Lawsuit Against California and Federal judges
The progress of the lawsuit has been again blocked by federal district and
appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit courts, which insures that the corruption,
the great tragedies, and the cancerous corruption in the federal courts will
continue and expand. The same corrupt judicial tactics that were used for
earlier are again being used, as explained in the draft of the appeal brief that
will be found by clicking here. (The appeal brief may not have been
uploaded to the Internet site at this time. If not, it will shortly be
uploaded.)
The lawsuit was blocked by the district court judge at Reno dismissing
every defendant and every non-defendant cause of action (Declaratory Judgment
Act and Supreme Court's void judgment doctrine), violating law barring dismissal
when facts stated in the Complaint state a federal cause of action for which
relief is available.
In addition, the judge protected every defendant against answering
discovery (which would have further exposed the conspiracy to block the
reporting of criminal activities in government); denied the right to a jury
trial on the factual matters; refused to make findings of facts and conclusions
of law when dismissal is made on the basis of facts.
Further, the Ninth Court court of appeal blocked the due process right to
appeal to proceed, stating in an April 12, 2002, order that Stich had been
permanently blocked by a 1994 injunction from filing any appeal briefs. These
are rights guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States and
available to terrorists and murderers, but not to Stich!
In response to these gross judicial violation of due process--combined
with judicial efforts blocking the reporting of criminal and subversive
activities--Stich submitted a petition
for extraordinary writ to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on May 3,
2002, along with a cover
letter.
Highlight of latest judicial obstruction of justice and
total termination of legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses:
- Dismissal of every defendant despite bar against dismissal when
facts are stated in the Complaint that state one or more federal causes of
action are stated. Numerous federal causes of actions were stated that
invoke mandatory court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, Bivens,
civil RICO.
- The dismissals were compounded by unlawful and unconstitutional refusal
to order the defendants to respond to discovery, refusal to issue findings
of facts and conclusions of law, and denial of jury trial on the factual
issues.
- Dismissal of the three federal causes of actions under the
Declaratory Judgment Act and the void judgment doctrine. These include
the right to:
- Declare as void the orders seizing and liquidating Stich's $10
million in real estate assets. The orders were void on the basis
that the judges lacked personal jurisdiction; the orders seizing the
assets were rendered without the required hearing, notice of hearing,
and legal cause; and orders were rendered by judge Edward Jellen barring
Stich from filing objections to the seizure and liquidation of his
assets.
- Declare the validity of the five judgments adjudicating Stich's
personal and property rights, which were taken by California judges
acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction while
acting in unison with the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman,
Sloan and Ross. This violation of federally protected rights started the
20 years of legal actions against Stich, the intent of which was to
strip him of the assets that funded his exposure of high level
corruption in government.
- Declare as void the orders rendered by Ninth Circuit district
and appellate judges that bars, for the remainder of his life, Stich's
legal and constitutional right to file papers in federal courts. The
intent of these orders was to block the reporting of the criminal
activities to a federal court and terminate for him all legal rights,
protections, and defenses against the continuing series of legal acts
that violate federally protected rights.
- Refusal of Ninth Circuit court of appeals judges to recognize the
multiple notices of appeal filed by Stich in response to the dismissal
of the defendants and refusal to address the issues filed under the
Declaratory Judgment Act and void judgment doctrine.
- Refusal to order the federal district court to receive the reports
and evidence related to corrupt and criminal activities that Stich and
his other former government agents had discovered.
Click
here for a draft copy of the appeal brief that would have been filed.
However, On April 1, 2002, Ninth Circuit appellate judges blocked the exercise
of appellate due process on the holding that they have permanently barred Stich
from access to the federal appeal process. In this way they continued the
pattern of federal judges blocking the reporting of criminal and subversive
activities, protected the judges who had repeatedly blocked these reports, and
protected the judges who corruptly misused the courts in the scheme initiated by
a CIA-front law firm to halt the reporting of these crimes. Obviously,
this constitutes a national emergency involving massive corruption in the
federal courts. Among the grave consequences of this endemic judicial corruption
were the 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2001, and those that have yet to occur.
A reminder; the primary
issues raised in the lawsuit include:
- Demand to provide information and documents to a federal court
relating to major
criminal and subversive activities, affecting major national interests,
including national security, discovered by
former federal air safety agent Rodney Stich and his group of several dozen other
federal agents. Included in this information was corruption in the FAA that
blocked corrective actions for many air safety problems. In addition to
the hard-core criminal misconduct being reported were the ancillary
misconduct of refusing to order protections that would prevent the September
11, 2001, terrorist hijackings and those of the prior 40 years. The requirement to provide this information to a federal
court, and for a federal judge to receive it, arises under the mandatory
crime reporting statute, Title
18 U.S.C. § 4. Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges and Supreme
Court judges continued the 20 years of blocking such reports. If the
allegations of criminal activities could not be substantiated by Stich,
there would be no reason to block the reports. Blocking the reports
constituted criminal acts under the obstruction
of justice statutes.
- Demand for an order halting the record-setting numbers of civil and constitutional
violations against former federal agent and activist, Rodney Stich that were
part of the bizarre scheme to block his reporting of corruption in key
government offices, including the FAA and NTSB. The
authority for this relief is the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§
1983-1988), Title
28 U.S.C. § 1343, the Declaratory
Judgment Act, and the constitutional rights embodied in the Bivens
doctrine. This right was denied in 2001.
- Declaratory judgment to declare Stich's personal and property rights
established in multiple judgments that were taken by California and federal
judges in clear violation of state and federal laws. The scheme to strip
Stich of the assets that funded his exposure activities consisted of a
lawsuit barred by federal and state law for which federal defenses exist
under the Declaratory
Judgment Act and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 57, and the Civil Rights Act.
- Declaratory judgment to declare as void the orders by federal judges
taking Stich's $10 million in assets that funded his exposure of
corruption in judicial and government offices. These orders taking Stich's
life assets violated the legal and constitutional requirement of a noticed
hearing, a hearing, and reason for seizing. Supreme Court decisions hold
that such orders are void and are forever void. Stich was entitled to a
declaratory judgment addressing these orders taking Stich's home, his
businesses, his real estate his assets, his sole source of income,
everything. This right was denied.
- Damages for the civil and constitutional violations occurring in the
federal courts by federal judges and lawyers who acted in unison with the
judges. This right is provided by constitutional provisions as articulated
in the Bivens
doctrine. This right was denied.
Get Your Own Blog or Internet Site:
Easy and Inexpensive
Get your own blog site, domain name, or hosting site at the
popular godaddy.com hosting service.
A low-cost provider with excellent support service. Click on the following
graphic for information
and quick start.
Return to
www.defraudingamerica.com
