Publicity Brought
Evidence of Corruption
In Other Areas of Government Operations
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, which 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.
These attempts to report
the criminal activities were blocked by federal judges and Justice
Department officials. Stich then published the second edition of Unfriendly
Skies, naming the federal judges and DOJ lawyers obstructing justice and
some of the major air disasters resulting from the continuation of the
corruption in the FAA―made possible by the
cover-ups and obstruction of justice tactics.
20-Plus Years of
Obstruction of Justice
Tactics by Lawyers and Judges
The
first of the legal tactics
was initiated in 1982 by 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
sequence of tactics
included repeated actions by lawyers, some of which are shown by the
list of lawsuits
constituting a unique form of obstruction of justice by dozens of
lawyers.
Last Lawsuit Filed
Shortly Before 9/11
The last lawsuit
filed by Stichprior to 9/11was a filing
in the federal court 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.
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.
Lawsuit Filed a Decade Earlier in New York Federal Courts
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.
Attempts to Report to DCA Federal Courts
Corruption Related to 9/11
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.
Earlier Filings that Put
Washington Judges on Notice
A decade earlier,
several earlier lawsuits filed in federal district and
appellate courts at Washington, D.C., seeking to report the criminal
activities that former federal agent Rodney Stich and his group of other
former government agents had discovered, along with the obstruction of
justice legal tactics being used by lawyers and judges to halt the reporting
of these serious matter.
Although these lawsuits seem excessive, they were
requiredand authorized by
lawon 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.
Repeated Blocks by 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:
Complicity
of 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.
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.
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). 
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. 
