UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the District of Columbia Circuit
____________________
RODNEY F. STICH, Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Appellee
___________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Columbia
____________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
Rodney Stich
POB 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Tel: 925-944-1930
CERTIFICATE AS TO INTERESTED PARTIES
As a matter of law, there are no interested parties. None of the defendants named in the Complaint had been served because of the court’s sua sponte dismissal shortly after the Complaint was filed.
As to meaningful matters, the facts and issues involved here are of interest to people and entities interested in the integrity of government offices, to the public, and especially to the families of those who were killed by the actions of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001. Also, to those who will suffer similar fates to those referred to in this appeal and in the underlying Complaint.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate as to Interested Parties i
Table of Contents ii
Table of authorities iii
Basis for district court’s jurisdiction 1
Basis for court of appeals’ jurisdiction 3
Standard of Review 3
Statement of issues presented for review 3
Statement of the facts 5
Summary of argument 8
Argument 9
Blocking reports of federal crimes is not a judge’s prerogative under criminal statutes, and constitutes obstruction of justice 9
The injunction by Sporkin Was Patently Void, Unlawful, Unconstitutional, and Knowingly Obstructed Reports Of Criminal and Subversive Activities 9
a. The injunction reversed the requirement that it halt great
and irreparable harm 9c. The injunction reversed the requirement that it be in the public’s interest 10
b. The injunction reversed the requirement that it halts unlawful acts 10
d. The injunction violated the requirement for meaningful findings
of facts and conclusions of law 11
e. The Injunction Violated Constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection 11g. The Injunction Obstructing Justice Was Not A Lawful Order 12
f. Further Irregularities In Sporkin’s Injunctive Order 11
h. Pre-filing Requirement Of Injunctive Order Violated Equal Protection
and Due Process Guaranteed By the Constitution, While Simultaneously
Obstructing Justice 12
i. Pre-filing Order Was Another Judicial Tactic
To Block Reports Of Criminal Activities 12
Dismissal Violated Bar Against Sua Sponte Dismissal Of Complaint 13
Dismissal Violated Bar Against Dismissal When A Federal
Cause Of Action Is Stated 14
Dismissal Violated Requirement That Allegations
Stated In Complaint Be Accepted As True 15
Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Findings Of Facts
and Conclusions of Law 15
Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Discovery 16
Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Jury Trial 16
Dismissal Violated Due Process Right Under Supreme Court’s
Void Order Doctrine Relating To Seizure Of Stich’s Life Assets 16
Dismissal Violated Rights To Declaration Of Legal Rights and Responsibilities Established In Five Judgments That Are In Controversy 18
Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights To Reinstatement Of Legal and
Constitutional Rights Terminated Through Injunctive Orders 18
Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights
Under the Civil Rights Act 18
Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Bivens 19
Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Federal Tort Claims Act 19
Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Civil RICO 19
Conclusion 19
Relief Requested 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL STATUTES:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2 12
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3 12
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 1,3,5,6,8,9,11,14
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 3
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 2
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343 2
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1346 4,19
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 1,5,6,18
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202 1,5,6,18
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2401 4
Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2674 4,19
Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986 1,3,4,5,8,21
Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965 1,4,5,8,22
FRCivP 5(d) 16
FRCivP 8(d) 8
FRCivP 12 13,14,16
FRCivP 26 18
FRCivP 27 18
FRCivP 38 16
FRCivP 41 17
FRCivP 52 17
FRCivP 54 14
FRCivP 56 12,14,16
FRCivP 57 1,5,9,
FRCivP 65 65
Fifth Amendment, due process, equal protection, U.S. Constitution 6,13
Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine 2,5,6
FEDERAL CASES
Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233 13
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) 17
Augustine v. McDonald, 770 F.2d 1442, 1444 (9th Cir. 1985) 13
Beacon Theatres, v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 10
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) 4,5,8,19
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 17
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-79 (1971) 17
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 (1954) 11
Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627, 97 17
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 14
Continental Group, v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1980) 10
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) 15
Doe v. United States Department Of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (1985) 14
Far Out Products., Inc. v. Oskar 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) 3
Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967) 15
Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 796 (9th Cir. 1962) 13
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) 17
King v. Wall & Beaver Street Corp., (App DC 1944) 145 F2d 377 15
Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd., 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972) 17
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 U.S. 90 16
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 346 U.S. 1, 19 (1978) 17
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, v. Stidham, 658 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1981) 10
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565 17
Public Service Com. v. Wycoff Co. 344 US 237 10
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683 (1979) 14
Tarin v. County of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir.) 14
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897 17
U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) 17
Williamson v. Tucker (CA5th, 1981) 645 F2d 404, cert den 454 US 897 15
Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914 16
Winter Park Telephone Co. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. 181 F2d 341 15
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court’s jurisdiction arose pursuant to:
Federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, which requires anyone who knows of a federal crime to report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer). Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986, for violations of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions, while acting under color of state law in state courts.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.Bivens, which extends the rights and protections of the Civil Rights Act to violations of civil and constitutional rights occurring under color of federal law in federal courts.
