Sampling of letters and filings with Justices of Supreme Court, revealing corrupt and criminal activities.

<body> Matters to Keep in Mind In looking at the charges made in federal lawsuits it is important to remember several things: Federal law requires that the allegations made in the Complaint must be accept as true to determine if a federal cause of action had been stated. Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)("For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true.”) If a federal cause of action had been stated, federal judges must provide a the Plaintiff the right to a court hearing, and relief if the charges are established. That federal crime reporting statute requires that federal judges receive any offer of information or evidence of a federal crime, and that this requirement for the judge is under his or her administrative duties rather than judicial duties. Therefore, a judge must received the information. The great number of federal filings over the past 30 years was due to, and justified by, for instance: The repeated, endless, numbers of violations of federally protected rights in orders rendered by California and federal judges in the various parallel legal schemes, from 1982 to the present, for which federal remedies are provided, go into the hundreds. The number of attempts to report criminal activities to a federal judge, as required by the federal crime reporting statute, was based on the enormous amount of information provided to Stich by his many government sources, plus what Stich himself discovered as a federal agent. The numbers of lives being lost as a result of the criminal activities, the great harm to people in the various areas affected by the corruption, and the threats to national security, required more than a simple one-time effort. Supreme Court Justices' Supporting Corruption in Government, By Decisions and By Judicial Records Ruling that whistleblowers--government employees reporting corrupt or criminal activities in government can be retaliated against by their superiors--often the ones guilty of the misconduct. This decision was stated in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (May 30, 2006, SC # 04-473) In that 5 to 4 decision, it took only one justice to strip a person exposing corruption in government office of constitutional protection. Ceballos was a prosecutor in the Los Angeles County and write a memo stating that a country sheriff deputy lied in a search warrant affidavit. In retaliation, he was demoted and denied a promotion. Justice Anthony Kennedy, and four other justices, stated in that decision stripping those who report corruption in government of protection, stated: We reject the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. Supervisors must ensure that their employee' official communications ... promote the employer's mission. But Ceballos was not merely expressing an opinion; he was reporting a criminal act of a county sheriff deputy as part of his investigative duties. An editorial in the Las Vegas Sun (June 1, 2006) stated: The ruling was seen as the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's political shift toward statism--a willingness to defer to the convenience and prerogatives of those who run government agencies--following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Samuel Alito. A year ago, Justice O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistle-blowers to report sex discrimination in schools. But on Tuesday, her replacement joined in the slim majority. Parrot the party line, or get busted back to proverbial foot patrol? So the "mission" of the Los Angeles County prosecutor's office is to present a uniform and reassuring face to the public--not to investigate possible police misconduct? Critics predict the ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos could have a sweeping impact for the nation's 20 million government employees, silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption. Of course a thorough probe into charges of official malfeasance [or criminal!]] will tend to be "inflammatory"--and to inflame public outrage and demands for reform. That's Bad? Justice Kennedy's Conduct in 9th Circuit: And Tragic Consequences In the late 1980s, while Justice Kennedy was a federal court of appeal judge in San Francisco waiting to take his position as Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, former federal agent Rodney Stich filed a petition for emergency relief with him. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) That petition raised matters of grave important for the United States, with ripple effects far beyond what a superficial examination shows. It even had ripples that made 9/11 possible, and this is not hyperbole! (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The petition stated, for instance: That former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report corrupt and criminal activities in government offices and covert government operations that he and a group of other former government agents had discovered during their professional and official duties with the federal government. That the reports were attempted to be made to federal judges under the requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and that federal judges had blocked the reports. That federal judges had a mandatory duty to receive reports of federal crimes under their administrative duties rather than their judicial duties, and that they had obstructed justice in refusing to receive the reports. That serious harm has resulted, and would continue to occur, from the criminal acts that the former agents had sought to report--and from the obstruction of justice arising from the misconduct of the federal judges. That federal judges (Milton Schwartz and Marilyn Petal at that time) had issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring former federal agent Rodney Stich from filing any papers in any federal court for the remainder of his life. That these orders knowingly blocked Stich from reporting criminal activities that he and a group of former government agents had discovered in government offices and government operations, and (b) prevented Stich from exercising federal defenses against the parallel massive civil rights violations that were inflicting great personal and financial harm upon the former federal agent. That after Stich sought to report additional criminal activities that he and his group of former federal agents had discovered, that federal judges and Department of Justice prosecutors had charged former federal agent Rodney Stich with criminal contempt of court for having filed papers in the federal courts attempting to report the criminal activities. That the former federal agent, at the age of 67, had been sentenced to six months in federal prison on a criminal contempt of court charge for attempting to report corrupt and criminal activities in several government agencies (FAA, NTSB, FBI, and CIA) that had fatal and