Legal Index to judicial corruption and the tragedies arising from the corruption.

<body> Sequence of Judicial Conduct to Halt Reporting Corruption in Government Offices The first in a series of federal lawsuits seeking to report deep-seat corruption in the government's aviation safety offices--closely linked to a series of aviation disasters, occurred in the early 1980s.These were filed under the authority of the federal crime reporting statute and the statute permitting any citizen to seek a court order requiring a federal official to perform a legal duty and halt unlawful conduct. Although federal district and appellate judges admitted the gravity of the charges, they refused to allow the information to be provided and dismissed the lawsuits. Last Attempt Before September 11, 2001 The last attempt to report these criminal activities to a federal court--prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. district court, Reno, Nevada. That lawsuit sought to report criminal activities that were inflicting great harm in numerous areas of national security and national interest, including the misconduct that caused the conditions to exist that encouraged and enabled four groups of hijackers to seize four airliners on 9/11. That lawsuit also exercised federal remedies to defend against the massive violations of state and federal laws associated with the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm. Named as defendants were lawyers, law firms, and California and federal judges, all acting in unison knowing that their misconduct was blocking the reporting and correction of corrupt activities that had left a trail of death and destruction in its wake. (HTML) (Word) (Adobe PDF) Continuing years of judicial gridlock, the federal judge blocked the reports by dismissing the lawsuit. The dismissal violated federal criminal statutes and civil due process. Post 9/11 Federal Lawsuits Seeking to Report Related to 9/11 A federal lawsuit was filed after 9/11 seeking to report the corrupt activities responsible for the conditions that enabled hijackers to seize four airliners on that fateful day. That lawsuit was submitted for filing to the U.S. district court at New York City on August 18, 2002. Although federal law requires filing of lawsuits upon receipt if the filing fee is paid, it was blocked from being filed for over 12 months. (Word) (Adobe) Before Stich was notified of its filing, Chief Judge Mukasey issued an order of dismissal, which blocked the reporting of the criminal activities that enabled hijackers to seize four airliners. Stich then filed a notice of appeal on October 20, 2003. (Word) (Adobe PDF) Explosive Ramifications in Court of Appeal Brief Appeal brief submitted to the U.S. district court in New York on January 5, 2004, which has explosive ramifications not only on the misconduct in the three branches of government that enabled hijackers to seize four airliners on September 11, 2001, but the other areas and other aviation disasters caused or enabled by the same deep-seated misconduct. (Word format) (Adobe pdf format) That appeal brief was received by the court on January 7, 2004--but not filed as required. During a telephone conversation with a clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals on January 21, 2004, the clerk stated to Rodney Stich that the appeal brief had not been filed, which duplicated the blocking action previously taken place in the U.S. district court--which delayed the filing of the lawsuit for 13 months. In response to this non-filing, Stich wrote a letter to Chief Judge John Walker, dated January 21, 2004, complaining about this latest tactic, with copies sent to each of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Word format) (Adobe pdf format) That letter outlined the pattern of criminal activities by federal judges, the links to the events of September 11, 2001. That letter contained extremely explosive information, with explanation of how the judicial coverups played enabling roles in the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11. In response to that letter, the court then filed the brief on January 29, 2004, but placing a file-stamped date on it of January 7, 2004, which was the date placed on the envelope mailed to Stich. The reason for the delay can only be speculated, but with the involvement of the Supreme Court justices, they probably played a role in these highly suspicious actions. Justice Department Lawyers Continuing Obstruction of Justice The scheduling order required the Justice Department lawyers--the same office seeking to put Martha Stewart in prison for selling stock allegedly after receiving a tip that someone else was selling (as most stock holders would have also done). There may be some contradiction in seeking to put a woman in prison for such a minor matter while the same prosecutors were continuing to obstruct justice as they had for many years related to the criminal and subversive activities that they knew existed that implicated key government personnel and politicians. Their Appellee brief would have to continue this coverup practice. The brief by Justice Department lawyers that the court's briefing schedule stated had to be filed by February 12, 2004, was not filed. No filing extension was requested, and none was granted. Stich then submitted for filing an Appellant Declaration of Filing Irregularities, dated February 23, 2004, with a copy to the U.S. attorney in New York. (Word format) (Adobe pdf format) That submission for filing was also blocked by the court of appeal judges. Consequences of Judicial Block in New York Courts Most of the 9/11 lawsuits seeking to determine the legal blame for the events of 9/11 have been filed in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York. This is the court where two of the top judges have blocked reports of the corrupt activities that enabled four