RICO, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965, arising under the predicate acts taken in a conspiracy to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities, and affecting interstate commerce—as in hijackings of airliners.
Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, along with FRCivP 57. The federal causes of actions under the Declaratory Judgment Act includes:
Declaring Stich’s legal rights, legal responsibilities, and legal relations established in five judgments that are in controversy. These rights were violated as part of a sham lawsuit filed by a CIA-front law firm that violated dozens of state and federal statutes, rules of court, controlling case law, and constitutional protections. Void judgment doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal causes of actions under this federal remedy seeks to:
Declare as void injunctive orders that permanently deprives Stich of due process and equal protection of the law . These injunctive orders terminated Stich’s due process and equal protection right to access federal courts, thereby terminating for him all legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses, while federal judges simultaneously violate multiple federally protected rights. The effect—and surely the intent—of these injunctive orders were to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities that he and his group of other government agents had discovered, and to block Stich’s exercise of federal defenses against record setting violations of federally protected rights that were violated in an attempt to halt his exposure activities.
Declare as void the orders seizing and liquidating Stich’s $10 million in assets. These orders violated the due process right to a hearing, notice of hearing, legally recognized cause, and in a pattern of fraud. These major due process violations seizing Stich’s life assets were followed by further due process violations, including orders barring Stich from exercising the legal and constitutional right to object to the seizure and liquidation, the unfiling of such objections, and the retaliatory criminal contempt of court charge for exercising these due process rights. Subsequent orders liquidating Stich’s assets, seeking author from the earlier void seizure orders, were void orders. These enormous due process violations require return of Stich’s assets. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that "federal courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Declare as void the injunctive orders permanently terminating Stich’ legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses. These orders acted to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities, including those that were primarily responsible for the conditions enabling 19 hijackers to seize four airliners on September 11, 2001.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which provides that "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person [including federal judges, or the federal government] who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986, which requires anyone who knows of a violation of a person’s civil rights to take whatever action is within their responsibilities to prevent such violations, and if they refuse to do so, they are responsible for financial damages.
Due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
The Court of Appeals jurisdiction arises pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This appeal is from the District Court’s final order filed on July 1, 2002, dismissing the lawsuit that had been filed three weeks earlier, on June 12, 2002. Stich filed a notice of appeal on July 31, 2002. Further jurisdiction arises under the federal crime reporting statute, which requires that any officer of the United States receive information and evidence of federal crimes offered by anyone knowing of such a crime or crimes.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review is de novo. A dismissal under Rule 12 or Rule 56 is reviewed de novo. Far Out Products., Inc. v. Oskar 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001). Secondary standard of review is for plain error.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The issues raised by this appeal include the following:
Reporting federal crimes to a federal courts under 18 U.S.C. § 4 . Refusal by the district court judge to receive information and evidence of federal crimes that Stich and his group of other former and present government agents had discovered during their official duties (and elsewhere). Any federal judge to whom such information and evidence is offered must receive it as part of his or her administrative duties, and has no authority to obstruct justice by refusing to receive the information. The events of September 11, 2001, are one of the consequences of blocking such reports.
Unlawful and unconstitutional dismissal of Stich’s Complaint that stated multiple federal causes of actions for which relief exists under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Dismissal of the Complaint violated due process and equal protection of the Constitution by:
Dismissing the Complaint that stated facts showing multiple federal causes of actions for which federal relief is available.
Requiring the court to accept as true the statements made in the Complaint to determine if one or more federal causes of actions had been stated, which would bar dismissal of the Complaint.
Violated equal protection rights under the Constitution of the United States, using the tactic of requiring Stich to off-the-record submit any filing to the same federal courts that had engaged in record-setting obstruction of justice, record-setting violations of dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, with a 100 percent violation of every procedural due process right and defense.
Denying right to discovery.
Denying right to jury trial on matters providing for a jury.
Refusing to prepare findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Violating due process under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986), for multiple violations of state and federal laws while acting under cover of state law.
Violated due process under Bivens, for multiple violations of state and federal substantive and procedural laws and constitutional provisions while acting under color of federal law.
