New Page 1

The long series of corrupt acts by federal judges commenced with federal judges blocking reports of criminal activities related to several major airline disasters, which were being reported to a federal court under the mandatory requirement of the federal crime reporting statute. Federal judges have a mandatory responsibility as part of their administrative duties to receive information on a federal crime reported by anyone. Blocking such report would be a felony.

By blocking these reports by a former key government agent enabled the corrupt activities to continue, along with the deadly consequences that had been occurring for many years. The same federal judges responsible for the continuation of the corrupt practices were then complicit in the related deaths, creating an even worse scenario.

The former federal agent, Rodney Stich, then used his considerable assets to fund activities circumventing the blocks in government offices, in an attempt to inform the public and motivate people to help bring about corrective actions. These activities included publishing books, appearing as guest and expert on hundreds of radio and television shows, and giving lectures, traveling around the United States. The second of several editions of Unfriendly Skies listed the names of federal judges who blocked the reporting of the criminal activities and the resulting airline disasters.

The publicity surrounding Stich 's activities caused a steady stream of other former and current government agents to provide Stich with information and evidence of corruption in other government offices that were inflicting great harm upon national security and other national issues, and upon the lives of countless numbers of people.

As required by the federal crime reporting statute, and his right as a citizen to seek a court order to have the corruption in government offices halted, Stich filed a lawsuit in the U.S. district court at Sacramento, California, which was assigned to U.S. district judge Milton Schwartz. During the first court appearance, Schwartz acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and urged Stich to obtain legal assistance. (Lawyers admitted to Stich that it would be the end of their legal career if they became involved.) Suddenly, a week later, Schwartz entered an order dismissing the lawsuit and entering an order permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in court. That order violated civil due process rights and violated criminal statutes, blocking the reports of criminal activities and implicating Judge Schwartz in felony obstruction of justice.

As information of other ongoing criminal activities were made known to Stich, he again sought to report these federal crimes under the two statutes requiring and permitting such reports in federal courts. Justice Department prosecutors and federal judges then charged Stich with criminal contempt of court for filing papers in federal court when the prior order barred him from doing so. Stich was denied a jury trial and sentenced to federal prison.

After the events of 9-11, lawsuits were filed seeking to report the corrupt conditions that created the conditions enabling the hijackers to seize four airliners. In every instance, the judicial obstruction of justice continued. One was filed in the U.S. district court at Washington, D.C. (MS Word) (Adobe pdf); and another filed in the U.S. district court at New York City (MS Word) (Adobe pdf) where most of the 9-11 lawsuits had been filed. The cover-ups continued, despite the catastrophic consequences and despite the future consequences enabled by the felony cover-ups.

One reason for the escalating felony cover-ups by federal judges was to protect the misconduct by prior judges.

The actions by federal judges blocking the reporting of criminal activities are well documented, and prima facie evidence of these felonies can be found in court records, some of them described in the books written by the former federal agent.

Combining Record-Setting Criminal Offenses with
Record-Setting Civil and Constitutional Violations

Concurrent with federal judges blocking the reports of the criminal activities, a sham lawsuit was filed against Stich by a CIA-front law firm (Friedman, Sloan and Ross, San Francisco) that targeted the assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. That lawsuit was barred by, and violated, dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, and required California judges to promptly dismiss the lawsuit. They refused to do so, and ordered Stich to pay thousands of dollars in financial sanctions for exercising state defenses to halt the personal and financial harm arising from the violations.

The violation of any one of the dozens of state and federal laws, occurring in a state court, invokes federal defenses for which federal judges have a mandatory duty to provide relief. The first of several federal lawsuits were filed seeking to halt the great and irreparable harm arising from the violations perpetrated by California judges working in unison with the CIA-front law firm.

Federal judges then duplicated and enlarged upon the tactics used by California judges to protect the scheme by the CIA-front law firm. The tactics included prompt dismissal of every lawsuit, often before the defendants were served; placing a frivolous label on issues that were the very opposite of frivolous; misusing the courts and judicial positions to ensure the success of a criminal conspiracy to block the exposure of widespread criminal activities in government positions. The following are some of the violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections directly perpetrated, or aided and abetted, by a list of federal judges from coast to coast. Ironically, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were repeatedly implicated in these offenses against Stich and against the United States itself.

