Simultaneous with federal judges and Justice Department personnel blocking the reporting of these criminal and subversive activities, the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco filed a sham and bizarre lawsuit against Stich in the courts at Fairfield, California, focusing on the $10 million in real estate assets that funded Stich's exposure activities. the lawsuit sought to immediately deprive Stich access to these funds while acting to destroy the assets.

In law, there are two ways to immediately place a person's assets in control of a judge. Either through probate or in a divorce action in a community property state where the court holds that the property is community. Stich wasn't dead so the probate route was out. Stich had been legally divorced for the prior 20 years and that route should have been out. No problem; when you have control of judges and have a powerful source high in government supporting your unlawful conduct, the victim has no defenses.

The CIA-front law firm filed a divorce action against Stich, claiming that their client in Duncanville, Texas wanted to terminate the marriage and was claiming most of Stich's personal and corporate assets. That lawsuit was barred by dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.

Included in the obstacles to that lawsuit was the fact that the parties had been legally divorced for over 20 years, as established by a January 31, 1966 divorce judgment that had been entered as a local judgment in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, and California. Both parties had been declaring themselves divorced throughout this period in real estate and other legal transactions. The parties' divorced status was recognized in over 100 title insurance policies. In addition, the Texas resident continued to declare herself divorced in her resident state of Texas while the CIA-front law firm was claiming she was married and wanted to terminate that marriage.

By placing lis pendens on all of Stich's properties and refusing to allow mortgages to be rolled over when they came due, valuable properties were lost. If the CIA-front law firm was actually representing a marriage partner in Texas, they would be guilty of malpractice for allowing valuable assets to be lost.

For six years, over a dozen California judges granted every motion requested by the CIA-front law firm, refused every motion filed by Stich, and continued to violate record-numbers of state and federal laws barring them from the actions they were taking. It became apparent that they did not fear the consequences of their blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional conduct that violated numerous federally protected rights for which there were remedies in federal courts.

It became a standard practice of California judges to label every exercise of due process defense remedies a frivolous act, and then ordered Stich to pay huge financial sanctions for exercising these defenses. It is a federal offense to inflict harm upon a person for exercising constitutional due process rights. It is an even worse federal offense, criminal, if it is to obstruct justice by halting the reporting of crimes against the United States.   

The legal and judicial attacks upon former federal agent Rodney Stich then continued, and are continuing at this time, knowingly obstructing justice by seeking to halt the exposure of the corrupt activities. Single handed, that former federal agent continues to fight the David versus Goliath battle to expose a literal Trojan horse subversion of major national interests.

Stich filed the first of numerous papers in federal court seeking to halt the personal and financial losses arising from the massive violations of state and federal laws. This right was provided by the laws and Constitution of the United States including:

• Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) FRCivP 57, and related law. Federal law requires that this federal cause of action receive court priority.
   

• Civil Rights Act (Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986), for violations of state and federal laws and constitutional rights under color of state law.

Despite the bar against dismissal when the facts stated in the complaint state a federal cause of action for which federal relief is available, every federal judge promptly dismissed the lawsuits, thereby protecting the CIA-front law firm and the heavy involvement of California judges, aided and abetted the violations of federally protected rights for which federal judges had a responsibility to prevent. Federal judges were now combining their obstruction of justice with a blatantly sham lawsuit filed by a CIA-front law firm to halt Stich's exposure activities through taking of his assets. These violations by federal judges were parallel judicial efforts to obstruct justice by halting the reporting of criminal activities.

Denied all due process defenses in California and federal courts, and continuing to lose valuable real estate as loans became due that could not be refinanced, Stich filed Chapter 11 for his personal and corporate assets seeking to force a federal judge to address the massive violations of state and federal laws. He sought to have the Chapter 11 judge order the removal of the lis pendens placed on the properties by the CIA-front law firm and their lawyers. Also, to have an order rendered halting the sham lawsuit in the California courts and declare the validity of the five judgment that had already adjudicated the issues 22 years earlier (the divorce).

At that time Stich did not know the existence of the massive corruption in the nation's bankruptcy courts involving corrupt judges, Justice Department trustees, court-appoint trustees, lawyers, and law firms--and CIA involvement. He was to learn these matters at a later date, as detailed in Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries, and Defrauding America, and other books Stich wrote.

instead of performing his duty, Chapter 11 judge Robert Jones (Las Vegas) protected the CIA-front law firm. He signed orders in chambers seizing and liquidating Stich's $10 million in assets, violating the legal and constitutional due process requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing at which Stich could defend, and legally recognized cause.

These due process violations were then followed by Chapter 11 Judge Edward Jellen (Oakland, California) issuing unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring Stich from filing any objections to the seizure and liquidation of his assets.

When Stich did file an objection, the objection was unfiled and Jellen charged him with criminal contempt of court (for filing objections when this due process right had been terminated by his earlier unlawful order).