Violated due process under RICO (42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965), on the basis of the multiple predicate acts, perpetrated in a conspiracy, affecting national and international commerce, and meeting the definition of a racketeering enterprise.
Violated due process under FTCA (42 U.S.C. §§ 2401, 2671-2674), for torts perpetrated against Stich by federal employees acting under cover of their government positions, as part of the scheme to block Stich’s reporting of criminal and subversive activities.
Violated due process under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and FRCivP 57), to declare Stich’s legal rights and relations established in five judgments that have been violated; to declare as void the orders terminating Stich’s due process and equal protection rights as part of a scheme to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities involving government officials.
Violated due process under the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine, to declare as void the seizure and liquidation of Stich’s $10 million in life assets.
Violated constitutional due process and equal protection rights.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Stich’s Complaint, filed in the district court, stated facts raising several federal causes of actions arising under federal criminal statutes, and to obtain relief from record-setting violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. The wrongful acts were combined to halt his exposure of criminal activities implicating people in key government positions. Included in these federal issues was Stich’s attempt to report federal crimes to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
The other federal causes of actions sought relief from record-setting violations of federally protected rights for which relief was provided under (a) the Civil Rights Act; (b) Bivens; (c) Civil RICO; (d) Declaratory Judgment Act; (e) Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine; and as further provided by the due process and equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.
Catalyst For Start Of Massive Violations Against Stich
Stich sought to report to a federal court the criminal activities that he and his group of other former and present government agents had discovered. (Among the dozens of other government agents providing Stich with information and evidence on criminal activities in government offices and covert operations were those from the CIA, FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service.) Many of the corrupt and criminal activities discovered by Stich, initially while he was a key federal aviation safety agent, involved misconduct responsible for many easily preventable aviation disasters, including hijackings.
Within days of the filing of that Complaint, before Stich could affect service on the defendants, district judge Henry Kennedy dismissed the filing sua sponte, without notice.
The district judge’s dismissal sought support in an order rendered 11 years earlier by former district judge Stanley Sporkin (September 23, 1991) that permanently barred Stich from filing any papers in the federal courts. Sporkin’s order also blocked Stich from reporting the criminal activities that he and other government agents had discovered during their government duties and which Stich sought to report under the mandatory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 4. Kennedy’s order stated:
On September 23, 1991, this court, Sporkin, J., entered an order in Stich v. United States of America, Civil Action 91-1432, which, in part, "FURTHER ORDERED that [Rodney Stich] shall seek leave of this court before filing any new civil action." This order was affirmed on appeal. Accordingly, because plaintiff has not complied with this court’s order of September 23, 1991, it is this 1st day of July, 2002, hereby ORDERED that the complaint in this case is DISMISSED.
The gravity of the consequences to national security and the lives of many people, if the allegations were true, made it unconscionable to block the reports. In addition to consideration of the enormous consequences, federal law requires that the allegations stated in the Complaint must be accepted as true for opposing dismissal.
In addition to the legal requirement that the allegations in the Complaint be recognized as true for opposing dismissal, defendants’ failure to deny them requires that they be accepted as true. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d):
(d) Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.
Providing additional importance to Stich’s charges, he has impeccable aviation safety credentials, and had the opportunity to discover the corruption and its relationship to prior aviation disasters as a federal aviation safety agent assigned to a very sensitive area experiencing the greatest numbers of aviation disasters in the nation’s history. He also had the opportunity to see the brutal consequences as many major airline disasters occurred in programs for which he had federal air safety responsibilities. Additionally, several dozen sources, including agents from the CIA, FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, and other government offices, had been providing Stich with detailed information, affidavits, and evidence, of criminal and even subversive activities implicating people in key government positions beyond the areas where Stich had made his discoveries.
Grave Consequences From Criminal Activities and Judicial Cover-Ups: 9-11
Stich has documented years of criminal activities, their cover-ups, and the deadly consequences upon national security and the lives that were lost. In an effort to circumvent these federal offenses, Stich authored and published numerous highly detailed and documented books that detail segments of the corruption and the consequences. The 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2000, due to the successful hijackings of four airliners by 19 hijackers, were merely one day’s blips resulting from the misconduct that Stich first discovered as part of his official duties as a federal aviation safety agent. These conditions still exist.
History and Start of Conspiracy To Block Reporting Of Federal Crimes Through Massive and Repeated Due Process Violations and Obstruction Of Justice The efforts to block Stich from reporting the criminal activities took several forms and parallel paths. One tactic involved federal judges repeatedly blocking Stich and his group of other former and present government agents from reporting the criminal activities.
