Filing Lawsuit Against
Federal Judges and Members of CongressThese lawsuits related to felony cover-ups of corruption by the judges and members of Congress.When former federal air safety agent Rodney Stich repeatedly encountered cover-ups when seeking to provide information and evidence of corruption relating to a series of fatal airline crashes (and other areas of corrupt activities) to members of Congress and federal judges, that fell within their area of responsibilities, he exercised rights provided by federal statutes. He filed lawsuits against several of the Senate and House members, and federal judges, seeking a court order requiring them to perform a mandatory duty and to halt their obstruction of justice conduct.
To understand the gravity of the issues, Stich was a federal air safety inspector when he first started contacting members of Congress. He had been assigned the primary responsibility for correcting the conditions that caused the worst series of airline crashes in the nation's history. Many crashes, and many deaths, occurred in his area of direct federal air safety responsibilities as a result of the deep-seated corruption and other problems. The corruption and the resulting crashes--and deaths--continued to occur as the checks and balances engaged in obstructing justice.
Also, keep in mind that the brutality of the aviation disasters of September 11, 2001, though on a much smaller scale, were being repeatedly witnessed by Stich in his immediate area of federal air safety responsibilities. The brutality of these events, arising from the arrogance and corruption that he and other federal inspectors had discovered, and the total cover-up of this relationship, caused him to exercise creative means to circumvent the blocks.
The corruption that Stich was seeking to report to members of Congress and to act upon created conditions that on September 11, 2001, insured the success of the 19 terrorist hijackers. These conditions included refusal by FAA management to order the simple and inexpensive measures that would have prevented the four groups of hijackers from hijacking the four airliners on September 11, would have prevented 40 years of prior hijackings, and would have prevented many other air disasters arising from known, from reported, and easily corrected safety problems or safety violations.
In addition to seeking a court order forcing these members of Congress to receive the information and evidence of corrupt activities in the FAA (and in other government entities), there is a section of the Civil Rights Act that makes a person financially liable if they know of civil rights violations being inflicted upon a person, and who have the power to prevent them, and if they refuse to take such actions. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 provides for this federal cause of action.
This cause of action arose on the basis that Justice Department personnel and federal judges were acting in unison, violating Stich's civil rights as part of the scheme to block his reporting of the criminal activities.
Making A Judicial Record
Another goal Stich sought with the filing of these lawsuits was to make a record of the charges and a record of the response. Probably never in the nation's history have lawsuits been filed against members of Congress claiming they were criminally covering up for criminal activities that were subverting major national interests, including national security. These include the criminal activities responsible for the conditions that enabled 19 hijackers to seize four airliners.
Lawsuits Against Members Of Congress
Two lawsuits were filed against members of the U.S. Senate and House. These members named as defendants in the lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia (No. 89-0170 SS) included Senators Edward Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ernest Hollings, Albert Gore, Pete Wilson; Representatives Joseph Biden, Jack Brooks, John Conyers, Harley Staggers, and Henry Gonzalez.
Another lawsuit was filed in the United States district court at Reno, Nevada (No. 89-85), in which one of the defendants was California representative Norman Mineta, who was on the House aviation committee. In 2001, after the aviation tragedies of September 11 in which his own cover-up helped make possible, he would be named by young President George Bush to head the Department of Transport5ation responsible for--would you believe--aviation safety.
Also named as defendants were Senator Alan Cranston and Representatives George Miller, Fortney Stark, Norman Mineta, Don Edwards, and Daniel Lundgren. (That lawsuit was assigned to former CIA legal counsel Stanley Sporkin, who was then a federal judge, and who is now a lawyer in Washington, D.C.)
Basis for Lawsuits Related to Air Disasters
The primary basis for these suits was (1) they knew of the corrupt and criminal activities in their area of oversight responsibilities, primarily the aviation area, and that they refused to perform their legal duty to receive evidence of such crimes; (2) that they knew of the civil rights violations inflicted upon Stich by Justice Department lawyers and federal judges in association with the misuse of these government entities to block the reporting of these crimes against the United States; and (3) to put into this information into a judicial record to show how subsequent tragedies were made possible by their felony cover-ups and obstruction of justice.
