NO. 95-
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1994
In re Rodney F.
Stich,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. BANKRUPTCY
COURT,
)
Northern District of
California;
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
JEROME ROBERTSON,
trustee )
)
Real party in
interest.
)
____________________________
)
PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
To
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (Brief for Petitioner)
RELATING
TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL TAKING OF ASSETS
REQUEST
FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
(28
USC Section 1651(A); Rules 13, 20)
NINTH
CIRCUIT 94-70303 & 70304
RULE
39 FILING
RODNEY F. STICH, Petitioner
P.O. Box 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 510-944-1930
Petitioner in pro se (Rule 39)
QUESTIONS
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. May a federal judge
seize, and then subsequently destroy, a citizen's life's assets, through the
appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, after the court had rendered verbal and
written orders refusing to accept jurisdiction, which had never been vacated?
2. May orders be rendered
converting a financially healthy citizen to a state of poverty without the
constitutional and statutory requirements and protection of a hearing, due
process, and equal protection of the law?
3. Are judicial orders,
seizing a citizen's assets under these conditions, void orders, as a matter of
law?
4. Are the subsequent
judicial acts and orders also void?
5. Do the Constitution and
laws of the United States permit a federal judge to convert a voluntary Chapter
11 filing of a financially healthy estate into a de factor Chapter 7
liquidation?
6. Do federal judges have
the authority to render orders barring a citizen from filing appeals or
oppositions following these unlawful and unconstitutional judicial acts?
7. May federal judges charge
a person with criminal contempt of court, and sentence him to prison, after
that citizen exercises constitutional and statutory rights to file appeals and
oppositions to the seizure and subsequent liquidation of his assets under these
corrupt conditions?
8. Did court of appeals
judges violate their judicial duties, and aid and abet these violations, by
refusing to provide relief, and concurrently void for Petitioner the protection
of post-judgment right to an en banc rehearing?
9. Does the Constitution and
statutes of the United States provide authority and jurisdiction to judges for
perpetrating the judicial subversion of the protections under our form of
government?
10. Do Justices of the U.S.
Supreme Court have a mandatory duty, under federal civil rights and criminal
statutes, to provide prompt relief from judicial subversion of the protections
under our form of government, as provided by the laws and Constitution of the
United States?
LIST OF PARTIES
Petitioner
Rodney F. Stich
Western Diablo Enterprises, owned by Rodney F. Stich.
Respondents
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California
Jerome Robertson, trustee
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS
PRESENTED
i
LIST OF
PARTIES
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES
iv
REFERENCE TO NINTH
CIRCUIT
ORDERS
1
JURISDICTIONAL
STATEMENT
1
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
AND
STATUTES
1
STATEMENT OF THE
CASE
2
ARGUMENT
20
I. The September 28, 1987
Verbal Order, and the Written
October 7, 1987 Orders, Seizing Petitioner's Assets,
Are Void and Voidable
Orders
20
II. All Judicial Orders and
Trustee Actions Subsequent To The
Fraudulent and Void Appointment of a Trustee Are Void, As A
Matter of
Law
22
III. Basis For Supreme Court
Intervention
23
Conclusion
25
Relief
Requested
26
INDEX
TO APPENDIX
September 28, 1987 order
refusing to accept
jurisdiction
1a
October 8, 1987 orders
Seizing Petitioner's assets, rendered after refusing to accept jurisdiction, and
without the statutory requirement of a noticed hearing, the constitutional and
statutory requirement of a hearing and due process, while violating clear
statutory
requirements.
2a & 2b
June 23, 1994 Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals order denying petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and
Prohibition, and injunctive order
remedies 3a
August 9, 1994 Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals order permanently voiding for Petitioner the constitutional
and statutory protection of appellate court access as available to other
citizens
4a
October 28, 1991 letter to
Petitioner from Justice Byron
White
5a
TABLE
OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES:
Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388
(1971)
3
Earle v McVeigh, 91
U.S.
503
21
Ex Parte Rowland 104
U.S. 604
(1882)
20
Hanson v. Denckla 357
U.S.
235
21
Hotel Assoc., vs. Trustees
of Central States SESW Area's Pension
Fund (1 CBC 2nd 733) BCt. EdPa
(1980)
10
In re Anchorage Boat
Sales, Inc., 4 Bankr. 635, 2 C.B.C.2d 348,
6 B.C.D. 495 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
1980)
10
In re Garland Corp., 6
Bankr. 456 (Bankr. App.Pan. Mass.
