Rodney F. Stich
PO Box 10587
Reno, NV 89510
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RODNEY F. STICH, WESTERN
DIABLO ENTERPRISES, INC.
ESTELLE C. MANNIS, KENT L. MANNIS,
Motion For Reconsideration, or
Alter and Amend Judgment
Points and Authorities
Order Dismissing All Federal
Judicial Defendants On Alleged
Absolute Judicial Immunity
Second Request For Findings
Of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. Plaintiff requests reconsideration of this court's order filed on July 26, 2000, and entered on July 27, 2000, which granted the motion to dismiss for the defendant federal judges. This court stated and implied its order that judges have absolute immunity from the conduct described in plaintiff''s Amended Complaint. The dismissal order stated:
The Federal Judges have absolute immunity. Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Moreover, judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 or Bivens liability even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. The acts complained of by plaintiffs were not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or non judicial in nature. An act is not in clear absence of all jurisdiction if within the jurisdiction of the particular court of that judge. An act is judicial if it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity.
2. This request for reconsideration is based upon the facts stated in plaintiff's Amended Complaint, plaintiff's prior opposition to the motion to dismiss, and plaintiff's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Starting Off This Lawsuit With Misstatements of Facts and Law
3. This court's order dismissing the defendant federal judges incorrectly stated, "The acts complained of by plaintiffs were not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or non judicial in nature." The allegations in plaintiff's Amended Complaint clearly stated the very opposite, with the particulars of which judge acted without personal and/or without subject matter jurisdiction. Further, plaintiff's opposition brief cited law establishing that judges do not have absolute immunity. The mere thought that a judge, trusted to uphold the law, can with impunity violate the laws and constitution and inflict grave harm upon innocent people, is repugnant to the society and laws that exist in the United States, and is contradicted by the clear language in civil rights and criminal statutes, and in case law. Further, the type of repeated violations alleged in the Amended Complaint has no known precedence in law.
Allegations In Pleadings Must Be Accepted As True
4. It is clearly established in controlling case law that the allegations stated in the pleadings must be accepted as true at this stage of the pleadings. Federal courts must accept as true the allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavits as true. (See, e.g., Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967).
Allegations That Must Be Accepted As True Include the Following
5. On the requirement of controlling case law to accept as true the allegations in the Amended Complaint for opposing motions to dismiss at this stage of the pleadings, this court has reached its decision that the defendant federal judges are immune from financial consequences for the conduct stated in this lawsuit, which includes the following:
a. Defendant judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, violating major constitutional due process protections, as they seized and liquidated plaintiff's $10 million in assets that funded plaintiff's exposure of high level corruption in government. These tactics, misusing the courts as a corrupt arm of government, carried out the original intent to strip plaintiff of the assets that funded his exposure of high-level corruption in government, including the corruption in Ninth Circuit courts, as clearly stated in plaintiff's Amended Complaint. After corruptly seizing these assets, defendant Jellen rendered additional unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring plaintiff from the constitutional due process right to exercise federal defenses against the seizure. When plaintiff did exercise these due process remedies, he was charged with criminal contempt of court. This retaliation for exercising constitutional due process is a felony offense under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.
b. Defendant judges Marilyn Patel and Vaughn Walker acted without personal jurisdiction over plaintiff when they had him arrested and confined to his home from 1990 to 1995 on a charge of criminal contempt of court. These acts were perpetrated after plaintiff exercised his responsibilities to report to a federal judge and criminal activities that he and his group of government agents had discovered, and after plaintiff filed a federal action seeking relief from the escalating civil rights violations. Among these violations were the seizure and liquidation of plaintiff's life assets by defendant federal judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen, which occurred without jurisdiction and while violating major constitutional due process rights and protections.
Acting In Administrative Capacity
6. Plaintiff sought to report to federal judges the criminal activities that he, a former federal agent, and his group of other government agents had discovered as part of their official duties. The duty of federal judges to receive this information, under the federal crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, is an administrative duty and not a judicial decision making function. The limited judicial immunity does not apply for administrative duties.
7. Wrongful acts associated with this administrative duty, such as blocking the reports of these criminal activities--obstruction of justice--and inflicting harm upon plaintiff for attempting to make such reports, are criminal acts. There is no judicial immunity under these conditions.