groups of hijackers to seize four airliners. By blocking these reports these same federal judges: Deprive the victims' families of the truth behind the deaths of their family members. Deprive defendants in 9/11 lawsuits of evidence showing the reckless misconduct by others, as highlighted here, created the conditions that encouraged and enabled the hijackers to seize four airliners. Without these offenses, there would be no 9/11 litigation. Deprive plaintiffs the information to show that the people primarily responsible for the deaths and property damage arising from the catastrophic events of 9/11. Ensure the continuation of the deep-seated misconduct in certain government offices, and the decades of deja vu catastrophic consequences. Similar Obstruction of Justice in Washington Courts An earlier federal lawsuit was filed in the U.S. district court at Washington, D.C., seeking to report federal crimes under the federal crime reporting statute, some of which played key roles in the events of 9/11. The lawsuit also exercised federal remedies seeking relief from the massive violations of law that were part of the scheme to halt Stich's reporting of criminal activities. In violation of law, including the crime reporting statute, Judge Henry Kennedy dismissed the lawsuit immediately after filing, preventing the reporting of the criminal activities and continuing the dual judicial practices of blocking the reports and blocking federal remedies for the massive violations of federally protected rights. A notice of appeal was then filed, which three court of appeal judges refused to recognize, holding that in 1991 Judge Sporkin (former CIA legal counsel) issued an order permanently barring Stich from district and appellate courts. It was this pattern of judicial misconduct that the corruption existed, that created the conditions enabling four groups of hijackers to seize four airliners on 9/11. Another view of the pre/911 and post/911 tactics by federal judges blocking the reporting of corruption in government offices that enabled 19 hijackers to seize four airliners. Examining in Reverse Why 9/11 Occurred Examining documented facts in reverse, starting from the events of 9/11, reveals a level or arrogance, duplicity, and criminal acts that have been implicated in decades of continuing harm upon national security issues and the lives of the people harmed by the misconduct--and the coverups: The terrorists seizure of four airliners on 9/11 was made possible by corruption in the government's aviation safety offices that created the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners. This corruption blocked the simple and inexpensive preventative measures that federal inspectors had been reporting for years, that would have halted the decades of airliner hijackings, for which the authority and responsibility to perform. Blaming "intelligence failures" for not discovering the plans by a close-knit group of hijackers appears to be a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the primary blame. Coverups by members of Congress. Members of Congress had been repeatedly notified of the corruption by government insiders, including former federal agent Rodney Stich. During a lawsuit filed against certain members of Congress addressing their felony coverups, they admitted knowing of the charges of criminal misconduct and related consequences and of doing nothing in response, claiming they were immune from the consequences. The Butterfly Effect and 9/11 From seemingly remote acts by people in the government's aviation safety offices, misconduct in the offices responsible for intelligence, coverups, and retaliation against whistleblowers, the "butterfly effect" made possible catastrophic consequences for years, including on September 11, 2001. An outsider could not be expected to understand how corrupt people in the government's aviation safety offices, blocking the known preventative measures to block hijackers, could result in 3,000 deaths and the peripheral consequences from those hijackings. Nor could an outsider recognize the catastrophic consequences made possible by federal judges blocking the reporting of corrupt actions by key people in government offices. Or the outcome from misusing judicial power to harm the one former government agent who continued his efforts t report and halt the corrupt activities. Another name for the "butterfly effect" is the well-known "blowback effect," a term that should be household words in the United States where the blowback effect of corrupt and covert activities by America's politicians and CIA operations has been repeatedly catastrophic--but not recognized. Continuing Complicity by Supreme Court Justices Also playing key roles in the misconduct, the coverups, the retaliation, and the consequences, were Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. They had supervisory responsibilities over the judges blocking reports of criminal activities, the judges inflicting harm upon Stich to halt his exposure activities, and the judges who converted Stich to a literal man without a country by terminating his civil and constitutional protections. Further, Supreme Court Justices also refused to receive reports of the criminal activities that they had a responsibility to receive under the federal crime reporting statute. They violated many federal statutes by their misconduct. If they had exercised their moral and legal responsibilities, it is probable that the events of 9/11 would never have happened. The evidence against the Justices includes: Petitions and letters were repeatedly sent to Supreme Court Justices notifying them of these corrupt activities, many of which were within their immediate areas of legal responsibilities. Documented records showed the involvement of Supreme Court Justices in these sordid activities. The roles of federal judges have grave implications