Pre-9/11 Lawsuit Reporting
Corruption and Enablers of 9/11 Events

Over the years, former federal agent Rodney Stich filed lawsuits in the federal courts seeking to report the criminal activities that were inflicting great harm upon the United States and its people. These attempts were repeatedly blocked by a combination of federal judges, Justice Department personnel, and others in the legal fraternities. Those acts constituted felonies under the obstruction of justice statutes and others, and enabled to continue the corruption and the consequences. In the aviation sector, the consequences were many deaths. The lawsuits had the following issues:

• Attempts to report to a federal judge the criminal activities related to a series of airline disasters that Stich initially discovered during his official duties as a federal aviation safety inspector-investigator, and then as other government agents contacted him, he sought to report the criminal activities in other areas.
   
• After Stich was targeted by lawyers, including CIA-front law firms, seeking to silence him through various tactics, including stripping Stich of the assets that funded his exposure activities, Stich included additional federal causes of actions. these additional defenses arose under the Civil Rights Act for the massive violations occurring in state courts, Bivens for the civil rights violations occurring in the federal courts, Declaratory Judgment Act, the void judgment doctrine, and civil RICO. All of these violations related to these federal causes of actions arose in the continuing schemes to obstruct justice by trying to silence Stich.
   
• The last lawsuit before the 9/11 hijackings, seeking to report, among other matters, the corruption resulting in a continuation series of airline disasters, was filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. That lawsuit named as defendants California judges and lawyers whose obstruction of justice tactics included the many violations of federally protected rights.

The issues other than reporting the criminal activities included the following:

• 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.

Initial Filings Blocked By
Federal Judges in Oakland

March 14, 2000. The lawsuit was first submitted to the U.S. district court at Oakland, California on March 14, 2000. The clerk of the court refused to file the complaint, stating that an order by U.S. district judge Marilyn Patel in 1986−15 years earlier−had forever barred Rodney Stich from access to the federal courts. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) 

The lawsuit addressed a pattern of civil rights violations judicially perpetrated upon the plaintiff whistleblower, and sought to report a pattern of criminal activities that he, a former federal investigator, and his group of government insiders sought to report. 

That order effectively voided for Stich the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States and barred him from reporting criminal activities implicating people in control of key government offices and in the federal courts that he and his group of government whistleblowers had discovered over the years.

That order by Judge Patel was unlawful and unconstitutional, and Judge Patel had rendered it after Stich filed a federal lawsuit addressing the judicial violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections that were involved in the scheme to silence Stich's exposure activities.

Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Oakland U.S. district court rendered a further order upholding the unlawful and unconstitutional order by Judge Patel. 

In doing this, Judge Wilkin obstructed justice by refusing to receive the hard evidence that Stich and his group of insiders sought to report. These criminal activities included such matters as widespread judicial corruption in the bankruptcy courts, CIA drug smuggling and activities with organized crime groups, and much more.

Circumventing Judicial Block in California

March 24, 2000. After being denied the right to file a lawsuit at Oakland, Stich then filed the lawsuit on March 24, 2000 in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada. An Amended Complaint was filed on May 12, 2000. The Amended Complaint was 66 pages long, and stated facts showing a 20-year pattern of judicial corruption. Most of the allegations in the complaint are supported by judicial records in the California and in the federal courts. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

May 12, 2000. On May 12, 2000, Stich served the Amended Complaint and Request For Admissions upon 26 California and federal judges, and attorneys who colluded with them in the attacks upon Stich. RFAs sent to former short-time California Judge Wolters is shown here.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 strongly emphasize using the mails for serving the complaint, and strongly emphasize the importance of the defendants acknowledging receipt of the summons. Since every defendant was a judge or "officer of the court" as attorneys are called, the average person could expect that they would comply with this strongly worded acceptance of process.

Federal rules of civil procedures also provide that if the plaintiff does not effect service upon the defendants at the end of 120 days, the judge can dismiss the lawsuit without notice.