Defendant Members of Congress Did Not Deny Charges
In response to the filing of these actions, the Senate legal counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 27, 1989. The motion to dismiss admitted that the defendant senators and representatives knew of Stich's charges; knew of the consequences in air tragedies and the harms inflicted upon Stich. They did not deny the relationship between the misconduct and the deaths in the air tragedies listed in that lawsuit. They did not deny that they failed to take any actions to investigate the charges. Under federal pleading practice, the allegation in the complaint that are not denied are deemed admitted as true.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d): Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.
These matters would play a key role in the 3,000 deaths made possible by the documented corruption within the FAA. But by being part of an investigation into that tragedy, they simply became part of the standard damage control process.
Claiming Immunity for Their Obstruction of Justice
After these admissions, they then argued that they were immune from the consequences of their acts under the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. To put this response in perspective, picture an air disaster scene in which the crash and deaths were related to misconduct that they could have prevented. They were washing their hands of any guilt. Pictures of people leaping to their deaths from the World Trade Center, from two air disasters that would never have happened if they had exercised their responsibilities, provides an inkling of the consequences arising from their felony cover-ups.
Their response had serious implications. No longer could these members of the Senate and House argue they did not know of Stich's allegations or of the corruption related to a series of continuing air tragedies. All they could now argue was that regardless of their inactions, which made possible many of the deaths described within these pages, they could not be sued. The defendants' motion to dismiss stated in part:
This suit is barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1, of the Constitution, and (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Stich opposed the motion to dismiss by stating case law showing that the Speech or Debate Clause only related to actions taken on the floor of the Senate and House relating to passage or non-passage of legislation. Stich cited case law that held the clause did not protect illegal or unconstitutional conduct. Stich also argued controlling law that prohibited dismissal of lawsuits that state federal causes of action, and that the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true for the purpose of opposing dismissals. Further, that the court had a responsibility to receive the information of the criminal activities and to consider an order requiring the defendants to perform their legal duties. The law that was cited included:
Miller v. Transamerican Press, 709 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1983); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881); Eastland v. United XE "United Airlines" States Servicemen's Fund 421 U.S. 491, 502. (1975).
Motion to Destroy the Lawsuit Records
In addition to seeking dismissal before the matter could go to trial, the defendant senators and representatives requested that the judge remove all evidence from the court records that the lawsuit was ever filed. The intent of that motion was to protect the senators and representatives from consequences at a later date if the judicial records were examined by an inquisitive investigative reporter. (Such as an investigation into the aviation tragedies of September 11, 2001.)
In this way there would not be any evidence a lawsuit had been filed; that the defendants admitted the charges; and that they continued the cover-ups that would be involved in subsequent air disasters (and the consequences of other criminal activities that were also inflicting great harm upon national security).
There is no known legal procedure permitting removal of evidence of the filing of an action. These are public records, protected by the public's right to know. Their destruction would violate federal law. Further, federal law, including Rule of Civil Procedure 60, permits a party to file a motion, years later, to reinstate an action. This right, however, becomes valueless if the record is destroyed.
Even though Stich raised federal causes of action which under federal rules of court, case law, statutory law, and constitutional due process, prevented dismissal, U.S. District judge Stanley Sporkin rendered an order on May 8, 1989, granting the motion to dismiss, and to destroy all evidence of the filing:
On consideration of the motion of defendants to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, the entire record, and this court's opinion in this case, it is ORDERED that the defendants' motion be and hereby is granted and the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Sporkin was a former legal counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whose role in murky or corrupt activities is described in Defrauding America.
Stich immediately filed a notice of appeal of that order. (Appeal No. 89-00170.) The Senators and Representatives then filed a motion with the Court of Appeals requesting that the appeal be dismissed without allowing the appeal to go forward. The Court of Appeals judges promptly came to their rescue and granted the request. A copy of part of the Court of Appeals order follows:
United States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia
____________No. 89-5163
__________
Rodney F. StichAppellant
v.