for the United States and the system of law. Partial list of letters and petitions to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court show a history of involvement by the Justices in cover-ups, obstruction of justice, and violations of civil rights. Petition for writ of certiorari submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 11, 2000 (one of many) that continued updating the Supreme Court justices of the corrupt and criminal activities in government and judicial offices, including those that later made possible the events of 9/11. The charges in that petition included: Pattern of blocking the reports of criminal activities that government agents discovered in government offices and obstruction of justice by federal judges over whom the Justices had supervisory responsibilities. Pattern of judicial and Justice Department retaliation against Stich for attempting to make these reports of criminal activities. These retaliatory acts were felonies under federal criminal statutes. The Justices were covering up for the criminal activities. Evidence of massive civil and constitutional violations in schemes to halt Stich's exposure activities, with concurrent aiding and abetting by federal judges and repeated violations of federal defenses against such offenses. The Supreme Court justices blocked the filing of that petition, which they had done on other occasions, despite the fact that the filing fee was submitted and the papers met the legal filing requirements. Certified letter dated January 2, 2001, was sent to each of the Supreme Court justices that detailed the pattern of judicial misconduct in Ninth Circuit federal courts, including obstruction of justice, widespread due process violations, misusing the courts to inflict great harm upon former government agents and whistleblowers. The aiding and abetting of these acts by Supreme Court justices raises many serious questions. (HTML) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) May 2002 Petition submitted for filing with Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas. The filing was refused, but Justice Thomas received a copy of the petition and knew its contents. Criminal Statutes Repeatedly Violated by Federal Judges The criminal activities that federal judges repeatedly blocked from being reported were being reported to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4). That statute requires a federal judge to receive the information and any evidence as part of his administrative duties. Blocking the reports would be criminal acts combined with violations of other criminal statutes, including: Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 35. A party who conveys false information, knowing it to be false, knowing an attempt or alleged attempt being made that would be a crime under Chapter 97 or 111, which pertain to aircraft and motor vehicles. Title 18 U.S.C. § 111. Impeding certain officers or employees. Whoever ... intimidates, or interferes with any person ... while engaged in ... the performance of his official duties shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... Title 18 U.S.C. § 153. Embezzlement by trustee or officer. Whoever knowingly and fraudulently appropriates to his own use, embezzles, spends, or transfers any property or secretes or destroys any document belonging to the estate of a debtor which came into his charge as trustee ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his so exercised the same, ... they shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... Title 18 U.S.C § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; (check if this has been applied against a group, such as whistleblowers). Title 18 U.S.C § 246. Deprivation of relief benefits. Whoever directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... Title 18 U.S.C. § 372. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer. If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States top leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Frauds and swindles. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, ..... places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited ...., shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Title 18 U.S.C § 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally. (a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, ... on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant--(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to --(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding: shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for--(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision. (a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section-(1) the term "official proceeding" means-(A) A proceeding before a judge or court of the United States. (2) the term "physical force" means physical action against another, and includes confinement; (3) the term "misleading conduct" means-(A) knowingly making a false statement; (B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement; (C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity; (D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or (E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead; Other legal definitions pertain to the conduct of federal judges. Other links to federal laws violated by federal judges (HTML), and civil and constitutional, all perpetrated knowing that they were involved in schemes to block the reports of criminal and subversive activities. Prima Facie Evidence of Criminal Acts by Federal Judges The existence of criminal acts arising from the documented blocking of the reports by former federal agent Rodney Stich, or retaliating against him when he tried to make the reports, does not require a determination of the truthfulness of the charges Stich sought to make. The judicial blocks to the reports were criminal