1980)
10
In Re: L.S. Good and Co.,
8 BR 312, (CCt N.B.W.Va.)
1980
10
Johnson v. Virginia 373
U.S. 61
(1963)
20
Jordon v. Gilligan 500
F.2d
701
20
Kalb v. Feuerstein 308
U.S. 433
(1940)
20
League v. DeYoung U.S.
11 How
184
22
Lubben v. Selective
service System Local Bd 453 F.2d
645
20
Nudd v. Burrows 91
U.S.
26
22
Pennoyer v. Neff 95
US 714
(1877)
20
Renaud v. Abbott 116
U.S.
277
21
Rose v. Homely 4
Cranch 241, 2 Led
608
20
Sabariego v. Maverick 124
US
261
21
U.S. v. Holtzman 762
F.2d 720 (9th Cir.
1985)
21
Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)
418 U.S.
539
21
THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
First
Amendment
2
Fourth
Amendment
2
Fifth
Amendment
2,9
UNITED
STATES STATUTES
11 U.S.C.
305
6
11 U.S.C. '
1104
2,9
18 U.S.C. '
241
3,5,12,19
18 U.S.C. '
4
12,25
18 U.S.C. '
1343
2,5,25
18 U.S.C. '
1512
3,12
18 U.S.C.
1513
3,12
28 U.S.C. '
2201
3,5
28 U.S.C.
2202
3,5
42 U.S.C. '
1983-1986
1,3,5,12,25
42 U.S.C.
1961-1965
5
TEXTS
30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44,
45
21
Restatements, Judgments '
4(b)
21
BOOKS
Defrauding America,
Second Edition
(1994)
14,16
California cases
Armstrong v. Armstrong 15
C.3d
942
21
People v. Greene 71
Cal.
100
22
Olivero v. Grace 19
Cal 2d
570
22
REFERENCE TO NINTH CIRCUIT ORDERS
On June 9, 1994 Petitioner
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, seeking relief from the judicial seizure (Appendix 1a) and the
almost total destruction of his life's assets in the underlying Chapter 11
proceedings. The Petition made specific reference to a pattern of serious
constitutional and statutory violations judicially perpetrated.
The Ninth Circuit court of
appeals panel refused to provide any relief from the great harm Petitioner was
suffering, and denied the Petition on June 23, 1994 (Appendix 2a), without
making any findings of facts and conclusions of law related to the serious
constitutional and civil violations raised in the Petition. That order also
barred Petitioner from filing any motions for reconsideration, rehearing,
clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions.
As provided by federal law,
Petitioner submitted a motion for rehearing en banc with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was stamped as received on July 12, 1994. These
filings were returned within a few days, without having been considered by the
court, with the injunctive order part of the June 23, 1994 order highlighted,
which stated: "No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification,
stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in
these closed dockets."
BASIS FOR SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION
The date of entry of the
order denying the petition was June 23, 1994. Petitioner submitted a motion for
reconsideration, which was filed-stamped July 12, 1994. This petition to the
U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari is timely submitted.
Federal law conferring
jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to review the order and injunction includes:
·
Supreme Court Rule 14.1,(e),(iv).
·
Supreme Court Rule 13, providing for review of a
judgment of a United States court of appeals.
·
Federal civil rights statutes, including Title 28
USC Section 1343 and Title 42 USC Sections 1983-1986 (on the basis that any
person has a responsibility, and a liability to act when civil rights
violations are made known to them). On the basis of this court's supervisory
responsibilities over those federal judges committing the violations, this
court's responsibility to provide relief is greater than anyone else's.
·
Federal Rules Of Appellate Procedure 21.
·
Mandatory jurisdiction under federal criminal
statutes, arising from the pattern of felony retaliation against Petitioner,
for having reported the criminal activities, and the obstruction of justice
conduct by Ninth Circuit judges. Justices of the Supreme Court have supervisory
responsibilities over those federal judges committing these federal offenses,
along with vicarious criminal responsibilities if prompt intervention does not
occur.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES
The constitutional and
statutory provisions involved in the Petition include:
·
First Amendment right to petition for redress of
grievances. [Ninth Circuit judges have repeatedly blocked Petitioner's
attempts to obtain relief from the hard-core civil and constitutional
violations originally inflicted in the sham California action, and then
inflicted by federal judges blocking Petitioner from defending, and blocking
Petitioner from reporting the federal crimes.
·
Fourth Amendment right to be protected against
unreasonable seizure of properties. [Judicial seizure and destruction of
life's assets, without jurisdiction, and while concurrently violating blocks of
substantive and procedural due process protections.]