other consequences and which would continue to have such consequences. The most notable--if the facts are analyzed and the ripple effects understood--would include the conditions that constituted the primary areas of blame for the successful hijackings of four airliners on 9/11; and the secondary area of blame for the poor intelligence and failure to act on known intelligence. The petition sought to obtain a stay of the prison sentence; a hearing to return to him the civil and constitutional rights and defenses taken from him by the unlawful orders; an opportunity to present to him, or any other federal judge, under the mandatory crime reporting statute, information and evidence of corrupt and criminal activities. Judge Kennedy denied each of these requests. Eighteen years later, he wrote the Supreme Court decision that further showed his protection of corrupt and criminal activities in government offices with the Ceballos decision. How Has Justice Kennedy's Actions Affected the Lives of Americans? The most catastrophic ripple effect requires that a number of issues described in these pages and in the books be understood. To understand the worst of the catastrophic consequences, something more than superficial attention must be made to the corruption Stich sought to report; the ripple effects of the corruption, which is almost never addressed; and then the mechanics of how four groups of terrorists were able to hijack four airliners on September 11, 2001. Let's try: Pattern of Obstruction of Justice and Approving Parallel Massive Judicial Retaliation Letters were sent to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court for the past 20 years seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4), reporting the pattern of obstruction of justice by federal justices over whom they had supervisory responsibilities, reporting the misuse of judicial positions and the federal courts in a pattern of civil and constitutions violations that were part of the judicial tactics to block the reporting of serious criminal activities that Stich and his group of other federal agents sought to report. In every case, Supreme Court Justices refused to respond (with the exception of Supreme Court Justice White). This refusal made possible the continued criminal misuse of the courts, the cover-ups of criminal and even subversive activities, and the continued harm inflicted upon the United States and many innocent people. In later letters, after it was obvious there would be no response, Stich's intent was to make a record showing that the Justices had been informed of corrupt and criminal activities affecting national security and the involvement of large numbers of federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities and vicarious liability. The first in a series of cover-ups by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when former federal aviation safety agent Rodney Stich filed federal lawsuits seeking to circumvent the numerous blocks he encountered at every level in government offices. The heavy death toll in preventable airline crashes arising from the deep pattern of corruption in the government's aviation safety offices--enabled by cover-ups and indifference--caused Stich to use the law in a creative manner. Eventually, he again sought to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute commencing in 1986 after starting to receive information and evidence from an increasing number of other former and present government agents. Concurrent with these filings lawyers and law firms started filing sham lawsuits against him to strip him of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities. Only One Justice Favorable Response in 30 Years Letter from U.S. Supreme Court justice Byron R. White (October 28, 1991) in response to report of corrupt activities in government and in the federal courts, implying the seriousness of Stich's allegations but stating that as a single justice--without the cooperation of other justices--"I can be of no help to you." Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court do not send personal letters to any of the thousands of letters or briefs filed in the court. It appeared that he would have liked to help but would contradict the block repeatedly placed by the other Supreme Court justices. The year 2004: · Letter to Justice Rehnquist, January 30, 2004 (with copies to every other Justice), describing the actions by judges in the Second Circuit district and appellate courts at New York City blocking the reporting of criminal activities, some of which constituted the primary blame for the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners on September 11, 2001. The documented obstruction of justice was closely interwoven with major violations of federal due process requirements. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Those letters, and their documentary support, charge federal judges with a series of major felonies that include blocking reports by government insiders of crimes against the United States associated with the events of 9-11, felony retaliation against a former government agent seeking to report the crimes, obstruction of justice, all of which played major roles in causing or allowing the conditions to exist that led to the immediate murders of 3,000 people and catastrophic peripheral consequences. The year 2003: · Letter to Justice Rehnquist, October 21, 2003. This letter was an extensive description of the criminal activities, the felony cover-ups by federal judges, and the sham legal actions that violated large numbers of federally protected rights for which federal remedies existed, which were denied to me by federal judges. The significance of the sham lawsuits was dual efforts to halt Stich's exposure activities by stripping him of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities. Note: Every letter sent to Chief Justice William Rehnquist had copies sent to each of the other Justices. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Similar letter to Justice Ginsburg and all other justices. · Letter to Rehnquist February 6, 2003. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The Year 2002: · Letter to Rehnquist December 16, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Justice Scalia, October 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Rehnquist October 14, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Justice Thomas May 3, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Petition to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dated May 1, 2002. The primary issues in the petition were the massive civil and constitutional violations being inflicted upon Stich by a CIA-front law firm and the aiding and abetting by federal judges. The petition included details of how federal judges were blocking the reporting of criminal activities, and listed some of the criminal activities for which Stich and his group of other former government agents had discovered and sought to report. Justice Thomas refused to provide any relief, thereby aiding and abetting the criminal activities, some of which played key roles enabling the events of September 11, 2001, thereby insuring a continuation of the years of deja vu tragedies. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Rehnquist January 2, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Year 2001: · Petition to U.S. Supreme Court dated June 5, 2001. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letters to Chief Justice Rehnquist and each of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (April 11, 2001). (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, January 15, 2001, describing the corruption in the lower federal courts, their obstruction of justice tactics, their felony retaliation against the former federal agent seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. This letter was a follow-up to an emergency petition submitted to Justice Thomas. No response. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, February 8, 2001 Petition for emergency relief. The purpose of this petition was to report to a federal court the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4), to report the obstruction of justice actions by federal judges who were blocking the reporting of federal crimes to a federal court, and to report the retaliation by federal judges for attempting to make these reports. These judicial acts played a role in the misconduct that insured the success of the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings. No response. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Petition to Supreme Court Justice Thomas, February 15, 2001. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, January 15, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petition for emergency relief February 8, 2001 to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (MSWord) (Adobe PDF) · Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, January 5, 2001, under the authority of Supreme Court Rule 12 and Rule 22 providing for application to an individual Justice, and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, January 2, 2001 with copies to all other justices. The letter described documented misconduct by federal judges, including their blocking of reports of criminal activities, retaliating against the former federal agent for seeking to report the criminal activities, and the civil rights violations that were part of the scheme initiated by a CIA related law firm in San Francisco (Friedman, Sloan and Ross) to block Stich's reporting of the criminal activities Stich discovered within the FAA and other government offices. No response. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Year 2000: · Letter to clerk Suter, U.S. Supreme Court, December 12, 2000. (Word) (Adobe pdf) · Petition for writ of certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court submitted on November 10, 2000, under Supreme Court rule 12, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. No response. The court never responded to this petition and never filed it, despite the legal requirement to do so. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Petition for emergency relief, October 20, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Letter to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, March 16, 2000, with similar information. No response. (MS Word) (Adobe {DF) The year 1998: · Letter to Supreme Court clerk Suter, August 23, 1998. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) (html) The year 1997: · Letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, clerk, William K. Sutter, (August 24, 1997) making reference to his role in refusing to file a petition for writ of certiorari which would have made a judicial record of certain major segments of the judicial and other corruption which Stich and his group of government agents had discovered, including the pattern of CIA drug trafficking into the United States, the Justice Department retaliation against Stich and his coalition for seeking to report these criminal acts, and the role of federal judges in these actions. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) · Petition to Supreme Court dated August 15, 1997, which sought to report patterns of criminal activities, as defined in Stich's books, the third editions of Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America, and Drugging America. This filing would have made a Supreme Court record of these matters, with distribution of the 81-filed book-format copies distributed to law libraries throughout the United States. This petition met all requirements for filing. Instead, its filing was blocked, a tactic that was used frequently by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they blocked the reporting of criminal activities in government offices and the felony obstruction of justice and retaliation by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. Denied. (MS Word) ((Adobe PDF) The year 1994: · Petition to U.S. Supreme Court seeking relief from the judicial seizure of $10 million in assets that funded exposure of the corruption in government offices. This August 15, 1994, petition addressed the seizure of the assets while violating the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legally recognized cause for seizure. The violations were further compounded by judicial orders barring Stich from filing objections, and then when he did file objections, they were unlawfully unfiled and Judge Edward Jellen (Oakland) charged him with criminal contempt of court. This was followed by denial of a jury trial and then a sentence to federal prison for filing objections to the property seizure. Ninth Circuit appellant judges upheld these acts, as did justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) The year 1991: · March 4, 1991, Petition for emergency relief to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking relief from the continuation of criminal contempt of court charges for attempting to report criminal activities to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute (and for exercising federal due process remedies against massive violations of state and federal laws initiated by a CIA-front law firm). From 1986 to 1995, a succession of criminal contempt of court charges confined Stich to his home pending trial for attempting to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. Relief denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court that were filed, reporting the criminal activities related to a series of aviation disasters and other harm affecting national security, and combined with efforts to obtain relief from the parallel massive civil rights violations intended to halt the exposure of corrupt and criminal activities by people in key government positions. But each was denied a hearing, making possible the continuation and expansion of corruption and even worst aviation disasters. From these seemingly