acts per se. The harms inflicted upon Stich when he tried to report the criminal activities were also judicially recorded, constituting criminal acts per se. Starting with recognizing why hijackers were successful on 9/11, the serious problems in the government's aviation safety offices and to a lesser extent the problems in the intelligence offices, both areas which Stich sought to expose, it becomes obvious that federal judges have a major blame for the deaths and destruction occurring on that fateful day. List of federal judges and justices implicated in federal crimes and their catastrophic consequences, and their documented blocking of reports of criminal activities and their documented infliction of great and irreparable personal and financial harm to halt these reports. Among the Various Reasons for the Judicial Obstruction of Justice Many reasons exist for the series of judicial crimes. But after federal judges blocked the initial attempts to expose the corruption related to a continuing series of fraud-related airline crashes they had to continue their coverup actions to keep their prior misconduct from being exposed. Then, when Stich started publicizing the judicial misconduct in his books and on radio and television shows, it is very probable that the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm was to financially destroy Stich and thereby halt his expensive exposure activities. Once that sham lawsuit started, it became necessary for federal judges to compound their obstruction of justice with repeated violations of state and federal laws that Stich relied upon to defend against the multiple sham lawsuits. Although the judicial cover-ups and obstruction of justice enabled the continuation of great harm associated with the underlying corruption, the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, made possible by the corruption the judges were protecting, created an even greater threat--and the importance of further blocking Stich's exposure activities. Also, many other people besides federal judges were implicated in the coverups, including members of Congress, Justice Department personnel, much of the media, and those perpetrating by underlying criminal activities (such as drug smuggling, bankruptcy court corruption, illegal funding of Iraq's arms buildup, and much more). The continuing misconduct by federal judges, including those in the district and appellate courts of New York and Washington, D.C., protected all of these implicated people. Complicity of Lawyers and Law Firms The complicity of lawyers and law firms in these patters of misconduct are detailed in the various books, commencing with their cover-up misconduct within the government's aviation safety offices. They then are shown as being heavily implicated in the sham legal actions paralleling the judicial obstruction of justice to halt Stich's exposure activities. They are revealed as covering up the corruption in government related to the 9/11 lawsuits. The patterns of complicity by lawyers who sham lawsuits and violations of state and federal laws knowingly impeded and sought to destroy the ability to report the criminal activities formed the basis for lawsuits. Lawsuit were filed against California and federal judges, and attorneys, on the basis of their repeated violations of state and federal laws, initially with the CIA-front law firm, all of which were intended, and did, block the reporting of the criminal activities while federal judges were blocking. The lawsuit also sought to report the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute that Stich and his group had discovered. (Word) (Adobe PDF) (HTML) That lawsuit was based upon: Repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutions, under color of state law, thereby violating Stich's civil rights for which federal remedies exist under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986), and other federal statutes. Repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutions under color of federal law, thereby violating Stich's civil rights for which federal remedies exist under Bivens. Repeated violations of civil RICO, for which federal remedies exist under the RICO act. And other federal causes of actions. These lawsuits, if allowed to continue, threatened to expose the schemes to block the reporting of major criminal activities. They were repeatedly blocked by federal judges, protecting their accomplices in the multiple schemes to halt Stich's exposure activities. In every instance, federal judges blocked the start of discovery that would have exposed the actions by the cooperating lawyers and law firms, including the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco) and its lawyers. Lawsuits Filed Against Members of Congress Based on Coverups Two lawsuits were filed in in the early 1990s against members of Congress on the basis of their felony cover-ups of the corruption that Stich and a group of other government agents had discovered. More information information on these lawsuits appears elsewhere on this Internet site. The purposes of the lawsuit were to: Seek a court order requiring the members of Congress to receive information on the criminal activities as required by all federal officers under the federal crime reporting statute. To create a record showing that they had been notified of the federal crimes and that they blocked the reports, constituting obstruction of justice and other felonies. To create a record of their response to the lawsuit. To report the federal crimes to that court. Lawsuit Filed Against Supreme Court Justices On Basic of Corruption The basis and purposes of the lawsuit were to: Seek a court order requiring the Justice to perform their legal duties with response to receiving the reports of criminal activities. To act as legally required to halt the obstruction of justice and related