·
Fifth Amendment right to be protected against
taking of liberties and properties without due process of law. These
protections include the Fifth Amendment right to be secure in life, liberty and
properties. [The pattern of judicial taking of Petitioner's assets, the criminal
contempt and imprisonment in retaliation for exercising federal defenses and
for reporting the government corruption, are obviously a taking, criminal in
nature, of Petitioner's liberties and properties.]
·
Title 11 USC Section 1104, requiring a noticed hearing,
and a hearing, before taking property, requires legally recognized cause, due
process, and equal protection. [Each of these constitutional protections
were repeatedly violated in a judicial Ponzi-like scheme, commencing in 1983.]
·
Title 28 USC Sections 1331, 1343, guaranteeing to
a citizen the right to federal court access and protections. [This right
has been repeatedly denied to Petitioner since 1983, by unlawfully and
unconstitutionally dismissing every action filed under declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief remedies (as well as actions filed under federal criminal
statutes, Title 18 USC Section 4, seeking to report federal crimes implicating
federal officials). The dismissals were followed by a pattern of injunctive
orders by Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges barring Petitioner access
to the federal courts. These orders denying Petitioner access to federal court
also voided for him the protections under the Constitution and statutes of the
United States, while concurrently misusing the courts to inflict great harm
upon Petitioner.] These injunctive orders also threatened Petitioner with
prison if he exercised the constitutionally-guaranteed protections.
·
Title 28 USC Sections 2201, 2202. [This
protection was necessary to obtain a declaration of Petitioner's personal and
property rights, to defend against the taking of his assets in the sham
California "divorce" action. If a federal judge had exercised his
duty in 1983 when this federal protection was first exercised, Petitioner would
not have suffered the great human rights, the personal and financial harm, that
he has suffered. The declaratory judgment would have upheld the validity of the
five judgments that had for over two decades established Petitioner's divorced
status and property rights. But to have done so would have exposed the initial
judicial scheme seeking to silence Petitioner's exposure of government
corruption by stripping him of the assets that funded his exposure activities.
·
Title 42 USC Sections 1983-1986. Hard core civil
rights violations occurring in the sham California action were aided and
abetted by federal judges who blocked Petitioner's use of the protection in the
Civil Rights Act.
·
Bivens doctrine. The protection of the Bivens
doctrine were denied to Petitioner, as he sought relief from those people
acting under color of federal law who were violating his civil and
constitutional rights. These people included federal judges, trustees, officers
of the court, all of whom became implicated in the obstruction of justice and
the judicial scheme to silence Petitioner.
·
Title 42 USC Sections 1961-1965. [The
criminal conspiracy element of the civil rights violations, the blocking of
reports of government corruption, and the felony persecution of Petitioner for
having sought to report the federal crimes, invoke the protection of these
statutes, the protection of which have been voided by federal judges.]
·
Title 18 USC Section 241. Federal judges and Justice
Department attorneys retaliated against Petitioner for having exercised rights
and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Inflicting harm upon a person for exercising rights and protections under the
laws and Constitution of the United States is a crime. It is a greater crime
when perpetrated by a federal official, or a judge. That crime becomes worse,
when its intent is to obstruct justice.
·
Title 18 USC Sections 1512 and 1513. Federal
judges retaliated against a Petitioner, both a victim and an informant seeking
to report government corruption, for having sought to report or having reported
federal crimes, in which they themselves were implicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
The primary issues in this
petition relate to the unlawful and unconstitutional seizure of Petitioner's
Chapter 11 assets after he exercised the statutory protections of Chapter 11.
These assets were seized after the court had rendered verbal and written orders
refusing to accept jurisdiction (which had never been vacated), and while
concurrently violating major constitutional and statutory protections to guard
a citizen against taking of property.
Orders were rendered barring
Petitioner from filing appeals or oppositions to the wrongful taking of his
properties and assets. When Petitioner exercised these
constitutionally-guaranteed protections, he was charged with criminal contempt
of court and sentenced to federal prison.
Petitioner filed a petition
for writ of mandamus/prohibition with the Ninth Circuit court of appeals
seeking return of his assets on the basis of the void-order doctrine and the
pattern of judicial fraud involved in the taking of assets. The court of
appeals refused to provide relief and simultaneously barred Petitioner from
exercising other constitutional and statutory remedies. In a separate order the
Ninth Circuit court of appeals panel threatened Petitioner with sanctions if he
even tries to file any papers with the court of appeals.
