequences that the long series of catastrophic events would be continued by their conduct. After 9/11, Stich filed a lawsuit under the federal crime reporting statute to report the corruption and the people whose documented misconduct played major roles in the conditions that enabled 19 terrorists to so easily hijack four airliners.

• Lawsuit filed in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York,

The lawsuits addressed the specific misconduct of the following:

• The long-standing culture of certain key people in the government's aviation safety offices that were primarily responsible for the 9/11 hijackings.

• The documented felonies by federal judges. These included the repeated and documented obstruction-of-justice crimes and the crimes related to the retaliation against a former federal agent and witness to block his reports of the very same criminal activities as were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

• The documented role of federal prosecutors, including their cover-ups and their retaliation against a former federal agent.

• The years of sham lawsuits against the former federal agent by a hoard of lawyers in schemes paralleling the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges and employees of the U.S. Department of Justice.

District of Columbia
Parallel Post-9/11 Filing

Stich also attempted to report the corrupt activities related to the catastrophic events of 9/11 through filings in the U.S. district courts in the District of Columbia, where one of the hijacked airliners crashed. June 2002.

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.

That unlawful and unconstitutional order by Sporkin (former CIA legal counsel) was upheld 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.

Decades of Complicity By
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court

The judicial scandal becomes more serious, and reveals at least one of the powerful forces in government protecting the perpetrators.  Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have repeatedly aided and abetted the criminal and subversive activities that Stich and his coalition of government agents sought to expose and correct.

Stich repeatedly notified Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court of the underlying corruption, and the obstruction of justice tactics of federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities, and also the felony misuse of federal courts to retaliate against Stich for attempting to report the criminal activities and for exercising federal defenses against the massive civil and constitutional violations that were parallel efforts to obstruct justice.

Under federal criminal statutes, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are implicated in many of the criminal activities. Under federal crime reporting statutes, and especially Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, anyone knowing of a federal crime is himself or herself guilty of a crime if that person does not promptly report the crimes to a federal judge or other federal official.

Lawsuits Based on Cover-Ups

The significance of the harm continuing to arise from the systemic corruption and cover-ups motivated former federal agent Rodney Stich to take unusual actions seeking to force attention to the issues. The harmful consequences affected national issues, individual Americans, deaths in preventable aviation disasters, and deaths in preventable terrorist attacks. Included in these efforts−that were blocked by the same federal judges blocking the reporting of the federal crimes−were the following:

• Lawsuit against the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Lawsuits against members of Congress in the federal courts in Washington, and in Reno, Nevada.

• Lawsuit against media groups.

• Lawsuit against federal judges.

Sampling of Related Files

• Enablers to major national tragedies.

• Index to sampling of files on the 9/11 terrorist attacks..

• Comparison of blame for the conditions enabling 19 terrorists to so easily hijack four airliners on 9/11, when advance notice had been received of the attacks.

• Involvement of a hoard of lawyers and law firms that assisted in crimes against the United States.

• More thorough picture of the joint schemes by lawyers and federal judges in parallel corrupt actions to prevent the people from learning about endemic corruption, endemic cover-ups, and a history of great harm to the American public.

• Laws violated by the first series of lawyers in the sham California lawsuit.

• Sampling of the lawyers and judges acting in a conspiracy.

• Obstruction of justice felonies associated with schemes that obstructed justice by blocking a former federal agent from reporting major criminal activities.

• Conduct that constitutes a conspiracy under criminal law.

• Conduct that constitutes a criminal racketeering enterprise (RICO).

• List of legal and judicial attacks and the national consequences.

Sampling of prior major aviation disasters caused or enabled to occur by corruption were known to federal judges engaging in covering up and also retaliating against a witness to these federal crimes.