RODNEY F. STICH
PO Box 10587
Reno, NV 89510
Telephone: 775-786-9191
Plaintiffs in pro se

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA

 

RODNEY F. STICH, , WESTERN DIABLO ENTERPRISES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ESTELL C. MANNIS, KENT L. MANNIS,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV-N-00-00152-ECR (PHA)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE

PROCESS

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The laws and Constitution of the United States deny to any judge the authority to void for any citizen, especially a former government agent seeking to report criminal activities, the rights and the protections to access the federal courts and to seek relief from violations of federally protected rights. These include the right to relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Civil Rights Act, and the right and responsibility to report federal crimes to a federal judge under the mandatory requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.

These rights and responsibilities have been voided for Plaintiff by a series of void, unlawful, and unconstitutional orders rendered by the federal judges named as defendants in this lawsuit. The intent of the injunctive orders were to carry out the scheme to destroy Plaintiff’s $10 million in assets that funded his attempts to report and expose a pattern of hard-core criminal activities that Plaintiff and his group of other former and current government agents had discovered. The intent was also to void each of the many federal remedies necessary to defend against the scheme initiated in the California courts to destroy the assets that funded Plaintiff’s exposure activities that threatened people in key government offices, including the federal courts.

Exhibit "A" is one example of the injunctive orders used to block Plaintiff’s reporting of criminal activities and to subvert the protections in law necessary to defend against the judicially carried out scheme. At this time, Plaintiff is literally a man without a country, stripped of the rights and protections guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States, and unable to properly defend against the various schemes using the courts to attack Plaintiff. It is known that Plaintiff has been stripped of the protections in law against any and all violations of federally protected rights.

Relief is available to Plaintiff under, inter alia, the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and under the Constitution of the United States.

Fraudulent Basis Used To Support Orders Voiding Constitutional Due Process

The defendant federal judges sought to support their injunctive orders by accusing Plaintiff of filing a frivolous lawsuit and being a vexatious litigant. The fraudulent nature of these charges is revealed by the long list of violations inflicted against Plaintiff for which he sought relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) and the Civil Rights Act (Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988), and which were the issues raised in the so-called frivolous lawsuits. Exhibit "B" is a partial list of these violations that includes dozens of California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and multiple constitutional protections. Plaintiff was losing his home, his $10 million in real estate assets, his businesses, and his income, as a result of these violations, and for exercising federal remedies, the "guardians" of our laws and Constitutional accused him of filing frivolous lawsuits and being a vexatious litigant!

Converting A Government Whistleblower Into A Man Without A Country

The defendant federal judges subverted the laws and Constitution they were entrusted to protect. They refused to provide Plaintiff a federal court forum. They promptly dismissed every lawsuit that stated multiple federal causes of actions for which they had mandatory responsibilities to provide relief. They rendered unlawful and unconstitutional orders under fraudulent conditions and then rendered orders barring him from filing any objections! They then called the exercise of constitutional due process, frivolous acts of a vexatious litigant!

The United States Supreme Court defined the legal definition of frivolous in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738: "An appeal [or complaint] is not frivolous if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ..."

Labeling A Victim Of Great Civil Rights Violations A Vexatious Litigant

The only issues in Plaintiff’s federal court filings were to seek a halt to the documented violations of clear and settled California and federal laws and constitutional protections that were inflicting devastating personal and financial harm upon his. He simply wanted to be relieved from the corrupt attacks upon him. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment to have a judge declare the validity of a January 31, 1966 divorce judgment that had been filed as a local judgment in Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano, and the personal and property rights established in them. That right is provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act, which requires federal judges to provide a federal court forum and relief. For exercising these basic rights under the form of government in the United States, the defendants labeled Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

Civil Rights Violations Compounded With Criminal Violations

While violating record-setting legal and constitutional protections, federal judges repeatedly blocked every attempt by Plaintiff and his group of government agents from reporting the criminal activities that they sought to report under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Plaintiff’s federal filings seeking to report these criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute were promptly dismissed, sometimes without a hearing. These obstruction of justice tactics made possible the continued infliction of great harm upon the United States as described in the exhibit, Defrauding America.

Plaintiff’s qualifications, and that of the other former and present federal agents seeking to report the federal crimes, were impeccable. Plaintiff was a former inspector-investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration with air safety responsibility for the most senior program at United Airlines. His group of other agents included agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs, Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, and included deep-cover agents who were the former heads of secret CIA airlines and secret CIA financial proprietaries.

The criminal activities they sought to report were serious. As partly described in the third edition of Defrauding America, which is an exhibit with the original filing of this lawsuit, the criminal activities included drug smuggling into the United States by elements of the CIA, corruption in the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts, and corruption related to a series of fatal airline crashes occurring in Plaintiff’s area of federal air safety responsibilities.