8. Defendant federal judges acted in a conspiracy to violate civil rights and obstruct justice, throughout the 18-year time frame stated in the Amended Complaint. To claim any judge is immune from such judicial anarchy is an insult to our form of government. Defendant federal judges:
a. Aided and abetted the six-year pattern of civil rights violations perpetrated in a sham lawsuit in the California courts during which orders inflicting great and irreparable harm upon plaintiff while state judges acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, while violating over 40 California statutes and rules of court, California Supreme Court decisions, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, federal statutes and major constitutional rights. The defendant judges' oath of office required enforcing, not prostituting, these important laws and constitutional safeguards.
b. Aided and abetted for 18 years the violations of major federal laws and constitutional rights perpetrated by each of the other defendant federal judges, including the taking of plaintiff's $10 million life assets, which had funded plaintiff's attempts to expose the subversive corruption in key government offices, including the federal courts.
c. Defendant federal judges repeatedly aided and abetted the shameful and record-setting violations of state and federal laws and constitutional rights occurring in a sham California lawsuit that was initiated by a CIA-front law firm.
d. Defendant federal judges repeatedly blocked the reporting of subversive criminal activities that plaintiff, a former federal agent, and his group of concerned government agents, sought to report. In this way the defendant federal judges enabled to continue such criminal activities that plaintiff documented as:
i. Deep-seated pattern of air safety and criminal violations that played a key role in a series of specific airline crashes involving United Airlines in which many people were killed.
ii. Decades of drug smuggling into the United States by elements of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as discovered by plaintiff and his group of government agents. These agents wishing to provide evidence of these crimes included the former heads of secret CIA airlines and secret CIA financial operations, and agents of the FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, and others.
iii. Widespread looting of bankruptcy court assets in the Ninth Circuit courts, implicating federal judges, trustees, and law firms. These matters are detailed in the Amended Complaint and in the attachment to the Complaint, the book, Defrauding America. Again, as a matter of law, this court had to accept these statements as true, and by protecting the defendant federal judges, the judge of this court has, as a matter of law under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4, become himself implicated. And apparently, he is counting on his self-protective absolute judicial immunity to avoid the consequences.
iv. Other judicially corrupt and criminal activities and their felonious coverups, as described in plaintiff's books, Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America.
9. Among the criminal statutes that the defendant federal judges violated, as stated in the Amended Complaint, are the following, any one of which eliminates a judge's limited immunity:
a. Title 18 U.S.C. § 111. Interfering, impeding, intimidating, a former federal agent from disclosing criminal activities. These offenses are made far more serious by the nature of the criminal activities that are inflicting great harm upon the internal security of the United States, the deaths and other consequences of the criminal activities, and the cancerous-like effect upon government and the nation's social fibre.
b. Title 18 U.S.C. § 372. Conspiracy to impede a former agent of the federal government from revealing a pattern of criminal activities that continue to inflict grave harm upon the United States and its people.
c. Title 18 U.S.C. § 371. Conspiracy to defraud the government. This offense arose when the myriad consequences upon the government from the various forms of criminal activities that plaintiff and his group of government agents sought to report, and the obstruction of justice and felony retaliation against plaintiff for attempting to make such reports.
d. Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513. These violations arose from retaliating against a former federal agent, witness, informant, for seeking to report federal crimes (in addition to violations of Title 18 U.S.C. '' 111 and 372).
e. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. This offense arose from the judicial acts retaliating against plaintiff for exercising constitutional due process remedies. Defendant federal judges retaliated against plaintiff for exercising the right to federal court access under the Civil Rights Act and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, including retaliation for filing objections to the unlawful, unconstitutional, and corrupt seizure and liquidation of plaintiff's assets.
Pattern Of Corrupt Activities Are Surely Not Protected Judicial Activities
10. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint stated facts indicating a pattern of activities subverting the laws and Constitution of the United States, including obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, and other acts that are obviously outside the lawful decision making authority of a federal judge. The facts establishing these offenses were stated in plaintiff's Amended Complaint which musts be considered as true in opposing a Rule 12 or Rule 56 motion.
11. Despite this pattern of lawless judicial anarchy, this court has held that the defendant federal judges have absolute judicial immunity, that they are above the law, and immune from the crimes perpetrated against the United States, against its people, and against plaintiff. This court lacks the authority to protect this type of conduct and to protect those who commit such offenses against the United States and its people, including the plaintiff in this lawsuit.