Edward Kennedy, et al.,
Appellees
__________On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Columbia
__________
Motion of Senate Appellees For Summary Affirmance
The six Senators named as defendants in this action, Edward M. Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ernest F. Hollings, Albert Gore, Jr., Pete Wilson, and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., move for summary affirmance of the district court's order of May 8, 1989 (Tab A), dismissing the amended complaint in this case with prejudice.Statement
The plaintiff has had a longstanding grievance against the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"), which he has pursued through substantial prior litigation. In this lawsuit plaintiff alleges a "conspiracy" between the FAA and United Airlines "to violate federal air safety requirements, and obstruct government inspectors ("FAA inspectors") reporting and correction of the air safety felonies and misconduct which made possible the major air safety misconduct and numerous fatal crashes. Complaint, par. 9, at 5. He asserts that the "misconduct" of the NTSB "played a causative role in several other major airline disasters." Id., at 5. His grievances extend to members of the California courts, id., Par. 18, at 8, and federal judiciaries, id., par 22-26, at 9-12.
Plaintiff alleges that the congressional defendants "have responsibilities and the power to prevent and aid in the prevention, of violations of these rights and privileges which were inflicted against plaintiff." Id., par 6, at 3. He states that he "notified members of the Senate and the House of the constitutional violations, and submitted petitions under the First Amendment and other safeguards for relief." Id., § 27, at 12. He asserts that "defendants misused their positions of trust and power, refusing to provide the relief to prevent the violation of rights and privileges suffered by plaintiff," id., par 34, at 14, and that the defendants "actually joined the conspiracy by remaining silent," id., par 36, at 14.
In a Memorandum Opinion filed on March 29, 1989, (Tab B), the district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The court first held that the suit was barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, section 6, clause 1, of the Constitution, because "[t]he acts and omissions complained of by the plaintiff clearly fall within the legitimate legislative sphere protected by the Speech or Debate Clause." Memorandum Opinion at 3. The court also held that the action failed to state a claim under the First Amendment upon which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), because "[w]hile the plaintiff's right to petition Congress is guaranteed by the First Amendment, a member of Congress is not required to 'listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues.' Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 285 (1984)." Memorandum Opinion at 3.
Shortly before the court's dismissal of the action, plaintiff filed a "first amended complaint." Like the original complaint, the amended complaint alleged a conspiracy between the airline industry and the government's air safety regulatory bodies, Amended Complaint, par 3, at 3, and asserted that, notwithstanding his notification to the congressional defendants, id., par 35, at 17, they failed to act to prevent the violations, id, par 4, at 4, and "actually joined the conspiracy by remaining silent," id., par 42, at 19. On April 6, 1989, plaintiff moved to alter or amend the order dismissing his first complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), and on May 8, 1989, the court reaffirmed its earlier judgment and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court's May 8, 1989 order on May 19, 1989.
Another In Long Line Of Judicial Blocks
The Justices in the Court of Appeals identified the very serious issues raised in the complaint. They recognized the heavy loss of life associated with air tragedies that at least suggest a relationship between the misconduct and the crashes. They recognized that there had never been an examination of Stich's allegations, and that his constitutional and statutory right to due process had been repeatedly violated. They too recognized that the very least that could be done, that should be done, was to request appointment of a special prosecutor on the basis of government misconduct (as in Watergate and other investigations of government officials). It is the function of the United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia to make such appointment.
The federal judges dismissed the highly sensitive political scandal, knowing that their felony cover-up, obstruction of justice, misprision of felonies, would continue the tragic consequences that by now were well proven. Within a matter of years, a hijacked airliner, whose hijacking was made possible by the corruption in the FAA, was crashed into the nearby Pentagon.
Each of the wrongful judicial dismissals following the 1974, 1975, and 1980 lawsuits against the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board were followed by more crashes directly related to the misconduct, and followed by crashes that were probably related. None of the judges showed a single iota of concern. Their only concern was protecting the system of corrupt attorneys and judges in the Justice Department and closely aligned federal judiciary.
Addressing Cover-Ups by Media People
Stich used the same federal statutes and case law to address the news media cover-up that made possible many of the consequences arising from the corrupt and criminal activities, including those resulting in preventable air tragedies. Commencing in 1965, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and others, knew of the corruption, which they could have prevented by giving it publicity in any manner that they saw fit. Stich filed a federal action in the United States District Court at San Jose, California (Number C89 20262 WAI) naming these newspapers as defendants. The filing of this lawsuit also put on record the allegations against the defendant news media, and their response. This lawsuit was assigned to Judge Robert Aguilar.
Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department charged Aguilar with using his office as a racketeering enterprise to obstruct justice. The specific acts that Aguilar allegedly committed were peanuts compared to the crimes committed by the Justice Department attorneys who filed the criminal charges against Aguilar. Aguilar had rendered decisions unfavorable to the Justice Department, and many charged that the U.S. Attorney, Joseph Russoniello at San Francisco, and the Justice Department were retaliating. The lawsuit against the newspapers that threatened to blow the lid on the entire scandal was then removed from Aguilar and assigned to another judge.
The Wall Street Journal and its managing editor, Norman Pearlstein, filed a reply (June 15, 1989), requesting that the federal complaint be dismissed. They responded, as did members of Congress, that they knew of the charges; they did not dispute the relationship between the misconduct and the consequences; but that they were immune from liability, based upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argued that they did not have to print what any person requests them to print. But Stich wasn't requesting the news media to print what he wanted printed. He expected them to exercise their responsibilities under federal law to report federal air safety and criminal violations, as they had a responsibility under federal law to aid in the prevention of the civil, constitutional, and the criminal offenses, and the related air tragedies.
The press, and anyone else that had the ability to do so, had a responsibility under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 to aid in the preventing the civil rights violations being perpetrated against me as part of the scheme to block Stich's exposure activities. They had a responsibility under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, to bring the information of criminal activities to the attention of responsive law enforcement personnel, and they had a responsibility to their readers to make known the criminal activities that were inflicting great harm upon the lives of the people and upon national interests, including national security.
They had the responsibility to at least check the evidence. They had the responsibility to report the serious charges even if they had no information to determine their accuracy. However, Stich unusual background as a federal air safety agent and the massive amount of evidence that he had would have proven his serious charges. Even the filing of the lawsuits were newsworthy; not a single newspaper reported it. If they had exercised their multiple responsibilities, many air tragedies--and harm arising from the corruption described in Defrauding America and Drugging America--could have been prevented.
The Wall Street Journal argued that they should not be required to report the charges of criminal misconduct in the government's aviation safety offices and the relationship to an ongoing series of airline disasters. But it is obstruction of justice for any person to cover up for a federal crime. They implied that the liberal First Amendment freedoms given to the press eliminates any requirement to report government corruption. Actually, the greater immunity given to newspapers is based upon their willingness to report misconduct in government.
The responsibility of the media under the First Amendment was articulated in a Supreme Court decision relating to the Pentagon Papers and the New York Times publication of their content. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote n that decision:
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the Government from deceiving the people ... The New York Times, the Washington Post and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government ... the newspapers did precisely that which the founders hoped and trusted they would do.
The district judge dismissed the complaint against the newspapers, without a hearing, and despite the fact that numerous federal causes of action were stated, and that criminal misconduct was stated that would cause tragic consequences if not acted upon. Many tragic consequences did continue to occur, but none so massive and none given the publicity of those consequences occurring on September 11, 2001, and those that followed.
Stich didn't appeal the complaint. He accomplished the primary goal of making a judicial record of the news media's complicity and their responses. Despite the news worthiness of the lawsuit against these papers, none of them printed anything about the precedent-setting lawsuit and the serious implications in air tragedies.
The same laws that Stich relied upon to sue members of the Senate and House also applied to the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had repeatedly covered up for the pattern of criminal behavior by federal judges, including the judicial cover-ups by blocking Stich reporting of the criminal and subversive activities. Even the Supreme Court justices had a legal responsibility under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 to receive the reports, which they repeatedly refused to do, including the reports in 2002 after the latest consequences of the misconduct and the cover-ups. These were criminal acts.
Like a police chief protecting rampant criminal behavior of police officers committed against citizens, the Supreme Court Justices protected the criminal behavior of those over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. Because of their positions of trust, the Justices were guiltier of criminal acts for such crimes as misprision of felonies, cover-up.
The involvement of these people and entities in crimes against the United States and its people insures that the public will never be told of these matters.
In 2006, another cycle of media attention on the massive corruption in Congress, the covert and overt bribing of members of Congress and other misconduct. But these acts, serious as they were, were only the tip of the iceberg. The 40-year pattern of recorded cover-ups by members of Congress, described at this site, enabled to occur great harm to hundreds of thousands of people, subverting government institutions, and success of terrorist acts against the United States.
Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links.