Repeated Violations of Criminal and Civil Rights Laws
During Attempts to Silence Whistleblower

· Repeated violations of substantive due process and procedural due process rights and protections, as further outlined below.

· Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983-1988) to halt the documented and unprecedented numbers of judicially inflicted civil and constitutional violations.

· Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343, right to court access and relief for violations of civil and constitutional rights.

· Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, requires federal judges to exercise their duty when a civil action is filed that arises under the laws or Constitution of the United States. This would include Stich’s original causes of actions under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act which then expanded to include the Bivens doctrine, civil RICO, and the requirement to exercise administrative duties to receive evidence of criminal activities under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and the right to report these offenses under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

· Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, providing for full faith and credit recognition of Plaintiff’s personal and property rights established in seven judgments, which were taken from Plaintiff).

· Article IV, § 1, in the U.S. Constitution that requires full faith and credit recognition of Plaintiff’s personal and property rights.

· Article IV, § 2, the right to travel without having state judges take previously adjudicated personal and property rights and property rights acquired prior to exercising the constitution right to change residence.. This protection was violated by California and by federal judges.

· Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, which was repeatedly violated by the defendant California judges and aided and abetted by federal judges.

· Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause, as Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process was repeatedly violated by the defendant California judges.

· Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause was repeatedly violated by denying to Plaintiff the same rights and protections available to other citizens.

· Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, which was repeatedly denied to Plaintiff.

· Fourteenth Amendment property rights, which were repeatedly violated and taken.

· Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests. Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 43; Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416; Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969).

o Due process, which was repeatedly and totally violated through a 20-year span, as clearly shown in judicial records.

o Taking of property, which occurred initially as federal judges aided and abetted the taking of property in the California courts that were established in seven judgments being violated by California judges, and then the taking of Stich’s property (his home, his businesses, his assets) by federal judges without the legal and constitutional requirement of a notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally cause. The property was just taken, as in a third world despotic dictatorship, and then unlawful and unconstitutional orders issued barring Stich from the due process right to object. This taking of property included the taking of Stich’s sole source of income at an age of 70 years, when he could no longer have the time to acquire what had just been taken by correct judges.

o Taking of liberty, by sentencing Stich to federal prison for six months, including six weeks of solitary confinement, in retaliation for having exercised constitutional due process to defend against record setting violations of state and federal laws and the U.S. Constitution that were inflicting grave personal and financial harm. Liberty rights have been construed by the Supreme Court as the right to marry, the right to divorce, the right to the protection of law recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness, the right to privacy, the right to basic liberties.

o Equal protection, by denying to Stich the same rights and protections that other citizens experience and as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.

35) Refused to recognize the absence of personal and absence of subject matter jurisdiction under the Family Law Act.

36) Repeatedly refused to issue mandatory findings of facts and conclusions of law when timely requested. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 632^[xxxvii] and 634.^[xxxviii] Rule 23.^[xxxix]

37) Appeal briefs were repeatedly dismissed by California appellate judges without addressing the issues.

38) California court of appeal judges retaliated against Stich for exercising due process remedies, a criminal offense under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.^[xl]

39) Each subsequent judge, including federal district and appellate judges, repeatedly violated their duty to halt the violations of Stich’s civil rights, violating, inter alia, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986.^[xli]

41) Article IV, § 1^[xliii] (Full Faith and Credit Clause), requires recognition of the personal and property rights in the California divorce judgment, its entry for recognition as local judgments in the courts of Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas.

42) Fourteenth Amendment^[xliv] due process, equal protection, property, liberty, and freedom rights, by denying to Stich due process, equal protection, and the protections of California and federal law.

43) Privileges and Immunity Clause rights under Article IV, § 2,^[xlv] and under the 14th Amendment (depriving right to obtain divorce on universally recognized residence basis, and right to change residence).

