PO Box 10587
Reno, NV 89510
Telephone: 775-786-9191
Plaintiffs in pro se





















Case No.: CV-N-00-00152-ECR (PHA)

Request For Reconsideration of This Court’s
Order Refusing To Provide A Declaratory
Judgment Addressing the Void Orders
Rendered By Defendants Jones and Jellen
Seizing Plaintiff’s Properties, Businesses,

Home, and Assets

For the record, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of this court’s order filed on October 20, 2000, which refused to address and which refused to provide due process remedies to Plaintiff’s motion for a declaratory judgment under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. That legal procedure sought to apply rights and protections under controlling U.S. Supreme Court decisions and other legal and constitutional rights to declare the orders rendered by defendant Chapter 11 Judge Robert Jones and Edward Jellen, that seized Plaintiff’s life assets, to be void orders.

Plaintiff filed a motion for such declarations on October 4, 2000. This court denied the motion, claiming the defendant federal judges had been dismissed. Their dismissal has no legal bearing on Plaintiff’s rights under the Declaratory Judgment Act or this court’s responsibilities to perform a duty under the Declaratory Judgment Act and to correct a gross miscarriage of justice and gross violation of constitutional due process.

This request for reconsideration is based upon Plaintiff’s October 4, 2000 motion, upon this request for reconsideration, upon Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, upon the attached exhibit, Defrauding America, and other filings by Plaintiff.

On October 20, 2000, this court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a declaratory judgment with the following wording:

It is hereby ordered that motion for declaratory judgment (#51) filed on September 7, 2000, by plaintiff is denied. This action has been dismissed against the same defendant Bunting by an order of the court.

A citizen’s legislated right, and this court’s mandatory responsibilities, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether defendant Judge Bunting is still a defendant in this lawsuit. The fact that this court improperly dismissed defendant Bunting from this lawsuit by holding him above the law is an outrageous misuse of judicial position and of this court. However, this court still has a responsibility, and to this date this court has violated every single one of these responsibilities.

This court dismissed the judge who issued the order taking Plaintiff’s personal and property rights while violating large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. The legislated responsibility of this court under the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot be usurped by a federal judge on the basis that he dismissed a state judge who rendered a void order violating personal and property rights previously adjudicated and established in seven prior judgments and which had been recognized for 20 years prior to a renegade short-time state judge, acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, and violating blocks of California and federal laws and constitutional protections, and violating rights recognized in prior states of residence.

Plaintiff briefly refers to the facts already stated in his motion for declaratory judgment:

· He was divorced in a bilateral consent divorce proceeding that adjudicated all personal and property rights associated with the divorce, and a final divorce judgment was rendered on January 31, 1966. Neither party had any relationship to the state of California.

· Thereafter, each party declared themselves divorced, and each party purchased and sold real estate declaring themselves divorced, and recognized as such in hundreds of title insurance policies.

· As Plaintiff changed his residence from time to time, he had the 1966 divorce judgment entered as a local judgment in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.

· After exercising Plaintiff’s constitutional right to change residence to California without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights, and property rights acquired while a resident of another state, the defendant law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross filed a cause of action against Plaintiff, claiming he was married to defendant Emma Stich residing in Texas, that she wanted a termination of that marriage, that she wanted spousal support, and claimed half of Plaintiff’s personal and corporate assets were community property.

· The lawsuit sought to relitigate the exercise of jurisdiction by the divorce court of 20 years earlier, claiming that Plaintiff, who was the plaintiff in that 1965-1966 divorce action, did not intend to reside permanently in that court’s ju4risdiction and therefore that court lacked jurisdiction to render the divorce judgment. That preposterous argument had been held unconstitutional 50 years earlier in landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions and subsequently barred by state statutes and rules of court.

· Over 36 California statutes and Rules of Court deprived California judges, including short-time California judge Dennis Bunting who rendered the order fraudulently claiming that he was terminating an existing marriage.

· The attached list, Exhibit "A," is a list of California and federal law that was violated by every defendant California judge and violated by defendant Bunting when he rendered the order taking Plaintiff’s personal and property rights.

An Existing Controversy Exists

There exists a major controversy for which Congress has legislated a right, and a duty for federal judges to render a declaratory judgment under such conditions. That duty is under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and specifically Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. That duty, and that right, does not depend on whether this court wrongfully dismisses as a defendant the judge issuing the wrongful order. The decision can be based upon the records, being the seven divorce judgments established Plaintiff’s personal and property rights as of January 31, 1966, or the September 28, 1988 judgment rendered by a state judge knowingly acting without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction and violating large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, otherwise known as major civil right violations perpetrated under color of state law.

The Sordid Rest of the Story

As detailed in Plaintiff’s various books, including the third edition of Unfriendly Skies and to a lesser extent in the third edition of Defrauding America, there was a reason for the unprecedented number of civil and constitutional violations and the bizarre lawsuit filed by a law firm with connections to the Central Intelligence Agency. Plaintiff, a former federal agent in a very responsible air safety position that was associated with a series of fatal airline crashes, sought to provide evidence and promote the exposure of corrupt and criminal acts in key government offices, including the courts. Plaintiff’s assets, consisting of over $10 million in real estate, funded these exposure activities.

That sham lawsuit targeted these assets, and the evidence shows how the defendants listed in Plaintiff’s lawsuit acted in unison to destroy these assets.


Based upon the actions by the judge of this court, it is obvious that every wrongful acts perpetrated by the defendants is being protected in this court. The issues are not confined to what was done to the Plaintiff through a racketeering enterprise and corrupt misuse of the courts. Major national issues are involved, including internal security, the rule of law, the continued viability of our form of government, and hard-core corruption in key government offices, and especially in the federal courts.

It is obvious this court will continue the prior conduct. Plaintiff again requests findings of facts and conclusions of law.

Dated: October 28, 2000.

                                                Rodney F. Stich
                                                Defendant in pro se

Attached Exhibit "A"—list of violated state and federal law and constitutional protections associated with the September 28, 1988 judgment rendered by defendant Bunting.

Free books. For a listing of the books written by former government insiders on the continuing history of corrupt activities responsible for a continuing series of human tragedies, and to download at no charge segments of each of the books, click here.

These books are now the latest attempt by a coterie of lawyers and judges seeking to remove from public availability the books that expose their own complicity in the many areas of corrupt activities.

Email address for the author and activist against corruption in government:

For more information relating to the author and his activities put "Rodney Stich" into a search engine such as Google or The links run into many tens of thousands.

Consider placing orders for any product from through the following links. There is no extra cost or delay in doing this, while it provides us a small commission to help fund this site and our public-spirited efforts.




Return to:




Viagra online available in various online pharmacies can be adopted to get back the normal sexual health once more at any age. Generic cialis is also a drug which is highly adopted for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. This drug unlike any online pharmacy other similar drug does not affect blood pressure of the patient under any circumstances and thus highly appreciated.