DETAILED FACTUAL DESCRIPTION
Petitioner had sought
declaratory and injunctive relief in Chapter 11 from a pattern of civil and
constitutional violations occurring in a California lawsuit. He sought a
declaratory judgment to declare his personal and property rights as established
in five judgments, and an injunctive order halting the pattern of civil rights
violations. The reason for this inordinate use of Chapter 11 proceedings to
obtain relief that should normally be granted in district court was that
district and appellate courts repeatedly refused to perform their duty, which
required them to provide federal court access and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Petitioner had previously
filed federal actions under federal law which required federal judges to
provide a judgment declaring his divorced status and property rights under
federal law and the law of the five states in which the judgments were rendered
or entered. Further, Petitioner expected federal judges to exercise their
mandatory duty to provide relief from the ongoing pattern of hard-core civil
and constitutional violations occurring in the California courts, and which
violated blocks of state and federal law while concurrently acting without
jurisdiction under state law.
Instead of performing their
mandatory duty to provide this relief, federal judges dismissed each and every
action, violating protections in the statutes, rules of court, case law, and
the Constitution of the United States. Federal judges compounded these
violations by retaliating against Petitioner for exercising these federal
remedies, ordering Petitioner to pay financial sanctions to the people
violating his civil rights. In addition, federal judges repeatedly charged
Petitioner with criminal contempt of court for exercising the remedies
guaranteed by federal statutes and the Constitution of the United States.
Petitioner therefore sought to circumvent these judicial acts by seeking relief
in Chapter 11, expecting a federal judge to perform his or her duty in
providing declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioner filed two Chapter 11
cases in Las Vegas, one for his personal assets, and one for his corporate
assets, and these cases were assigned to Judge Robert Jones. This filing
occurred before Petitioner discovered a pattern of judicial corruption in Ninth
Circuit bankruptcy courts.
Chapter 11 judges,
commencing with Judge Jones, refused to provide relief, duplicating the actions
of Ninth Circuit district court and appellate judges. Violating large numbers
of constitutional and statutory protections, Chapter 11 judges rendered orders
seizing Petitioner's life's assets, which are now in the final stages of
liquidation as a de facto Chapter 7 conversion occurred. These judicial
violations converted Petitioner from a multi-millionaire, to a state of
poverty, with the accompanying great harm to constitutionally protected
liberties, freedoms, quality of life, and other safeguards under our form of
government.
Despite Petitioner's motions
for declaratory and injunctive relief from the civil rights violations that forced
Petitioner to seek relief in Chapter 11, Judge Jones refused to address the
request. However, he initially provided partial relief. On September 11, 1987,
Judge Jones rendered a verbal order that:
·
Vacated the California lis pendens placed on
Petitioner's properties by the Friedman, Sloan and Ross law firm using a Texas
resident as a catalyst for the sham divorce action. This permitted Petitioner
to arrange refinancing of the mortgages that had come due and which could not
be refinanced because of the lis pendens. This relief removed the
primary reason for Petitioner seeking relief in Chapter 11.
·
Ordered that the cases be dismissed in sixty days.
(The purpose of the sixty days delay was to give Petitioner time to refinance
mortgages that had come due.)
·
Refused to accept jurisdiction, and ordered that he
was abstaining from hearing the cases.
This verbal order refusing
to accept jurisdiction was reduced to a written order on September 28, 1987,
and provided for dismissal of the cases in sixty days.
That written order stated:
Having reviewed the
pleadings on file herein and heard the arguments of counsel, it is the determination
of this Court that it should abstain from hearing the above-captioned
bankruptcy cases and therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 305, an order
dismissing the cases will be entered within 60 days of the hearing.
[italics added.]
Immediately after rendering
the verbal order on September 11, 1987 refusing to accept jurisdiction, attorney
Estelle Manis, representing a mortgage holder who would shortly be paid off by
Petitioner with the removal of the lis pendens, filed a motion to remove
the automatic stay on several mortgages involved in Petitioner's personal
Chapter 11 filing. There was no jurisdiction to either file or to hear that
motion, based upon the abstention order that was then in effect. That motion to
remove the automatic stay was calendared and heard on September 28, 1987,
without Petitioner having been informed of the hearing.
Sabotage By Petitioner's Attorney
During this hearing
Petitioner's attorney immediately sought to have the court vacate its prior
order providing relief, and to convert Petitioner's Chapter 11 case into a
Chapter 7 liquidation. This arrogant display of attorney sabotage by
Petitioner's own attorney was approved by federal judges, who later financially
rewarded the conduct. It was during this September 28, 1987 hearing, limited to
the personal filing, and limited to a motion to remove the automatic stay on
several mortgages, that Judge Jones rendered a verbal order appointing a
trustee and seizing Petitioner's assets. Although the corporate case was not on
the calendar, the verbal order seizing the assets included the corporate case.