Decision On Defendants' Judicial Immunity
Cannot Be Made Without Factual Determination
12. This court took the position that a judge is absolutely immune from damage actions despite the conduct stated in the Amended Complaint. This holding certainly requires an examination of the facts, and such examination requires that the defendant federal judges answer the Request For Admissions that were served with the Amended Complaint, and which they have not answered, and requires that this court issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
13. Decisional law has been cited by plaintiff holding that Rule 12 and Rule 56 motions that require an examination of the facts in order to reach a decision requires making findings of facts and conclusions of law. Plaintiff had already requested findings of fact and conclusions of law from this court in the event it ruled favorably on the defendant judge's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff again makes this request. Obviously, there is no way that this court can justify its decision if it addresses the facts and the law, which has been the standard deception used by judges involved in this convoluted scheme for the past 20 years. The law says:
Where summary judgment is made when issues of fact are involved, summary judgment is not proper, and findings of fact should be made. Winter Park Telephone Co. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. (CA5th, 1950) 181 F2d 341; Where a Rule 12 (or Rule 54) motion must determine facts to determine the decision on the motion, a hearing must be held to determine the facts. In King v. Wall & Beaver Street Corp., (App DC 1944) 145 F2d 377, the court held that the defendant's objection to improper venue raised issues of fact in addition to questions of law, requiring a preliminary hearing pursuant to Rule3 12(d). The court made findings and the court of appeals stated:
Such preliminary hearings are not summary proceedings, but are separate trials of separate issues. ... Consequently, the court was fully justified, indeed, was required, to make findings of fact.
Losing Judicial Immunity When Acting without Jurisdiction
14. This court stated that judicial immunity is absolute, when case law referenced in plaintiff's opposition to dismiss clearly states the very opposite. Controlling Supreme Court decisions, stated in plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, clearly state that a judge loses his or her judicial immunity if they act without personal or without subject matter jurisdiction. A judge acts without jurisdiction if he violates clearly and settled statutory or case law. In Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1980) the Ninth Circuit held:
[W]hen a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 351.
"when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible"; Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 95 (5th Cir. 1980) (Stump is consistent with the view that "a clearly inordinate exercise of unconferred jurisdiction by a judge, one so crass as to establish that he embarked on it either knowingly or recklessly subjects him to personal liability."
15. The loss of immunity from illegal acts by those otherwise protected by qualified immunity, including state and federal judges, is addressed when they violate clear and settled law. (See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988); Anderson v. Creighton, 97 L.Ed.2d 53 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) ("Government officials performing discretionary functions ... generally are shield from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.");
In Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1980) the Ninth Circuit held:>
[W]hen a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction , or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 351. ("when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible"); Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 95 (5th Cir. 1980) (Stump is consistent with the view that "a clearly inordinate exercise of unconferred jurisdiction by a judge, one so crass as to establish that he embarked on it either knowingly or recklessly, subjects him to personal liability").
In Dykes v. Hoseman, 743 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1984):
We also agree with the Rankin court that immunity for judicial acts in the clear absence of jurisdiction is lost ... if the judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction.
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) the Court addressed the absence of effect of illegal orders and their liability, holding that "government officials ... [are liable for civil damages if for damages if] ... their conduct violate[s] established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
No Known Precedence For The Pattern Of Judicial Misconduct
16. The clear wording in statutes override any self-serving, self-protective case law that any federal judge may render making him or her above the law. The statutes addressing criminal conduct or providing for financial remedies against those who violate another person's civil rights are very clear as they use words such as Aanyone,@ or Awhoever.@ Clearly, these do not exclude judges, who are in an even greater position of trust to insure that such rights are not violated. The public interest, or justice, is not served by insulating arrogant and lawless judges from the consequences of their acts.
17. There is no known legal precedence applying the limited judicial immunity to the pattern of corrupt and wrongful acts perpetrated by the federal judicial defendants. That is another reason why the facts must be adjudicated. To permit judges to violate civil rights or criminal statutes, when they are in a position of trust to prevent such violations, subverts our form of government. The repeated felonies, the repeated obstruction of justice, the repeated retaliation against former government agent, witness and informant for seeking to report federal crimes is not a protected judicial function, despite what the judge of this court wants to exist. These judicial acts continue to subvert the internal security of the United States. They aid and abet the perpetration of major criminal activities against the United States and its people. As a citizen of the United States, plaintiff will exercise any legal recourse to end this perverse misuse of the courts and of justice, especially if the judge of this court worsens the matter, as now appears. The order by the judge of this court makes him a party to criminal and subversive acts perpetrated by the defendant federal judge, a very serious matter.
Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law
18. Plaintiff has already cited the law that requires meaningful findings of fact and conclusions of law in a Rule 12 or Rule 56 motion. Despite the enormous amount of facts stated in the Amended Complaint which eliminates any thought of judicial immunity, this court has simply stated that a federal judge is totally immune from damages for the acts that they perpetrated. This court has misstated the fact that the judges did not act without personal or without subject matter jurisdiction, when plaintiff's Amended Complaint clearly said that they did, and gave specifics showing this to be true, which could be confirmed by taking judicial notice of the judicial records. It is this pattern of misstatement of facts and misstatement of the law that has dominated this pattern of bizarre, convoluted judicial attacks upon plaintiff for the past 20 years, which were then followed by refusal to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
19. Findings of fact and conclusions of law should address, for instance, the facts and law stated in plaintiff's Amended Complaint that address:
a. The absence of jurisdiction alleged in the Amended Complaint by each of the federal judges.
b. The obstruction of justice by all the defendant federal judges, and how their actions violated Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.
c. The felony retaliation by federal judges against a former federal agent and witness for seeking to report under the federal crime reporting statute criminal activities, and how these acts are felonies under title 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513.
d. The pattern of misusing their judicial positions and the courts in an 18-year pattern of violating the same federally protected rights that they had a mandatory and non-discretionary duty to uphold and protect.
e. The obvious conspiratorial misconduct by the defendant federal judges, as revealed by the facts showing two decades of obstruction of justice, retaliation against a government agent, and retaliation against a victim for exercising federal defenses.