Everyone except the federal judges had to return the acknowledgement of summons and complaint within 30 days. Federal employees, the defendant federal judges, had 60 days to return the acknowledgement of summons and complaint. The deadlines were June 12, and July 12th for the defendant federal judges, to return the acknowledgement of service.

Every one of the 26 California judicial defendants and "officers of the court" refused to respond, refused to return the acknowledgement of service. Because of the strong wording in Rule 4 to accept service by mail, it would be extremely unlikely that every defendant in that capacity related to the courts would violate that provision. Obviously, they schemed together not to respond. This is called a conspiracy to obstruct the intent of Federal Rule of Civil Procedures.

Rule 4 Summons by mail
Rule 4(d)(2): "[A defendant] that receives notice of an action in the manner provided in this paragraph [by mail] has a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons."

Rule 4(d)(2)(D): "...of the consequences of compliance and of a failure to comply with the request:"

Several defendants could not be located. The Nevada bar association refused to provide Stich with the address of two Nevada attorneys who were defendants in the action. One attorney, Rene Feinstein of Las Vegas, was reached by phone, and refused to provide an address for accepting service of the Summons and Amended Complaint and the Request For Admissions. The California bar associated refused to provide the address of several attorneys and inactive judges on the basis that funds were limited.

There were two probable reasons for these defendants, a part of the court system, to systematically violate this federal rule:

The Request For Admissions that were served with the Amended Complaint and Summons were very direct and sensitive, and by answering truthfully the RFAs, they would admit their wrongdoings, that were already a matter of court records in the California and federal courts.

Another reason for all defendants to refuse to acknowledge service of summons was that under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...., if the plaintiff has not served any of the defendants within 120 days after filing the complaint, the judge could dismiss the lawsuit without notice. 

Based upon the 20 years of continuing and worsening judicial misconduct, there would be strong pressure in the judicial system for the U.S. district judge in Reno to dismiss Stich's lawsuit. That lawsuit had been assigned to Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr.

Personal service was accomplished upon most the defendants, after which motions started being filed to dismiss defendants from the lawsuit. 

U.S Attorney Protecting Judges Involved
In Obstruction of Justice Misconduct

July 6, 2000. U.S. Attorney at Reno, Nevada, filed a Motion To Dismiss Federal Judges, claiming they were absolutely immune from any lawsuit.

July 20, 2000. Stich files Opposition To Dismissal of Federal Judges.

July 24, 2000. U.S. attorney at Reno, Nevada, filed reply to Stich's opposition to dismissal, claiming a judge can do any act and not be responsible for the consequence. 

July 25, 2000. Stich files Request For Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. The intent of doing this was to make it more difficult for the judge to simply dismiss the defendant federal judges without stating a reason and without addressing the facts and the law that stripped the judges of self-imposed judicial immunity.

Dismissing Judicial Defendants
On Judicial Immunity Claim

July 26, 2000. U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., Reno, Nevada, signs an order dismissing all defendant federal judges from the lawsuit holding that the "judges are absolutely immune ... even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." Reed was upholding judicial anarchy. The allegations in the Amended Complaint, which under law must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceedings, charged the defendant federal judges as acting in a conspiracy to undermine the laws and Constitution of the United States, aiding and abetting criminal and subversive acts by blocking their reports, and engaging in other crimes. The complaint included such charges as federal judges:

• Acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as they rendered orders taking Stich's $10 million in assets−which had funded his investigative and exposure activities into high-level corruption in government.
   
• Blocking the reporting of criminal activities in government which Stich--a former federal agent and his group of government agents−sought to report to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. These obstruction of justice tactics violated various criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 3, and 4.
   
• Retaliated against Stich, a former federal agent and witness, for seeking to report the criminal activities in key government offices (as detailed in Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America). These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513.
   
• Engaged in long continuing conspiracy that violated large numbers of federal laws and constitutional protections as part of a long-continuing scheme to block the reporting of these criminal activities.
   