The improper seizing of
Petitioner's assets were accompanied by a convoluted sequence of events. After
rendering the verbal order seizing Petitioner's assets on September 28, 1987,
attorney Feinstein, representing the Texas resident who was used as a catalyst
in the sham divorce action, submitted to Judge Jones for his signing the
written order of the judge's September 11, 1987 verbal order of abstention.
Unknown to Petitioner until a later date, this attorney acted in collusion with
Judge Jones and attorneys seeking to strip Petitioner of his assets, including
attorneys involved in the initial sham California action.
Rendering Orders Seizing Petitioner's Assets,
After Refusing To Accept Jurisdiction
The order submitted to Judge
Jones for his signature, unexpectedly presented to the judge after he rendered
the verbal decision seizing Petitioner's assets, was signed at the end
of the hearing. To this day that order, refusing to accept jurisdiction, had
never been subject to a noticed hearing, or any hearing, or any order vacating
the abstention. That verbal order appointing the trustee and seizing
Petitioner's properties in the separate personal and corporate cases was
therefore rendered without jurisdiction, during a period of abstention.
Official audio tapes and their transcript proves the sequence of events. This
refusal to accept jurisdiction was referred to in several subsequent hearings.
The unexpected presentation of that written order for signing required
subsequent judicial chicanery.
FALSE STATEMENTS IN ORDER SEIZING PETITIONER'S ASSETS
Without any noticed hearing,
without any hearing (as shown by clerk's docket and other judicial records),
Judge Jones signed two orders on October 7, 1987 (Appendix 1a) seizing
Petitioner's assets in the separate personal and in the corporate cases. The
orders fraudulently stated that there had been a hearing on that date
appointing a trustee in both of Petitioner's estates. That was a false
statement made in a government document, that judicially stripped Petitioner of
his life's assets. Any person falsifying a document in that manner would be
guilty of a felony, which is a worse offense when perpetrated by a federal
official, or a federal judge.
ORDERS SEIZING PETITIONER LIFE'S ASSETS DESTROYED
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROTECTIONS
The judicial seizure of
Petitioner's assets made a mockery out of the concept of justice as the taking
violated the very same protections under our form of government as the judges
were paid and entrusted to protect. Included in the violations judicially
perpetrated were the following:
·
Violated Fifth Amendment right to a hearing, due
process, equal protection of the law, before taking a citizen's life's
assets and financially destroying him or her. "No person shall ... be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This clause protects against arbitrary and unfair procedures in judicial
proceedings which could affect the personal and property rights of a citizen.
Obviously, an absence of any hearing, an absence of notice of any hearing,
violating constitutional and statutory protections, constitute due process
violations. Notice of a hearing is a requirement of due process, and the
opportunity to present evidence to an impartial judge, and to have the decision
supported by evidence are other rights repeatedly recognized within the
protection of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
·
Violated Constitutional right to a hearing
before suffering a taking of a person's life's assets. The order seizing
Petitioner's life assets violated this important constitutional protection, and
particularly the First and Fifth Amendments.
·
Seizing Petitioner life's assets without
jurisdiction. Judge Jones's September 11, 1987 order of abstention was
still in effect, and had not been vacated. He had no jurisdiction to render an
order taking Petitioner's life's assets.
·
Failure to give a noticed motion to take property
via appointment of a trustee. There had never been a notice of a hearing to
appoint a trustee, as required by Title 11 USC § 1104.
·
Violated statutory protection and requirements
before seizing a person's property. Title 11 USC § 1104 requires that certain
conditions exist before the judge has authority to order the taking of
property. These include dishonesty and gross mismanagement. None of these
charges were made, and could not have been supported by the facts. These
conditions include:
·
Violated Requirement For Legally Recognized
Cause. There must be a legally recognizable cause, being either gross
mismanagement or dishonesty. It was Petitioner's competency that built up a $10
million estate from a $400 investment, and the estate had no financial
problems. The only problem was the sham divorce action and the refusal of
federal judges to perform their duty (rendering a declaratory judgment and
providing relief from the record number of civil and constitutional
violations.) The seizure was accompanied with the argument that part-time
magistrate John Moulds had held Petitioner in criminal contempt (E.D. Cal, CR
87-124 RAR) for having filed two federal actions reporting government
corruption and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the ongoing civil
right violations occurring in the sham California action.
