Lawsuit filed in federal courts at Reno, addressing the parallel legal schemes seeking to block reporting ong corruption in government.

<body> Federal Lawsuit Filed in Reno, Nevada One lawsuit that spells out in detail the lawsuit filed by the San Francisco CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, that was joined by a large number of California judges, was filed in Reno, Nevada. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) 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. Sampling of Corrupt Activities Being Reported Among the areas of corrupt activities were those that created the conditions that shortly thereafter enabled four groups of terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11. The areas of corruption included the primary government aviation safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where the responsibility existed for preventing airliners from being hijacked; and the FBI and CIA, which had the responsibility for finding the scheme and taking action to thwart the scheme of the hijackers. 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. While the lawsuit was pending, and after the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Stich filed a declaration into that lawsuit showing the relationship of the corruption Stich sought to report; and how the actions of the CIA-front law firm and the California judges had become complicit in the 9/11 events by seeking to halt Stich's reporting and exposure activities. January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Continuing the pattern of judicial cover-ups, U.S. District Judge Reed blocked the lawsuit from proceeding, and dismissed it, in clear violation of numerous federal due process requirements. Stich then filed a notice of appeal and an appeal brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco. January 27, 2002(MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Appellate Judges Continuing Their Prior Complicity 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 the 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 1, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF); along with a cover letter. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Protecting the Participants in a Scheme With Deadly Consequences 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. Violating, and Stripping Stich of Federal Defenses 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. Violations by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges 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. Refusal to receive information and evidence of criminal activities in various government offices and activities, which were parallel judicial actions to the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm that sought to halt the exposure activities. Books Providing Detailed Information and Evidence Many complex matters concerning government intrigue are involved here. They are described in great detail by former government insiders, in the books written by and with the input from dozens of former government agents and other insiders. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.druggingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. Return to the Top </body>