The defendant federal judges refused to receive the evidence of criminal activities, which were felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4. The combination of civil rights violations with obstruction of justice violations provided Plaintiff with additional federal remedies which, if not halted, could reveal a literal judicial anarchy in the Ninth Circuit courts.

Unlawful and Unconstitutional Injunctive Orders Blocking the Reporting Of Criminal Activities and Blocking Federal Defenses

Defendant federal judges addressed these threats by rendering a series of injunctive orders, which compounded the subversion of major federal laws and constitutional safeguards. The initial injunctive orders were rendered by defendant federal judges Marilyn Patel and Milton Schwartz. They barred Plaintiff, for the remainder of his life, from equal protection and due process rights to federal court access and voided—for Plaintiff—the rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. This voiding of constitutional due process was occurring while repeated violations of federally protected rights were being judicially inflicted upon Plaintiff.

Injunctive Orders Violated Every Requirement For An Injunction

The injunctions violated every legal criteria required for their issuance.

Instead of meeting the requirement to halt violations of laws and constitutional safeguards that were occurring, the injunctive orders insured that the violations would continue without judicial interference.

Instead of meeting the requirement to protect the person suffering harm from the unlawful acts, the injunctive orders deprived Plaintiff, suffering great harm from these violations, of the protection in law while simultaneously protecting those defendants perpetrating the violations.

Instead of meeting the legal requirement to protect public interests, the injunctions harmed these interests by subverting legal and constitutional protections and protecting the people perpetrating these interests.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were necessary legal requirements for rendering an injunction, and this requirement was also violated. The law requires that the judge rendering an injunction make findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically addressing each of these requirements. This was never done. Rule 52(a) requires that the court granting or denying a preliminary injunction "shall set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action."

In Granny Good Foods, Inc. v. Bth=d of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County (1974) 415 US 423, 994 S Ct 1113, 39 L ed2d 435, the court held that where a temporary restraining order had been continued beyond the time limits permitted by Rule 65(b) and the required findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been set forth, the order is invalid); County of Nassau v. Cost of Living Council (Temporary Emergency Ct. of Appeals, 1974) 499 F2d 1340.

The requirement of the Injunctions Were Unlawful and Unconstitutional

No one, including a judge, has the authority to subvert the protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The defendant federal judges compounded their series of prior unlawful and unconstitutional actions by subverting the due process and equal protection arising under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, their duty legislated under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Civil rights Act. They misused their judicial officers and the courts to aid and abet those defendants who were engaged in wholesale subversion of the judicial process, the courts, and the important rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States.

The Injunctions Were Void Orders, As A Matter Of Law

U.S. Supreme Court decisions made clear that judicial orders that violated constitutional due process were void orders.

An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.

"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) "A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)) "A court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).).

Prima Facie Evidence Of A Judicial Conspiracy

The Amended Complaint states facts far exceeding the legal criteria for determining the existence of a conspiracy, and it was this conspiracy that resulted in the series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders. The following brief list of judicial acts, further defined in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, reveal a pattern that far exceeds the legal criteria for a conspiracy, and is prima facie evidence of its existence:

· 20 years of continuing and interrelated violations of dozens of clear and settled California and federal laws and constitutional protections.

· 20 Years of continuing and interrelated violations of every relevant procedural due process remedy specifically intended for the type of violations occurring

· 20 years of blocking the reporting of major criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statutes, by the defendant federal judges.

· Repeatedly, from 1987 to 1995, charging Plaintiff with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report to a federal judge the existence of criminal activities and for exercising constitutional due process specifically provided by federal law, including the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

· Repeatedly placing frivolous labels on lawsuits that are at the extreme opposite of the legal definition of "frivolous," in an attempt to block Plaintiff’s access to the federal courts and subvert the protections provided by federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

· Repeatedly refusing to render findings of facts and conclusions of law so as to avoid the blatant violations of due process.

· Repeatedly rendering injunctive orders barring Plaintiff access to federal courts, that violated every single legal requirement for an injunction, and which violated constitutional and legal protections. This was done to subvert federal protections for the gross violations of federally protected rights and to block Plaintiff’s reporting of the criminal activities that he, a former federal investigator, and his group of other government agents sought to report under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute.

· Rendering unlawful, unconstitutional, and void orders seizing Plaintiff’s $10 million in assets, that funded his exposure of government corruption, without the legal and constitutional requirement of a notice hearing, of a hearing at which he could defend, without legally recognized cause, and without jurisdiction, the absence of which occurred following the signing of a previous order refusing to accept jurisdiction.