·
Violated Requirement That Trustee Appointment Must
be Requested by Creditor. The request to appoint a trustee must be made by
a creditor who is at risk. The request was not made by any creditor. It was
requested by Petitioner's own attorney, overtly sabotaging Petitioner with the
approval of federal judges.
·
Violated Requirement That Creditors Must Be At
Risk. Every creditor was a secured creditor, secured by mortgages on
Petitioner's properties. In addition to being fully secured, the $4 million in
indebtedness was further secured by the $6 million in additional equity.
·
Violated Requirement That Seizure Must Be in the
Interest of the Estate. The drafters of USC section 1104 recognized that
the appointment of a trustee would probably be fatal to the case, and impose a
substantial financial burden on debtor's estate, precluding the effective
reorganization due to increased administrative expenses. In Re: L.S. Good
and Co., 8 BR 312, 314 (BCt., N.B.W.Va.) 1980); Hotel Assoc., vs.
Trustees of Central States SESW Area's Pension Fund., (1 CBC 2nd 733) BCt.,
ED Pa (1980).
·
Violated the Purpose Of Chapter 11 Reorganization,
To Keep the Petitioner in possession, and permit him to reorganize his estate.
The statutory intent of Chapter 11 is to allow the person or corporation time
to pay financial obligations. Prior to seeking relief in Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
Petitioner's estate was not in financial trouble. It was suffering losses due
to the illegal lis pendens and illegal conduct of the California courts, which
should have been corrected by the Civil Right Act complaints that Petitioner
filed. Seeking relief from the federal courts made federal judges show their
involvement in the entire scheme to block Petitioner's reporting of the
government corruption. This powerful judicial block then followed Petitioner
into the bankruptcy courts, for what is now the nation's worst reported
judicial scandal. Federal case law requires that there is a strong presumption
in favor of retaining the debtor in possession. (First Circuit: In re
Garland Corp., 6 Bankr. 456 (Bankr. App.Pan.Mass. 1980); Second Circuit: In
re Anchorage Boat Sales, Inc., 4 Bankr. 635, 2 C.B.C.2d 348,6 B.C.D. 495
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1980). 2nd Cir.; Sixth Circuit--In re Ford, 36 Bankr.
501, 11 B.C.D. 809 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1983).
·
No justification. Nothing had changed in
Petitioner's financial status to justify vacating that September 11 and 28,
1984 order of abstention and relief, and appointing a trustee.
COMPOUNDING THE CORRUPT SEIZURE OF ASSETS BY
DESTROYING CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROTECTIONS
After seizing Petitioner's
assets, federal judges compounded the takings of Petitioner's assets by
violating other constitutional protections, seeking to protect themselves
against the prior violations. They unlawfully and unconstitutionally dismissed
every action filed by Petitioner, which contained important federal causes of
action. They rendered orders barring Petitioner access to federal court. They
ordered Petitioner to pay financial sanctions for defending himself with
constitutionally protected remedies. They sentenced him to federal prison for
exercising federal remedies. These judicial acts made a mockery of the
protections under our form of government as provided by the following:
·
Title 18 USC Section 241 (inflicting harm
upon a citizen for exercising rights and protections under the laws and
Constitution of the United States). This criminal statute is applicable because
of the harm inflicted upon Petitioner for having exercised rights and
protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Petitioner
has been repeatedly charged with criminal contempt of court since 1986, and a
charge is now pending in the Northern District of California (CR 90-0636 VRW),
in retaliation for having filed appeals and oppositions to the judicial civil right
violations.
·
Title 18 USC Section 1512 and 1513
(retaliating against a victim or informant for reporting or trying to report
federal crimes). These statutes are applicable because of the judicial harm
inflicted upon Petitioner, both as a victim and as an informant, for seeking to
report federal crimes, which Petitioner initially discovered while a federal
investigator, authorized by law to make such determinations. Ninth Circuit
judges committed criminal acts in retaliating against Petitioner to obstruct justice.
These harmful acts are ongoing at this time, under the supervisory
responsibilities of the U.S. Supreme Court.
·
Title 28 USC Section 1343 and Title 42 USC
Sections 1983-1986, and the Bivens doctrine. Civil rights violations
were judicially inflicted upon Petitioner for the past ten years, commencing
with the sham California "divorce" action; the felony retaliation by
federal judges and Justice Department attorneys for having exercised federal
declaratory and injunctive relief remedies; and then in the Chapter 11
proceedings. After judicially violating these federal protections federal
judges then barred Petitioner from exercising federal civil rights protections,
followed by threats and then incarceration for having done so.