Eventually, all of Stich's assets were gone, including his home and his sole source of income. A heavy price to pay for his efforts to protect a public that appears totally unwilling to exercise any form of outrage or courage to fight cancer-spreading corruption in government.

From the very first attempt to report the criminal activities to a federal court in 1977, and throughout the period until 2002, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who held supervisory responsibilities over the same federal judges guilty of these crimes, refused to act. In this way, these justices aided and abetted the criminal acts that subverted major national interests, including national security, and were complicit in the various forms of harm inflicted upon the American people.

The 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2001, were made possible by the corruption in the FAA that resulted in the conditions insuring the success of the 19 hijackers, and the cover-ups by federal judges and others.

From 1986 to 1995, Stich was continually under either house arrest or in prison for having sought to report the criminal and subversive activities to a federal court or for exercising defense remedies against the taking of his life assets (that had funded his exposure of crimes against the United States).

What is stated here is only the tip of the iceberg. Much more information is on this Internet site and in the books that Stich and his group of government agents have written.

• In no other known case is there so much documented evidence of hardcore judicial corruption affecting national issues, and complicit in great harm to major national interests, and complicit in the deaths of many people.
  

• The many groups protesting judicial corruption will get nowhere relying solely on the misconduct of judges on individual matters. The only way that major changes can be made to remove arrogant and corrupt judges is to heavily publicize this information, and that which is found in the books, Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, Drugging America, Terrorism Against America, and Legal and Judicial Trojan Horses. 

Stich is 79 years of age, and has for 40 years fought the battle by himself. He is about to abandon future efforts. If the public is too lazy, hasn't the backbone or integrity to act, even after 3,000 deaths in only one day's deja vu consequence of the corruption Stich and his group of other government agents have presented to the public, then the public has decided it wants more of the same (just as they have decided for many prior years and many prior tragedies, including those outside of the aviation area).

Footnote References

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.  

The other sources of information and evidence were agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, and Central Intelligence Agency, including former heads of secret CIA airlines and secret CIA financial operations who provided The author with information on drug smuggling into the United States and various forms of financial fraud perpetrated against the United States.  

The injunctive orders required the former federal agent to first submit any filing to the courts to determine whether they would be filed. But every attempted filing was barred despite the record numbers of federally causes of actions stated.  Since there was no filing, there was no appeal remedy.

Legal requirements for injunctive orders include (1) they must halt great and irreparable harm; (2) they must halt unlawful acts; (3) they must be in the public’s interest; and (4) the judge rendering the orders must issue a finding of facts showing that these requirements had been met. As repeatedly judicially perpetrated, the law was applied in reverse. The orders did not halt the harm; they protected the people inflicting the harm and deprived Stich, who was the recipient of the harm, from defenses and protections in the laws and Constitution of the United States. The orders did not halt the unlawful acts; they provided judicial protection to the continuation and escalating of these violations. Subverting the laws and Constitution of the United States and depriving a citizen of these rights was not in the public’s interest. The findings of facts showing these requirements were met were never made by any of the judges.  

Government agents providing The author with information and evidence of criminal activities, including terrorist activities, included agents from the FBI, DEA, Customs, INS, Secret Service, and CIA.  

Repeatedly violated by California judges were: 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).  

Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his so exercised the same, ... they shall be fined ... or imprisoned ...  

Ninth Circuit appellate judges James R. Browning, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Ronald M. Gould.  

A court system as a racketeering enterprise was defined in United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066 (1981).  

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

The first four petitions were sent to the U.S. Supreme Court as a result of the coverups by Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges blocking the reporting of criminal activities implicated in a series of aviation disasters, implicating people in the two government aviation safety agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.

March 4, 1991, Petition for emergency relief to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking relief from the criminal contempt of court charges for attempting to report criminal activities to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute (and for exercising federal due process remedies against record-setting violations of state and federal laws initiated by a CIA-front law firm). From 1986 to 1995, a succession of criminal contempt of court charges confined Stich to his home pending trial for attempting to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute.

Numerous other petitions were sent to the U.S. Supreme Court from 1986 to the present date. Some will be uploaded as time permits.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the cases. The significance of this was that the Justices:

• Were refusing to receive evidence of deadly criminal activities that were being reported under the federal crime reporting statute.
   

• Were covering up for the felony cover-ups and obstruction of justice by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities.
   

• Had legal and moral liability for the deaths in  aviation disasters that occurred, enabled by the cover-ups of Supreme Court justices. (Later, as they were made aware of criminal activities in other government offices adversely affecting other areas of national interests, they became complicit in these crimes and the consequences.)

Once the cover-ups and the consequences occurred, the decision was made to continue the judicial cover-ups, despite the consequences. Among the one-day consequences were the hijackings of four airliners on September 11, 2001, enabled by the misconduct in the government's aviation safety offices (and to a smaller extent, the government's intelligence gathering offices) that prevented the federal government from ordering the known and obvious preventative measures.