Another tactic commenced with the filing of a sham lawsuit against Stich by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross (San Francisco), targeting the $10 million in assets that funded Stich’s exposure activities. That lawsuit was barred by dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.
These obstacles were initially addressed by California judges issuing harmful orders that violated these state and federal laws. They blocked every procedural due process remedy. They fraudulently mislabeled Stich’s exercise of procedural due process specifically provided by law as frivolous acts of a vexatious litigant. They retaliated against Stich with huge financial sanctions when he exercised constitutional due process.
After Stich exercised federal remedies under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, Stich encountered another area of contempt for the state and federal civil rights protections. Federal judges refused to address the massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions. They engaged in a pattern of sua sponte dismissals or dismissals before any discovery or other remedy could be exercised. They repeatedly refused to address the federal defenses available under the Civil Rights Act. They repeatedly refused to address the requirement to declare Stich’s legal rights and legal relations established in five judgments that were being violated in the California courts and inflicting enormous personal and financial harm upon Stich.
Commencing in 1986, when Stich attempted to report criminal and even subversive activities in other areas of government that he had discovered from the increasing numbers of government agents providing him with information, federal judges blocked the reports, with grave effects upon national security.
The facts surfacing in state and federal court proceedings strongly indicated that the scheme initiated by the CIA-front law firm was engineered in some powerful government office, explaining why the massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions, and the repeated obstruction of justice, was able to continue despite the overwhelming protections that should have immediately halted the multi-faceted schemes.
Several of the parties who played key roles in this conspiracy combining obstruction of justice with massive civil and constitutional violations were named as defendants in the below Complaint, in addition to several non-defendant causes of actions.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The lower court, by its sua sponte dismissal:
Obstructed justice, by refusing to receive information and evidence of federal crimes being offered by Stich and his group of other former government agents under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4). This extended the 20 years of obstruction of justice by other federal judges.
Violated multiple due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States, expanding on the 20-year continuing period of massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, and responsible for unprecedented personal and financial harm upon Stich.
Violated due process and equal protection right to relief guaranteed under the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine, expanding on the prior violations.
Violated multiple procedural due process rights, including (a) due process rights against sua sponte dismissal without notice; (b) due process rights against dismissal when facts showing federal causes of actions are stated in the complaint for which federal relief exists; (c) due process rights providing for discovery; (d) due process rights to a jury trial; (e) due process rights to findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Violated due process and equal protection rights, including misuse of the 1991 illegal, unconstitutional, and void order rendered by former district judge Stanley Sporkin that terminated Stich’s due process and equal protection rights while simultaneously and blocking the reporting the criminal activities.
ARGUMENT
Blocking Reports Of Federal Crimes Is A Criminal Act, and Not A Judge’s Prerogative Under Criminal Statutes
In the Complaint filed in the district court, Stich sought to again report to a federal court the criminal activities that he and his group of other former and present government agents had discovered. The dismissal subverted the clear wording of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. The dismissal protected the perpetrators of the criminal activities, and enabled the crimes and the awesome consequences to continue. There is no known case law relating to federal judges obstructing justice by blocking the reporting of federal crimes involving people in key government positions.
The Injunction By Sporkin Was Patently Void, Unlawful, Unconstitutional, and Knowingly Obstructed Reports of Criminal and Subversive Activities
a. The injunction reversed the requirement that it halt great and irreparable harm. One requirement for an injunctive order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is that it must halt great and irreparable harm. The facts stated in Stich’s lawsuit showed that he was suffering great and irreparable personal and financial harm. The record numbers of state and federal laws and total denial of all due process procedural defenses in the state and federal courts caused Stich to suffer great personal and financial losses, including the loss of his home, his businesses, his real estate, his sole source of income, his liberties, his privacy, his constitutional protections. Instead of halting the hart, the injunction insured that the harm would continue.
The basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 US 500, 79 S Ct 948, 3 L Ed 2d 988. Injunctive orders are to halt wrongful behavior. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Stidham, 658 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1981).
Stich’s exercise of federal defenses against record-setting violations of federally protected rights did not threaten anyone or cause any irreparable injury, except to those involved in the criminal and subversive activities and those who misused the courts in a corrupt manner to halt Stich’s exposure activities. Injunctive relief may not be granted in the absence of proof of any threatened or probable act which might cause irreparable injury. Public Service Com. v. Wycoff Co. 344 US 237, 73 S Ct 236, 97 L Ed 291.