·
Title 18 USC Section 4. This federal crime
statute makes it a federal crime for anyone who knows of a crime not to
promptly report it to a federal judge or other federal tribunal. Ninth Circuit
federal judges, district and appellate, have inflicted harm upon Petitioner
through the criminal misuse of the federal judiciary in retaliation for
attempting to report federal crimes involving federal personnel, including
Ninth Circuit Justice Department personnel, federal judges, and officers of the
court. After Petitioner exercised this federal crime reporting responsibility,
Ninth Circuit federal judges retaliated against Petitioner, charging him with
criminal contempt of court, sentencing him to federal prison, seizing his
assets, destroying his quality of life, his liberties, his freedom, and other
constitutionally-protected rights.
FURTHER EVIDENCE SHOWING JUDICIAL FRAUD
On September 11, 1987, Judge
Jones verbally rendered the first order refusing to accept jurisdiction. On
September 28, 1987, Judge Jones signed the written order refusing to accept
jurisdiction, and repeating his intent to dismiss the two cases in 60 days.
(Immediately prior to signing that order of abstention, dating back to
September 11, 1987, Judge Jones rendered an order seizing Petitioner's assets.)
The
Third Affirmation of Refusal To Accept Jurisdiction
On October 5, 1987, Judge
Jones again repeated that he intended to dismiss the case, as he had stated
during the September 11, 1987 hearing:
"I intend to dismiss
the case" (p.5 of court transcript.)
The Fifth Affirmation
refusing to accept jurisdiction
On November 10, 1987, Judge
Jones and attorney Meyers entered into a conversation in open court, referring
to the order of abstention (pg. 4 of court transcript):
Mr. Myers: As I
understand the order that Your Honor entered on September 28th, it provided for
various things, including dismissal of the case sixty days hence, which would
be the end of this month, upon the Court's decision to abstain.
On December 14, 1987, the
court transcript again shows that an order of abstention had existed. Attorney
Meyers sought to have Judge Jones vacate the order of abstention, apparently
recognizing the conflict between orders seizing Petitioner's assets and the
order of abstention that was in effect:
Mr. Meyers: First, that
order calls for the dismissal of the case ... (p.49)
[Referring to the order
rendered on September 11, 1987 and signed on September 28, 1987, refusing to
accept jurisdiction and calling for dismissal in 60 days.]
Court: I'm not doing
that, that's deleted. (p.49)
[Something more meaningful
than a perfunctory "that's deleted" is required to change
Petitioner's status from having obtained relief necessary to save his assets,
and than a perfunctory order causing the loss of a $10 million estate, converting
a person to a state of poverty. Further, it showed that until that December 14,
1987 date, the order of abstention had still been in effect, including when the
orders appointing a trustee was rendered.]
Mr. Meyers: I understand
that. And so I would ask that the Court enter an order simply stating that the
Court's decision to abstain and dismiss in that order is rescinded. (p.49)
Court: That's correct ...
just rescind it.
[Judge Jones admitted that
the order of abstention/refusing to accept jurisdiction, existed to that date
and to that moment. Judge Jones had not performed the necessary statutory and
constitutional protection required to vacate the order refusing to accept
jurisdiction and provide relief, and replacing it with an order stripping Petitioner
of assets for which he worked a lifetime to acquire. This perfunctory and
arrogant disregard for human rights and the constitution and laws of the United
States shows the mindset in Ninth Circuit judges.]
Mr. Stich: Do I
understand that the Court's previous order to abstain is now being rescinded?
(p.50)
Court: That's correct.
I'm [now] going to rescind that [order]. (p.50)
Court: [E]especially
where the Court doesn't intend to take jurisdiction of the case. (p.12)
Court: I did not say I
was going to abstain. ... And so as far as I'm concerned, the order could stand
as it is, I have no present intention to abstain, in fact I'm changing venue
and that moots the issue. Maybe that's the better way to treat it. (p.50)
THE ORDER REFUSING TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION HAS NEVER BEEN
VACATED
There is no record of any
order having been signed vacating the verbal and written order refusing to
accept jurisdiction, and which provided Petitioner with relief. Judge Jones did
state, and he did order, abstention. The court's audio tape and transcript of
the hearings on September 11 and 28, his statements on October 5, November 10
and December 14, 1987, the statements by attorneys, and the September 28, 1987
order of abstention, clearly show that the judge had ordered abstention.
To this date the records
establishing absence of jurisdiction arises from the September 11, 1987 verbal
order; the September 28, 1987 written order; absence of any written order
vacating the refusal to accept jurisdiction; absence of any noticed hearing for
appointment of a trustee.