· Compounding the corrupt seizure of Plaintiff’s assets by rendering additional orders barring him from filing any objections to the corrupt seizure and destruction of Plaintiff’s properties, businesses, and home.

· Charging Plaintiff with criminal contempt of court in retaliation for filing an objection to the seizure and liquidation of Plaintiff’s assets. That arrogant constitutional due process is representative of the entire 20 years of judicial anarchy inflicted upon a former government agent whose only "offense" was in meeting his responsibilities in the fact of corruption in government and the courts.

· Having been successful in avoiding the consequences of their corrupt acts, defendant district court judges continued to charge Plaintiff, then approaching 70 years of age, with criminal contempt of court for exercising constitutional due process and for seeking to report criminal activities. These were felonies under title 18 U.S.C. § 241. In addition, criminal contempt of court charges arose from the filings in federal court when Plaintiff sought to report criminal activities. These retaliatory acts were felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, 35, 241; 111, 153, 241, 242, 245 (b)(1)(B); 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513 (b), 1515(a); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965.

  •   Aiding and abetting and encouraging the escalation of these violations occurring in the sham California lawsuit.

  • Repeatedly violating their legislated duties to provide a federal court forum and relief to Plaintiff from these repeated violations of federally protected rights. These include their duty to provide a federal court forum and relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202), the Civil Rights Act (Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988), and under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

  • Emboldened by their success in carrying out these subversive activities, defendant Chapter 11 judges Robert Jones performed the coup de grăce, seizing the assets that funded Plaintiff’s exposure activities that were the target of the years of judicial corruption.

Contempt For Constitutional Due Process Bred More Of the Same

Emboldened by their success in carrying out these corrupt activities, defendant Chapter 11 judges Robert Jones performed the coup de grăce, seizing the assets that funded Plaintiff’s exposure activities that were the target of the years of judicial corruption. Plaintiff had been forced to seek refuge in Chapter 11 courts from the onslaught of civil and constitutional violations and the refusal of the defendant federal judges to perform their mandatory duties. Further details of this sequence are in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and other filings.

Evidence Of Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice

For nearly two decades, defendant federal judges blocked every attempt by Plaintiff and his group of government insiders to report criminal activities in key government offices and the courts that were being reported under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statutes.

· Repeatedly charging Plaintiff with criminal contempt of court, from 1986 through 1995, in retaliation for attempting to report these crimes to a federal judge through a federal court filing.

· Rendering a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring Plaintiff from federal court access and thereby blocking him from reporting the criminal activities.

· Cooperated in a scheme to silence Plaintiff through a sham lawsuit focusing on destroying the assets that funded his exposure activities. The lawsuit was barred by over 36 California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and multiple constitutional protections.

SUMMARY

        In summary, the injunctive orders:

· Were based upon a sham frivolous label placed upon lawsuits that were the exact opposite of frivolous, that revealed shocking and record-setting violations of state and federal laws carried out for nearly two decades of continuous judicial attacks upon a former federal investigator whose only "crime" was in attempting to meet his moral and legal responsibility to report major criminal activities by people in key government positions.

· Violated every requirement for an injunctive order.

· Were void orders, as no judge has the authority to banish any citizen, especially a government whistleblower, from the rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.

· Subverted the important protections in federal laws and the Constitution specifically intended for the violations of civil rights perpetrated by each of the defendants named in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

· Subverted the federal crime reporting statute as federal judges sought to block the reporting of major criminal activities being reported by Plaintiff and his group of other government agents.

· Rather than force Plaintiff to seek relief from Congress, it would be appropriate if this court would break the pattern of corrupt judicial activities and carry out its duties under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The restoration of Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights at this stage in his life won’t undo the damages that are permanent. However, it would restore to him the rights, at least on paper that has been corruptly and arrogantly taken from.

It is therefore requested that this court issue an order that Plaintiff has the same rights as all other citizens that are guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States, that he has the right to file papers in federal courts, that he has the right to comply with the federal criminal statutes to report federal crimes to a federal judge, and that any orders denying to him these rights are void orders.

Date: September 30, 2000

------------------------------------------------
            Rodney F. Stich

DECLARATION

I, RODNEY F. STICH, declare that the statements in this moment and points and authorities are true and correct on the basis of personal knowledge, and on the remaining, on information and belief.

______________________________
        Rodney F. Stich


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.

 

RETURN TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viagra online available in various online pharmacies can be adopted to get back the normal sexual health once more at any age. Generic cialis is also a drug which is highly adopted for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. This drug unlike any online pharmacy other similar drug does not affect blood pressure of the patient under any circumstances and thus highly appreciated.