Injunctions require that the public interest be protected against wrongdoings. Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1980). The public’s interest was not protected by reversing the intent and clear wording of law relating to injunctions, or by depriving victims suffering great and irreparable harm the protections clearly intended by the laws and Constitution of the United States. Nor by aiding and abetting the violations of federally protected rights through the corrupt misuse of the courts and judges.
b. The injunction reversed the requirement that it halts unlawful acts. The injunctive order continued, rather than halted, the massive numbers of unlawful acts. Obviously, terminating Stich’s guaranteed legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses did not halt the documented massive violations of state and federal laws, and judicial records show that the violations and the harms continued.
c. The injunction reversed the requirement that it be in the public’s interest. There is obviously great harm to the public’s interest when a federal judge corruptly reverses the clear intent of injunctions, who aids and abets the misuse of the courts to combine obstruction of justice with massive civil and constitutional violations against a former government agent seeking to report criminal and subversive activities. Graphic examples of how the judicial obstruction of justice affected the public were the 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2001, made possible by the corruption being judicially covered up.
d. The injunction violated the requirement for meaningful findings of facts and conclusions of law. Rule 52(b) requires that a judge granting or denying an injunction "shall set forth the findings of facts and conclusions of law which constitutes the grounds of its actions." There were no findings and conclusions of law made that addressed the matters raised in Stich’s Complaint.
Further, the defendants never requested the injunctions; the injunction was raised by the same judicial system that had been blocking the reports of the criminal activities, had engaged in the documented violations of state and federal laws, and corruptly blocked every remedy guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
e. The Injunction Violated Constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment, states:
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.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to limit the national government in precisely the same way that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits states. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 (1954).
f. Further Irregularities In Sporkin’s Injunctive Order Judge Sporkin’s injunctive order was rendered within a lawsuit filed by Stich in which one of the federal "causes of actions" was to report the criminal activities that Stich and his group of other government agents had discovered. Sporkin’s sua sponte dismissal blocked the reporting of these criminal activities, which aided and abetted the underlying criminal activities, the perpetrators of them, and continues to make possible great harm upon major national interests, including national security.
Sporkin’s order and dismissal continued the judicial pattern of aiding and abetting the violations of federally protected rights that were part of the misuse of legal process to halt Stich’s reporting of the federal crimes and violation of federal defenses intended to protect citizens against such violations.
g. The Injunction Obstructing Justice Was Not A Lawful Order An order obstructing justice, which is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4, doesn’t meet the definition of a lawful order. Ironically, and prophetic of what this court will do, Judge Kennedy’s order said that this appellate court upheld that injunctive order.
h. Pre-filing Requirement Of Injunctive Order Violated Equal Protection and Due Process Guaranteed By the Constitution, While Simultaneously Obstructing Justice Judge Sporkin’s 1991 injunctive order required that any papers filed by Stich in federal court must first be approved by a federal judge before it would be considered for filing. This requirement violates due process and equal protection as guaranteed to every one, including murderers and terrorists, with no exception for government whistleblowers!
If the off-the-record submission of the lawsuit to a federal judge was denied, Stich losses his due process right to appeal the denial since there is no record to appeal.
The long history of record-setting violations of state and federal laws, and the 100 percent denial of the federal remedies to halt these violations, constitutes prima facie evidence that federal judges are engaged in a coordinated scheme.
i. Pre-filing Order Was Another Judicial Tactic
To Block Reports Of Criminal ActivitiesIf Stich attempts to report criminal activities in key government offices, a federal judge can block these reports—as federal judges had been doing for many years. The pre-filing tactic has repeatedly blocked the reporting of criminal and subversive actions. The consequences for the United States have been grave, and go far beyond the successful hijackings and murder of 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.
3. Dismissal Violated Bar Against Sua Sponte Dismissal Of Complaint
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be based on failure of the complaint to state a claim on which relief can be granted. For the purposes of a Rule 12 motion, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and any ambiguities or doubts concerning the sufficiency of the claim must be resolved in favor of the pleader.
The Complaint stated multiple violations of state and federal laws for which there are multiple federal remedies. These include the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, Declaratory Judgment Act, void judgment doctrine, FTCA, and Civil RICO. The Complaint also included an attempt to report federal crimes to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
FRCivP 12 (c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. … If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
A Rule 56 motion, or a Rule 12 motion that is recognized as a Rule 56 (c) motion when facts outside of the pleadings are stated in the motion. This occurred when the lower court dismissed the action on the basis of Judge Sporkin’s 1991 injunctive order. The raising of that issue requires that pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, be provided, together with the affidavits, if any, that show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Augustine v. McDonald, 770 F.2d 1442, 1444 (9th Cir. 1985).