44) The right to unabridged interstate travel,^[xlvi] under the Commerce Clause, without losing rights and privileges acquired in prior jurisdictions of residence.

45) Violated rights established in U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring recognition of prior divorce judgments and adjudicated personal and property rights, and rights acquired as a divorced person in prior states of residence:

a) Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment or personal and property rights adjudicated therein).

b) Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378 (prohibited state judge from attacking prior divorce judgments and rights adjudicated in the judgment).

c) Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment).

d) Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment).

e) Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541 (prohibiting state judge from voiding prior divorce judgment).

f) Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969) (prohibiting state judge from voiding personal and property rights adjudicated in foreign country judgment and refusal to recognize one day residence as basis for exercising jurisdiction or recognizing validity of judgment and adjudicated personal and property rights).

ENDNOTES

[i]. Rule 1230. Motion to Quash Proceeding. (a) Within the time permitted to file a response, the respondent may move to quash the proceeding, in whole or in part, for any of the following: (2) That there is a prior judgment .... between the same parties for the same cause.

[ii]. Rule 1234. Motion to Quash Summons. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, a respondent may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service of summons upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or a notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

[iii]. Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10. Defendant May Serve and File Notice of Motion to Quash Service of Summons or to Stay or Dismiss Action--Time Limit--Grounds--Conditions--Default.

(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his time to plead or within such further time as the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion either or both:

(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him.

[iv]. Rule 1201. Definitions. (c) "Proceeding" means a proceeding pursuant to the Family law Act for dissolution of
marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation.

[v]. Rule 1211. Parties to Proceeding. (a) ... the only persons permitted to be parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife.

[vi]. Rule 1212. Other Causes of Action. Neither party to the proceeding may assert against the other party or any other person any cause of action or claim for relief other than for the relief provided in these rules or the Family Law Act.

[vii]. Attacks upon prior divorce judgments could be made under the California declaratory judgment statute, but state and federal law required recognition of the prior judgments. The reason for labeling the action a dissolution of marriage action probably arose from the need to immediately block Stich's assess to his funds on the argument that these were community properties.

[viii]. Rule 1215. Pleadings. (b) The only pleadings permitted by a petitioner is the petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281.

[ix]. Rule 1222. Commencement of Proceeding. A party who seeks a judicial determination altering his marital status pursuant to the Family Law Act shall complete and file in the superior court a petition in the form prescribed by Rule 1281.

[x]. Rule 1229. Motion to Strike. (a) Neither the petition or the response shall contain any matter not specifically required by Rule 1281 or Rule 1282, respectively. AT the request of either party, upon noticed motion, or on the court's own motion, any matter not so required may be stricken by the court or otherwise disregarded by it.

Rule 1281, being the Family Law Form petition, and Rule 1282, being the response, provides no provision for the cause of action or claim for relief raised by petitioner, or the relief that she requested. Her petition relies upon matters specifically prohibited by 1229 and 1281, attacking the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court, that had already been recognized as local judgments in six different jurisdictions within the United States. To make the cause of action even more preposterous, the attack on the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1966 divorce court was based on the argument that Stich did not intend to reside permanently in that court’s jurisdiction, something held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940s and 1950s.

[xi]. Rule of Court 1230 Motion to Quash Proceeding. (a)(2) That there is a prior judgment or another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

Civil Code Section 4356. Special Appearance During Pendency of Motion. (a) During the time a motion pursuant to Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending, the respondent may appear in opposition to an order made during the pendency of this part and the appearance shall not be deemed a general appearance by the respondent.

[xii]. Rule 1234. Motion to Quash Summons. In a proceeding under the Family Law Act, a respondent may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service of summons upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or a notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate under the circumstances and in the manner provided by Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

[xiii]. Rule 1239. Motion to Quash Responsive Relief. (a) Within 15 days after the filing of the response, the petitioner may move to quash, in whole or in part, any request for affirmative relief in the response for any of the following: (1) Respondent’s lack of legal capacity to sue. (2) That there is a prior judgment or another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. (3) That the residence required by Civil Code Section 4530 is lacking. ... (b) The notice of motion to quash pursuant to this rule shall specify a hearing date not more than 20 days from the date of filing such notice. (c) A notice of motion to quash pursuant to this rule shall distinctly specify the ground upon which the motion is based. Unless it does so, the motion may be disregarded by the court. (d) When a motion to quash pursuant to this rule is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter must be specified in the motion or in the supporting memorandum of points and authorities for the purpose of invoking such notice except as the court may otherwise permit.