massive violations of civil due process by judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. To receive evidence of the criminal activities. To make a record that they knew of these crimes and that they covered up for them, committing felonies in the process. Hard Evidence to Attack Endemic Judicial Corruption Never before have so many tools to fight judicial and legal corruption been available to inform and arose the anger of good people capable of showing outrage and doing something about it. If this material is used by enough people significant reduction in the judicial and legal corruption can be brought about. This material, if properly used, can: Inform the public of the harm inflicted upon national interests by corrupt judges and other members of the the legal fraternity. Bring about legislation making judges financially liable to those people greatly harmed by corrupt judges. Reveal how judges in the federal and state judicial systems secretly work in unison to destroy anyone exposing the judicial corruption, and how the legal fraternity, including the ACLU, protects this corrupt relationship. Discover how corrupt Justice Department lawyers are promoted to federal judgeships to act as gatekeepers protecting judicial corruption. Bring about a system of checks and means to collect financial damages from corrupt judges, who have been protecting themselves through self-serving case law judicial immunity known throughout the legal community, but with none with the integrity and courage to fight it. Pry open the lid on the cancerous spread of corrupt and criminal activities from corrupt judges that is spreading throughout government and throughout society. Tactics used to Block Reports of Criminal Activities, Including Those Conditions Primarily Responsible for the successful hijackings of four airliners on 9/11: Block the reports of criminal activities throughout government offices. Charged Stich with criminal contempt of court when he filed federal actions seeking to report these crimes. While in prison, entering orders seizing and liquidating his life's assets, including his home, his businesses, his sole source of income--and the assets that funded his exposure activities. Repeatedly refused to render required findings of facts and conclusions of law to support the unlawful. Repeatedly order Stich to pay financial sanctions for exercising the responsibility to report federal crimes and for exercising federal defenses against the violations of federally protected rights. Repeatedly dismiss every defendant in Stich's lawsuits to protect the participants in the schemes to block his reports. Repeatedly order Stich to pay financial sanctions to the lawyers and law firms (and State of California) involved in violating Stich's civil rights. These included the CIA-front law firm, California judges who rendered orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction while concurrently violating dozens of California statutes and rules of court and federal laws. Repeatedly violate the same federal laws and Constitutional protections that they were paid and entrusted to uphold. Repeatedly block Stich's discovery motions against the defendant lawyers and judges, which otherwise would have required them to admit their massive violations of state and federal laws and involvement in the scheme with the CIA-front law firm. Repeatedly refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing Stich's personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments, a right that exists to this date. This federal remedy is provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and falls within the mandatory duty of federal judges. If that right had been exercised at the very beginning, it would have halted the sham lawsuit by the CIA-front law firm. Repeatedly refuse to order a halt to the continuing violations of state and federal laws for which civil rights defenses exist under federal law. Repeatedly refuse to address the unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from federal courts, which strips him of the protections against the multitude of sham lawsuits filed by lawyers and law firms and converting Stich into a man without a country legal status. Obviously, a powerful source in government orchestrated this pattern of criminal activities that ignored the catastrophic consequences upon national security and other national interest. Only speculation can address the source. Web Sites and Books on Related Corruption Discovered by Government Insiders Chronology of decades of corrupt activities by the CIA, U.S. politicians, and other members of the system, as described in the book, Defrauding America. Chronology of the arrogant and corrupt war on drugs--against the American people--as described in the book, Drugging America. Chronology of arrogant and corrupt activities in the deadly politics of aviation safety, as described in the book, Unfriendly Skies. Chronology of covert and corrupt activities in which the American people suffered the consequences of blowback, as described in the e-book, Blowback, 9/11, and Cover-ups. Story of a CIA operation based in Honolulu and its titular head, who was made a scapegoat by CIA and Justice Department personnel and a federal judge, after its cover was blown, and as described in the e-book, Disavow. Site focusing on terrorism against America from Trojan-horse insiders and from outsiders, as described in the e-book, Terrorism Against America. List of print and e-books, some of which are available at no charge. Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for amazon.com items through our links. Thank you. Consider making your purchases of any item sold by or through amazon.com by going through the following links. This adds nothing to the cost, and helps fund out continuing efforts to expose corruption in the three branches of government. </body>