Sua sponte dismissal, without notice and a chance to be heard, violates due process. "It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits without notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to respond." Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246. ("We held in Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 796 (9th Cir. 1962) that the right to a hearing on the merits of a claim over which the court has jurisdiction is of the essence of our judicial system, and the judge's feeling that the case is probably frivolous does not justify by-passing that right. Stich is entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard."
In Doe v. United States Dept. of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (1985) the court held:
Rule 12 provides that if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56…" See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(noting that, if a Rule 12 motion is converted into a summary judgment proceeding, "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." [The record in this case does not indicate that the district court gave the plaintiff any such notice and opportunity to present relevant material. We therefore treat the district court’s disposition as a Rule 12(b) dismissal for failure to .. state a claim ….]
For the purposes of a Rule 12 motion, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and any ambiguities or doubts concerning the sufficiency of the claim must be resolved in favor of the pleader. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1696, 40 Led.2d 90 (1979); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102.
4. Dismissal Violated Bar Against Dismissal When A Federal Cause Of Action Is Stated
Dismissal was barred on the basis that the facts stated in the Complaint stated multiple federal causes of actions for which federal relief was provided. "When a motion to dismiss a complaint is made, … the clear and long-accepted meaning [of Rules 54(c) and 12] is that a complaint should not be dismissed for legal insufficiency except where there is failure to state a claim on which some relief, not limited by the request in the complaint, can be granted." Doe v. United States Department Of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (1985). Summary judgment is prohibited under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is one or more genuine issues as to material facts. Tarin v. County of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir.).
5. Dismissal Violated Requirement That Allegations
Stated In Complaint Be Accepted As TrueIn conjunction with the legal requirement to provide a federal court forum and due process when the facts in the Complaint state a federal cause of action, the law requires that the court accept as true the allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavits as true. Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967. If Stich's allegations state a claim for which federal courts can grant relief, the court must accept jurisdiction. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980).
That requirement also applies to Stich’s statements of criminal activities that he discovered and which were inflicting grave harm upon national security and other major national interests.
6. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Findings Of Facts and Conclusions of LawThe order dismissing the Complaint did not address the facts or the law raised in Stich’s Complaint. This practice occurred with the dismissal of Stich’s lawsuit in 1991 by Judge Sporkin, and by the lower court in this action.
The court held in Williamson v. Tucker (CA 5th, 1981) 645 F2d 404, cert den 454 US 897, 102 S Ct 396, 70 L ed 2d 212, that despite the district court’s apparent reliance upon the exceptions of Rule 52(a), the purpose of the Rule favors reading it as a whole to require factual findings whenever a decision rests on factual determinations. In keeping with the theory that the trial court should make findings where there is a trial upon the facts, Rule 52(a) recognizes that findings are to be made "as provided in Rule 41(b)."
The lower court judge was required to determine the conditions under which Sporkin’s order was rendered 11 years earlier, whether that order violated legal and constitutional protections, and whether that order permitted the lower court to block the reporting of criminal activities.
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. (CA 5th, 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 Rule 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."
7. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Discovery
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 27 provides for discovery, which was denied to Stich. Rule 12 or 56 dismissal provides for discovery before a decision is made. In this case the questions arise as to whether Sporkin’s 1991 injunctive order was legal, did it apply 11 years later, did it void the statutory and constitutional protections that were guaranteed to anyone suffering the great harm suffered by Stich from the massive violations of federally protected rights.
8. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To A Jury Trial
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 38 provides for a jury trial on all matters for which a jury is permitted, which was demanded in the Complaint on the first page.
Rule 38. Jury Trial of Right
Right preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
(b) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by … (2) filing the demand as required by Rule 5(d). Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.
9. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right Under Supreme Court’s
Void Order Doctrine Relating To Seizure Of Stich’s Life AssetsThe Supreme Court’s void order doctrine provides an additional right over and above the Declaratory Judgment Act, or in its place, for addressing the non-defendant causes of actions. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court establish that citizens have the right to have such void orders addressed as it stated such void orders may be "attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue:"
An illegal order is forever void. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, 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; 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.
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897;
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)("a void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect.") Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."); U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985)
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. A void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. 30A Am Jur Judgments §§ 43, 44, 45. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments § 44, 45.
At the core of the due process clause is the right to notice and a hearing "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner," Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). "Ordinarily, due process of law requires an opportunity for ‘some kind of hearing’ prior to the deprivation of a significant property interest." Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 346 U.S. 1, 19 (1978)(emphasis added); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-79 (1971).