[xiv]. Rule 1281 Petition for Dissolution of Marriage Form. Form clearly shows that the causes of action are limited to "proceedings," as defined by Rule of Court 1201(c), to termination of an existing marriage, legal separation from an existing marriage, or nullity of marriage. There is no provision on the form to attack prior judgments, or previously adjudicated personal or property rights.

[xv]. Rule 1282 Response Form This form limits the response that can be made, and the responses are limited to those issues stated on the form. Any other response is prohibited. Therefore, appellant could not make a response to the legally prohibited causes of action stated in the Rule 1281 petition form.

[xvi]. Civil Code 4351. Jurisdiction of Superior Court. In proceedings under this part, the superior court has jurisdiction to inquire into and render any judgment and make such orders as are appropriate concerning the status of the marriage, the custody and support of minor children of the marriage and children for whom support is authorized ... [Requires a marriage for jurisdiction.]

[xvii]. Civil Code 4503. Petition for Dissolution-Forms, Contents, and Service. A proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or for legal separation shall be commenced by filing in the Superior Court a petition entitled, “In re the marriage of ____________ and ________________” which shall state whether it is a petition for the dissolution of the marriage or a legal separation. A copy of the petition together with a copy of a summons in form and content approved by the Judicial Council shall be served upon the other party to the marriage in the same manner as service off papers in civil actions generally.

[xviii]. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against relitigating, and bars collateral attack being prior divorce judgments.]

[xix]. Civil Code § 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

[xx]. Civil Code § 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk--Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.

[xxi]. Code of Civil Procedure § 1699: Upon registration the registered foreign support orders shall be treated in the same manner as a support order issued by a court of this state.

[xxii]. Code of Civil Procedure § 1713.1. Foreign State and Foreign Judgment Defined. As used in this chapter: (1) “Foreign state “ means any governmental unit other than the United States, or any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (2) “Foreign judgment” means any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine, or other penalty, or a judgment for support in matrimonial or family matters.

[xxiii]. Under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1713.1 (2) defines a "foreign judgment" as "any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money. The foreign judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit, ...

[xxiv]. Code of Civil Procedure Code § 1908. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment. (a) The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive between the parties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.]

[xxv]. Code of Civil Procedure § 1910. Parties Concluded by Judgment. The parties are deemed to be the same when those between whom the evidence is offered were on opposite sides in the former case, and a judgment or other determination could in that case have been made between them alone, though other parties were joined with both or either.

[xxvi]. The registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in courts of California, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas invokes the protection of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, and the statutory embodiment of that clause in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1913 (as well as Civil Code Section 5004). California Code of Civil Procedure section 1913. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment of Sister State:

The effect of a judicial record of a sister state is the same in this state as in the state where it was made, except that it can only be enforced here by an action or special proceeding ....

The protection of this statute is extended to foreign country judgments by California Civil Code § 5164; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1653(j), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1913, and 1915.

The full faith and credit clause is statutorily embodied in California Civil Code § 5004.

Section 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements. The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Section 5004 reinforces similar protection in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1908 and 1913.

[xxvii]. Civil Code § 1915. A final judgment of any tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction, according to the laws of such country, to pronounce the judgment, shall have the same effect as final judgments rendered in this state.

[xxviii]. Civil Code § 5004. Full Faith and Credit Requirements.

The application of this title is limited by the requirement of the Constitution of the United States that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

[xxix]. Civil Code Section 4554. Effect of final judgment Entry of the final judgment shall constitute a final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the status of the marriage and property rights and shall constitute a waiver of their respective rights to spousal support, rights to appeal, and rights to move for a new trial. [Note: This section of the Family Law Act provides protection against the relitigation and collateral attack being prior divorce judgments.]