• And much more, revealing a literal judicial anarchy that has become the culture in the federal courts and is subverting the protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States, converting the courts into a corrupt arm of government, and which protects criminal activities in government. The sequence of these proceedings reveals a pattern of corruption in the federal courts that includes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and which is responsible for continuation of corrupt activities that have inflicted great harm upon the United States, the American people, and specific men and women.

August  4, 2000. Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the defendant federal judges, and second request for the judge to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law, as required by federal law. Alternate viewing with Adobe Acrobat Reader.

August 5, 2000. Motion to dismiss by a group of San Francisco attorneys to be dismissed from the lawsuit by a group of San Francisco area attorneys for bankruptcy court trustees, including attorneys who worked for and with infamous trustee Charles Duck, accused of the nation's worst trustee embezzlement, who liquidated much of Rodney Stich's $10 million in real estate assets. These attorneys included Lawrence Goldberg, Terrance C. Stinnet, Iam Macdonald, Merle C. Meyers, Melanie Darling, and the law firms of Goldberg, Stinnett, Meyers & Davis; and Goldberg, Stinnett, and Macdonald. 

California Attorney General
Protecting California Judges

August 10, 2000. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed motion  on behalf of the defendant California judges. The motion was filled with misstatements of law, misstatements of facts, withholding of key facts and law that would have altered the position he was taking. He did not deny any of the allegations Stich made in his lawsuit.

The California attorney general simply held that no matter what the judges did, they were totally immune from the consequences. Ironically, one of the defendants in the lawsuit was former California Court of Appeal judge Harry Low, who was selected by Governor Grey Davis to be the head of the California Department of Insurance.

Former California court of appeal judge Harry Low was being heralded for his alleged respect for the law and civil rights, when in reality he played a role in massive violations of these state and federal civil rights protections. He misused his judicial position and the courts as if they were a corrupt arm of government. The California judges repeatedly rendered orders that violated blocks of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, which were part of the obstruction of justice tactics involved in the sequence of legal actions taken to silence Stich. Low became criminally complicit in these civil and criminal obstruction of justice tactics―and in the catastrophic and deadly consequences that followed.  

August 15, 2000. Stich's opposition to motion by attorneys to be dismissed.

Discovery Right Repeatedly Denied

Stich served, again, a Request For Admissions to the above attorneys. They refused to answer the first set, each one claiming they did not receive the RFAs. Rather than seek a court order forcing them to answer, another set was sent to them on August 14, 2000. 

August 16, 2000. Order by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., denying Stich's motion for reconsideration, holding that federal judges are above the law, are totally immune from the consequences of the conduct stated in Stich's Amended Complaint.

August 23, 2000. Stich filed objection to the motion by California's attorney general to dismiss the California judges from the lawsuit. Attachment to that motion, to be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader, which lists many of the laws and constitutional protections that were repeatedly violated against Rodney Stich by California and federal judges in a continuing series of inter-related acts.

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 included the following:

• 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

Continuing the Series of Judicial Blocks

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.

9/11 Consequences Occurring
During  Lawsuit Reporting the Enablers

While the lawsuit was pending, the corruption involving each of the defendants became enablers to the hijacking of four airliners on September 11, 2001. If 9/11 and the 3,000 deaths had to occur, it couldn't have come at a better time while over a dozen defendants that played a role in the cover-up of the corruption made possible the terrorist successes.

Stich filed a declaration into that lawsuit, showing the relationship of the corruption Stich sought to report; and how the actions of the defendants, by their various obstruction-of-justice tactics, enabled this corruption to continue. The January 21, 2002, declaration: (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Showing contempt for the people who already perished, and those that will follow, made possible by his continuing cover-up, 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 Continued
Their Prior Blocks

The Ninth 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)

By this time the gravity of the obstruction of justice and the massive numbers of violations of state and federal laws that were part of the legal obstruction of justice schemes were so serious that every court of appeals judge supported the criminal and civil rights violations.  The judges in the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, who had repeatedly in the past blocked the reporting of the criminal activities, starting in 1974, refused to recognize the appeal briefs filed by Stich.

Request for admissions sent to defendant lawyers, California judges, and federal judges.