Continuing National Harm Arising From Protecting the Guilty and the
Subversive Judicial Misconduct
20. Plaintiff has documented and observed the tragic consequences arising from the pattern of judicial coverups of the criminal activities that he first discovered and documented as a federal inspector-investigator. Even worse criminal activities, and even worse effects upon the United States, its internal security, and upon its people, have been discovered during the past 15 years as plaintiff became a confidant to several dozen government agents, deep-cover operatives, former heads of secret CIA airlines and financial proprietaries, and former drug traffickers. They have provided him evidence of criminal activities in other key government offices. The harm arising from these criminal activities, which federal judges have aided and abetted by their coverups and retaliation against government agents, and their direct role in the bankruptcy court corruption, includes, for instance:
a. Numerous fatal airline crashes arising from the deep-seated pattern of air safety and criminal violations that were documented in government records, and as discovered by plaintiff and other FAA inspectors. Several of these tragic consequences arising from the judicial coverups are described in the third edition of Unfriendly Skies. Plaintiff had initially brought these matters to the attention of Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges in filings under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and then to the attention of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the following federal filings:., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.)(addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the coverup of the DC-10 cargo door problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by claimant seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.
Stich v. United States, et al
b. Drug smuggling into the United States by people within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), often in unison with organized crime, and the felonious coverup of these criminal acts by personnel in control of the U.S. Department of Justice, members of Congress, federal judges, and others. This practice, evidence of which the defendant federal judges have blocked from being reported, has undermined the internal security of the United States, resulted in major increase in crime and drug-related murders, the incarceration of tens of thousands of men and women, and the infliction of all forms of harm upon the United States, its institutions, and its people.
c. Massive fraud in Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts, implicating federal judges, trustees, law firms, attorneys, and those acting in concert with them. This practice defrauds the United States. Thousands of people have been stripped of their life's assets by this ongoing criminal activity against the American people and against the United States.
d. Other areas of criminal activities, all of which are frauds against the United States and its people.
The Internet Eliminates the Prior Ability To Hide Judicial Misconduct
21. Twenty years and more of documenting judicial misconduct in Ninth Circuit courts firmly establishes a practice of literal selective judicial anarchy. This court's recent decision follows that pattern. Much has changed recently that may eventually result in widespread impeachment of the federal judges implicated in these serious offenses. Plaintiff's books detailing these matters continue to receive acclaim throughout the United States. In addition, the Internet has made possible informing the public of corruption in government, and in the courts. The Internet site, www.defraudingamerica.com/legal_index.html, is making the world familiar with the antics going on in this lawsuit. It is no longer possible for federal judges to hide their misconduct that subverts national interests, the courts, the laws and Constitution, and the courts. Sooner or later, every judge who played a role in any way in aiding and abetting this despicable pattern of judicial misconduct described in plaintiff's Amended Complaint may pay the consequences for their misconduct.
22. The Amended Complaint shows a pattern of judicial violations of federally protected rights and judicial obstruction of justice and the felonies associated with these acts. The misstatement of facts and the misstatement of law by this court, the coverup, the aiding and abetting, of the serious offenses against the United States, and against plaintiff, shows that plaintiff is witnessing the same judicial coverups that commenced in 1978, with such tragic consequences. These are matters of grave concern for the United States and to the American people. At the very least, plaintiff can make a record for the public to learn about the subversive culture in the courts that has directly and indirectly inflicted such great harm upon the United States. The judge of this court has another problem: it has information of criminal activities and it has a responsibility associated with this knowledge. For the record, this court is requested to vacate its prior order dismissing the defendant federal judges.
Dated: July 31, 2000
Rodney F. Stich
Plaintiff in pro se
Related Web Sites
- 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.
- Site where you can make a tax-deductible contribution to assist in continuing the efforts to expose and correct the literal Trojan horse attacks upon the United States from within.
List of print and e-books, written by and with the input of dozens of government agents and others insiders, detail and document decades of corrupt activities that continue to inflict great harm upon the people and the country.
Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links. No extra charges are involved.
New Page 1
Return To Top