The Supreme Court held that it is a well-settled remedy "mandated by the Due Process Clause of the fifth Amendment that there be an opportunity to be heard." Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627, 97 S.Ct. 882, 884 (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2707.) This would apply not only to the taking of Stich’s properties and due process, but to the sua sponte dismissal by Judge Kennedy and in 1991 by Judge Sporkin.
Among the many orders rendered against Stich that meet the criteria for void orders include (a) the orders permanently terminating Stich’s legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses by barring him from federal court; (b) orders seizing Stich’s $10 million in assets without a hearing, without notice of a hearing, without cause, without personal jurisdiction arising from earlier order refusing to accept jurisdiction; (c) orders sentencing Stich to prison by a Chapter 11 judge in retaliation for filing objection to the seizure and liquidation of Stich’s life assets; (d) orders by California judges that were rendered without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as clearly defined by California statutes and rules of court; and the injunctions permanently terminating Stich’s due process and equal protections guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and Constitution of the United States.
10. Dismissal Violated Rights To Declaration Of Legal Rights and Responsibilities Established In Five Judgments That Are In Controversy
The statutes, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, FRCivP 57, and related case law, guarantees to Stich the right to have his legal rights and legal relations established which are in dispute. These violations were key elements in the sham legal action filed against Stich by the CIA-front law firm. If any federal judge had met his or her duty instead of protecting the scheme, that scheme to halt Stich’s exposure activities by stripping Stich of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities would have been halted at the very start.
There currently exists contradictory legal rights and legal obligations between five judgments establishing Stich’s legal rights and legal obligations and a California judgment issued 22 years later by a California judge, who violated large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional substantive and procedural due process rights.
11. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights To Reinstatement Of Legal and Constitutional Rights Terminated Through Injunctive Orders
The lower court’s sua sponte dismissal violated Stich’s due process right to have his civil rights restored that had been terminated by Sporkin’s 1991 injunction—and the series of similar injunctions.
12. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under the Civil Rights Act
Stich’s Complaint stated facts invoking federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986. Stich suffered great and irreparable harm during six years of continuous orders rendered by California judges acting without personal jurisdiction, as clearly defined in California law, who repeatedly violated dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, while aiding and abetting the CIA-front law firm.
These facts, stated in Stich’s Complaint, constituted a federal cause of action against those defendants.
13. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Bivens
Stich’s lawsuit stated facts showing repeated and massive violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections under color of federal law, giving rise to a Bivens claim against certain defendants. The cause of action arose pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
14. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
Stich’s Complaint stated facts showing a series of torts perpetrated against Stich by government agents as part of the scheme to halt his exposure of the criminal activities. These were perpetrated against him while he was a resident of the states of California and Nevada, and earlier while he was a federal aviation safety agent in the state of Colorado. This cause of action arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.
15. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Civil RICO
The complaint stated facts showing a pattern of racketeering activities perpetrated against Stich that inflicted great harm upon interstate commerce—including the events of September 11, 2001, which were perpetrated in a conspiracy to halt his exposure of criminal activities in key government offices. This cause of action arose under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965.
CONCLUSION
The facts show that the lower court judge continued the practice of:
Blocking the reporting of criminal and subversive activities implicating people in key government positions.
Aiding and abetting and protecting the parties who have engaged in what is surely the worst and longest-lasting series of civil and constitutional violations on record, combined with multiple misuse of the California and federal courts to block the reporting of criminal and subversive activities against the United States by people in control of key government positions.
Violating every federal defense available to Stich to defend against the record numbers of violations of federally protected rights.
Enabling the corrupt and criminal activities to continue, some of which were directly responsible for the success of 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001. In this manner they have become criminally complicit in the 3,000 deaths, and those that will continue to result from the deep-seated corruption that Stich and his group of other government agents had discovered.
Because of this court’s approval of Judge Sporkin’s unlawful, unconstitutional, and obstruction of justice injunctive order, and the dramatic consequences seen on September 11, 2001, Stich expects this court will continue to expand on the massive civil and constitutional violations judicially perpetrated.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The relief must obviously include the following:
Remand the case to the district court with replacement of the judge who committed the violations, with appropriate safeguards that the judicial pattern of the past 20 years not be repeated.
Provide due process safeguards to address the federal causes of actions under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine, the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, and FTCA.
Provide procedures and safeguards for Stich and his group of other government agents to provide information and evidence of the criminal and subversive conduct, under the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4.
Enter an order stating that the permanent termination of Stich’s due process and equal protection of the law, through Sporkin’s injunctive order, and all others of similar nature, be held void, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
Reinstate the lawsuit filed by Stich, with assurances that all due process and equal protection of the laws and Constitution of the United States be met.