[xxx]. Civil Code Section 5164. Filing of Custody Decree of Another State With superior Court Clerk--Expenses of Enforcing Decree. (a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any superior court of this state. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as a custody decree of the superior court of this state. A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.

[xxxi]. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1713.3. Conclusiveness of Foreign Judgment:

"A foreign judgment ... is conclusive between the parties ..." (This protection is extended to foreign country judgments by Code of Civil Procedure § 1653(j), 1713.1, 1908, 1913, 1915; Civil Code § 5164; California Civil Code section 5164 provides that the registration of the 1966 divorce judgment with the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, and Superior Court, Solano County, shall provide not only the same recognition and protection against collateral attacks and relitigation (See e.g., Civil Code Section 4554) as is granted to California divorce judgments, but also enforcement of the judgments: A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.

[xxxii]. Code of Civil Procedure Code § 1908. Conclusiveness and Effect of Judgment.

(a) The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state [is] ... conclusive between the parties..... [extended to foreign country judgments by Civil Code Sections 5172, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1653(j), 1713.3.]

[xxxiii]. Evidence Code § 622: Recitals in Written Instruments. The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest;

[xxxiv]. Evidence Code § 665. Ordinary Consequences of Voluntary Act Intended. "A person is presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act."

The protection of the quasi estoppel doctrine is further provided by the common law Quasi estoppel doctrine, as articulated in controlling federal law, and in California decisional law, including inter alia, In re Shank's Estate (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 888: [O]ur courts have recognized another species of estoppel, called 'quasi-estoppel,' which is based upon the principle that one cannot blow hot and cold ....

[xxxv]. Conclusive presumption that the prior court acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction protects appellant against the sole basis stated in the May 10, 1983 decision refusing appellant's motion to quash:

Evidence Code § 666: Judicial Action Lawful Exercise of Jurisdiction. [A]ny court of this state ... or ... any other nation ... is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction ... when the act ... is under collateral attack.

[xxxvi]. Civil Code Section 5102. Separate Property Interest. Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the separate property of the other, ...

[xxxvii]. Code of Civil Procedure § 632. Statement of Decision. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. The statement of decision shall be in writing unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise.

[xxxviii]. Code of Civil Procedure § 634. No Inference That Trial Court Decided in Favor of Prevailing Party. When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or if the statement is ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was brought to the attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal or upon a motion under Section 657 or 663 that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to those facts or on that issue.

[xxxix]. Rule 23, Findings and Additional Evidence on Appeal. (A) Request for findings. A request that the reviewing court make findings of fact shall contain a draft of the proposed findings, and may be made in a brief, or a separate application may be served and filed. If opposing counsel has not had an opportunity in his brief to object to the request, he may serve and file written opposition thereto.

[xl]. 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 having so exercised the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... 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. [1988 amended reading]"

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 ..."

[xli]. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 U.S.C. § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

[xlii]. Title 28 United States Code § 1738: full faith and credit. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession ... Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such states ... from which they are taken.

[xliii]. Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

[xliv]. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

[xlv]. Article IV, § 2. Interstate Privileges of Citizens. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

[xlvi]. In United States v. Guest (1966) 383 U.S. 745, the Supreme Court held: “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another [occupies] a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.”

The constitutional right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated or acquired personal and property rights has been held to arise under (a) the privileges and immunities clause of Article 4, § 2 of the Constitution; (b) privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (c) Article 1, § 8, clause 18 of the Constitution; (d) Ninth Amendment, in that the power to deal with violations of the right of interstate travel was "delegated to the United States by the Constitution; (e) the power to interfere with this right was not "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; (f) position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union and a basic right under the constitution. (See e.g., Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) 400 US 112, 27 L Ed 2d 272, 91 S Ct 260; Slaughter House Cases (1872, US), 16 Wall 36, 21 L Ed 394;

List of Documented Impeachable Acts of Federal JudgesRelated to Great Harm to National Security

ENDNOTES

List of Documented Impeachable Acts of Federal Judges
Related to Great Harm to National Security