remote wrongdoings, the "butterfly effect" was felt on September 11, 2001, in a catastrophic manner that no one recognized. Federal law requires that Supreme Court justices reply to a filing submitted, even if it is denied. Supreme Court Rule 22.6: "The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application." Following their prior practice, many submissions were never acknowledged. To do so would have made a record of the fact that the Justices were made aware of the very serious charges and did nothing about them. Additional letters and legal filings, going back to 1978, will be uploaded as time permits. Sham Excuses to Block Reports and Deny Due Process Some of the Supreme Court refusals were based on such excuses as the double spacing placed on the lines by the word processing program allegedly did not meet Supreme Court requirements, or the filings were late (which was not correct), or simply no response. To insure that the Justices were aware of the serious allegations, Stich sent one copy to each of the Justices, often by certified mail to make a record of such submission. Consequences Made Possible by Justices' Misconduct The Supreme Court pattern of documented misconduct were not simply matters of academic interest. Starting with the Supreme Court misconduct in the 1970s, the cover-ups and obstruction of justice made possible the continuation of Trojan horse type of criminal activities their consequences, as described in the books written by former federal agent Rodney Stich with input from his many government sources. Unprecedented Lawsuit Against Justices of U.S. Supreme Court A federal lawsuit was filed against the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of their cover-ups and complicity with other federal judges. The statements in that lawsuit, and their response, reveal that they were fully aware of the charges of criminal activities, the consequences, for which they claimed judicial immunity. Although this sounds bizarre, the law existed that permitted that, and the consequences of the cover-ups of the criminal activities that Stich and his group of other former government agents sought to report, and the great harm affecting the lives of many people, and also harm to national security, justified the filings. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) Miscellaneous Letters Sent to Federal Judges Another list of letters sent to federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. Conduct of Supreme Court Justices And Their Decisions Affects Everyone The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court affects then lives of all Americans, either directly or indirectly. Obviously, the integrity, the honesty, the absence of corrupt actions of any or all of the Supreme Court justices would adversely affect the decisions that affect the heart of America, its institutions, and the constitutional rights and protections. Often times it is the vote of a single justice that grants, or takes away, previously recognized rights, protections, and freedoms. Among the many decisions by justices of the U.S. Supreme court are the following examples: Busing of students. The ruling by Supreme Court justices, resulted in millions of Americans being bused to far-off schools to satisfy the holding that schools must contain a given percentage of different races. No such requirement existed in the U.S. Constitution, but this "requirement" was read into it by the majority of the justices. Nor did it exist in the lives of the framers of the Constitution, or for two centuries after the signing. Younger people today do not know of the prior constitutional protection and assume that the argument is correct. Elimination of the right of association. For two centuries after the signing of the Constitution people had the right to associate with who they wished, exercising the natural inclination to associate with people of similar interests, habits, religions, level of lawfulness. But this changed when legislation and Supreme Court justices ruled this right to be unconstitutional and unlawful, subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment if exercised. Private property can be seized by government agencies. That 2006 An decision held that a local or state government can seize a person's property and resold to another non-government person or corporation to use for another purpose. When the particulars of the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices is understood, and the corruption in the CIA and FBI, it can be understood how the Justices' involvement in covering up for these crimes made possible the continuation of the conditions that in only one-day's consequences resulted in 3,000 deaths on 9/11. Justices Not As Pure As the PR Indicates One of many newspaper articles showing Supreme Court justices receiving favors that would affect their conduct was the following article in a New York Times editorial (January 27, 2006), showing the Justices engaging in the same conduct as the lobbyist, Abramoff and members of Congress. Titled, Justice and Junkets" the article stated: Justice Antonin Scalia certainly has poor judgment when it comes to vacations. Justice Scalia was apparently unchastened by the criticism of his 2004 duck-hunting excursion with Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the term's most prominent Supreme Court litigants. Last September, he skipped the swearing-in of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. because of another ethically dubious trip, this time to the posh Ritz-Carlton at the Beaver Creek ski resort in Colorado. He was there to teach a 10-hour seminar over a couple of days for a conservative group, the Federalist Society. "Nightline" recently reported that the gig left Justice Scalia plenty of time for tennis, fly-fishing and socializing with the group's members, some of whom have business before the Supreme Court. One Federal Society cocktail reception was sponsored in part by the lobbying and law firm that used to employ Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay's convicted pal and benefactor for golf vacations. Justice Scalia's travel is part of a broader affliction on the federal bench. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004, for example, that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts in recent years, including an $800 leather jacket, a $1,200 set of tires from Nascar and an extravagant vacation from a conservative activist. Federal judges below the Supreme Court level accept dozens of free vacations each year from well-heeled special interests under the guise of "judicial education." The judicial lobbying problem is more serious in one respect than the scandal enveloping Congress. Lawmakers operate in an overtly political environment, but the decision-making process of judges is supposed to be impermeable to clever efforts by special interests to buy access and favor. Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. New Page 1 RETURN TO TOP </body>