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) This petition raised the misconduct that later that years enabled terrorists to hijack four airliners on September 11, 2001.
 

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 PDF)    

The year 1997:

Letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, clerk, William K. Sutter, (August 23, 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 1995:
 

Letter to Supreme Court clerk Suter, January 12, 1995. (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)

Posting of Initial Denials Followed by Refusing to Address the Filing

In the first series of lawsuits relating to the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices filed for everyone to see their refusal to hear the cases−that documented in widely publicized judicial records the Justices' obstruction of justice actions.

Thereafter, on petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court that were properly filed, reporting the criminal activities related to a series of aviation disasters and other harmful activities,  each submission sent with a filing fee was denied a hearing, eliminating making a widely publicized record of their role in aiding and abetting these serious matters.

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.

Excuses by Supreme Court Clerk

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In January 2010, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion that overturned years of Supreme Court decisions barring corporations from using unlimited funds to buy members of Congress, a decision condemned by four other Supreme Court Justices, many members of Congress, and other experts on buying of legislation.

How Has Justice Kennedy's Actions
Affected the Lives of Americans?

The most catastrophic ripple effect requires that a number of issues described inthese 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.

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 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 documented facts relating to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would constitute felonies under various criminal statutes, including for instance:

The Gravity of the Crimes and Consequences Justified
Unusual Actions to Protect National Interests

Very few areas of corruption would justify anyone continuing to put up such a David vs. Goliath fight in light of the almost total breakdown in the institutions of the United States, the cover-ups by virtually every government and non-government check and balance, and almost total impossibility of motivating the American people to show some sense of duty and courage.

One of many actions Stich took, primarily to force attention to the matter (before realizing that media people and media corporations would never allow the public to find out about these matters), was to file a lawsuit against the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The charges of misconduct were straight forward and documented. Department of Justice lawyers−themselves long involved in the sordid misconduct−filed for immediate dismissal, stating that the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were totally immune from lawsuits. Immune from criminal cover-ups and complicity? Obviously, the action was dismissed, and media groups that examine all federal court filings continue their long history of cover-ups. the public never learned about these serious matters. It appears that in such countries as Pakistan, in 2009, the public had the backbone and courage to protest when corruption existed in the courts.