Dated: December 6, 2002.
_____________________________
Rodney F. Stich
Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains not over 8200 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed.R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), as stated by the word court in Microsoft Word Office 2000.
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed.R.App.P.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed.R.App.P 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2000 in Times Roman 12 point (as authorized by phone call to Court of Appeals on December 2, 2002.
__________________________
Rodney Stich
Dated: December 10, 2002
No. 02-5240
________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the District of Columbia Circuit
______________________
RODNEY F. STICH, Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Appellee
___________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Columbia
____________________
APPELLANT’S APPENDIX
APPENDIX
There is no transcript in this case as the complaint was sua sponte dismissed shortly after it was filled before any activities were initiated. Further, the district court has failed to provide the clerk’s transcript despite written request.
Copy of district court’s dismissal order: Exhibit "A":
FEDERAL STATUTES RELATING TO APPEAL BRIEF
Obstruction of justice statutes
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Rule 65. Injunctions
(a) Preliminary Injunction.
(1) Notice. No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.
(2) Consolidation of Hearing With Trial on Merits. Before or after the commencement of the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the application. Even when this consolidation is not ordered, any evidence received upon an application for a preliminary injunction which would be admissible upon the trial on the merits becomes part of the record on the trial and need not be repeated upon the trial. This subdivision (a) (2) shall be so construed and applied as to save the parties any rights they may have to trial by jury.
(b) Temporary Restraining Order; Notice; Hearing; Duration. A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be indorsed with the date and hour of issuance; shall be filed forthwith in the clerk's office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed 10 days, as the court fixes, ....
State and federal laws and constitutional provisions repeatedly violated from 1982 to the present date, without interruption:
California CC §§ 4351, 4554, 5004, 5102, 5103, 5108, 5110.720, 5118, 5164; California CCP §§1699(b), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1910, 1913, 915; California Rules of court Rules 1201(c); 1211, 1212, 1215, 1222, 1229(a), 1230(a)(2), 1234, 1239(a)(2), 1281, and Rule 1282; absence of personal jurisdiction arising from Rule 1230 Motion to quash, 1230(a)(2), 1234, and 1239(a)(2); absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act: Rules 1201(c), 1211, 1212, 1281, 1282, 1215, 1222, 1229, 1230(a)(2), 1234, 1239(a)(2); Civil Code §§ 4351, 4503; California Supreme Court Decisions, including Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796.; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249]; Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498 C.2d 210; Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656; Res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines.; Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, full faith and credit statute; Article IV, § 1, providing for full faith and credit; Article IV, § 2, against taking of previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights upon changing residence to another state; Fourteenth Amendment due process clause; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause; Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection; Fourteenth Amendment property rights; Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests; landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions: 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).
Pattern of Repeated Violations By Federal Judges As Stich Sought Relief From the Violations Occurring In the California Courts:
Instead of providing relief from the above violations of federally protected rights, federal judges aided and abetted these violations. They refused to provide federal relief under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, they protected the CIA-front law firm and California judges perpetrating these massive violations, and retaliated against Stich for exercising the federal defenses specific for any one of the multiple violations of any one of the above laws and constitutional protections.
Federal Due Process Remedies Repeatedly Violated by Federal Judges
Federal judges repeatedly violated the rights under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and FRCivP 57); Civil Rights Act for the violations under color of state law (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986); Bivens, for the violations under color of federal law; Supreme Court’s void order doctrine relating to the unconstitutional orders terminating Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights, the orders seizing Plaintiff’s $10 million in assets without a hearing, notice of hearing, or cause); civil RICO.
Activities Used By Stich To Expose Corruption In Key Government Offices
Multiple issues of Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, Drugging America, Disavow, and Terrorism Against America. Internet sites also refer to these matters: www.unfriendlyskies.com; www.defraudingamerica.com; www.druggingamerica.com.
Initial Blocking Of Reports Of Criminal Activities Related To Aviation Disasters
Stich v. United States, et al., 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 cover-up 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 Stich seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.
Stich’s background
Navy patrol plane commander in World War II, international airline captain after the war, one of the first pilots licensed by Japan and one of the first pilots flying for Japan Airlines, qualified in many types of airliner aircraft, the author of numerous books on air safety. He was a government air safety inspector-investigator conducting flights checks and examination of air safety problems with numerous pre-accident reports of major safety problems. As a federal aviation safety agent with over 20 years of prior Navy pilot and airline captain experience was given the assignment to correct the conditions resulting in the worst series of airline crashes in the nation’s history.
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, Iraq, Lies, and Coverups.
- 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.
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 other charges are involved.
New Page 1