After this December 14th
hearing the two case were then transferred to the bankruptcy court in Oakland,
California, where they were assigned to Judge Edward Jellen. The same pattern
of judicial corruption, violations of federally protected rights escalated.
COVERT BEHIND-THE-SCENE ACTIVITIES
At some time between the
September 11, 1987 verbal abstention order and the September 28, 1987 hearing,
some covert act occurred to cause Judge Jones to change his position from providing
Petitioner relief, to stripping him of his life's assets. The book Defrauding
America, suggests that the force came from either the Justice Department
and/or federal judges who were implicated in the federal crimes Petitioner
sought to expose.
After rendering the void
orders seizing Petitioner's assets, trustee Charles Duck was appointed to take
over Petitioner's $10 million in assets. Prior to that date dozens of people
had reported to federal judges, and to the U.S. Attorney, that Duck was looting
their assets. No actions were taken, protecting Duck's criminal activities.
Confidential documents and statements made to Petitioner by deep-cover CIA
personnel, which are described in Defrauding America, reveal that the
corruption by trustee Charles Duck and federal judges were known to the U.S.
Department of Justice, and that the federal judiciary has been converted into a
major racketeering enterprise, looting Chapter 11, 12, and 13 assets. This
explains the confidence with which the corrupt judicial acts were perpetrated,
and the refusal of every judicial check and balance protected the criminal
acts.
Petitioner's complaints to
the same group about Duck's looting of assets went unheeded. Media publicity
about Duck's embezzlement caused an indictment to be filed against him. His
embezzlement, after examining only two of the hundreds of cases that he
handled, was reported as the worst trustee embezzlement in history. (Further
details of Duck's criminal activities, and his relationship to the Central Intelligence
Agency, are described in Defrauding America.) A plea bargain was reached
to halt further investigation into the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy court
corruption.
The trustees and their law
firms, paid from Petitioner's liquidated assets, embarked on a pattern of
looting Petitioner's Chapter 11 assets. Of the original $10 million in assets,
only approximately $300,000 remains as filing this Petition.
Transferring the Two Separate Cases From Las Vegas To Oakland
In December 1987 the two
separate cases were transferred to the bankruptcy court at Oakland, California,
and assigned to judge Edward Jellen, who promptly enlarged on the judicial
corruption. Judge Jellen rendered orders barring Petitioner from filing appeals
or other federal remedies against the taking of his assets, compounding the
judicial civil rights violations.
Recognizing that no judge
has jurisdiction to engage in a pattern of civil and constitutional violations,
Petitioner filed appeals and oppositions, seeking to halt the destruction of
assets that he acquired during his adult life. Jellen responded by rendering an
order holding Petitioner in criminal contempt of court. At the hearing on the
criminal contempt charge Judge Jellen:
·
Refused Petitioner's request for use of his funds to
hire legal counsel to defend against the criminal contempt charge. (Petitioner
had been refused funds from his estate to pay for legal counsel, while
simultaneously approving the payment of legal counsel for those perpetrating
the violations of federally protected rights.)
·
Refused to provide Petitioner with legal counsel.
·
Refused to allow Petitioner to testify in his own
behalf.
·
Sentenced Petitioner to federal prison, a sentence
that is waiting to be carried out.
·
U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, without allowing
Petitioner a hearing or to submit briefs, upheld the order for Petitioner to go
to prison.
Ninth Circuit Chapter 11
courts as a racketeering enterprise. Petitioner, a former federal investigator
who held federal authority to make determination of federal violations,
discovered that Ninth Circuit Chapter 11/12/13 courts were corruptly used to
seize and loot the assets of many people and small companies seeking relief
under these statutes. Petitioner has written about this racketeering enterprise
in the first and second printing of Defrauding America, a copy of which
had been earlier sent by certified mail to every Justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court. These criminal activities have been aided and abetted by every level of
the Ninth Circuit federal courts, helping to explain the judicial arrogance as
it relates to Petitioner.
DE FACTO AND FRAUDULENT CONVERSION OF PETITIONER'S HEALTHY
$10 MILLION ASSETS TO A CHAPTER 7 LIQUIDATION
After corruptly seizing
Petitioner's assets without any hearing, without jurisdiction, and violating
blocks of federal protections, the healthy estates were placed into a de
facto Chapter 7 liquidation. Loan commitments that had been secured, that
would have paid off all creditors, were cancelled. Parties who participated in
the fraudulent California "divorce" action were financially rewarded,
provided attorneys, through liquidation of Petitioner's assets, while
simultaneously denying funds to Petitioner for his own legal, medical and
living expenses.
FINAL IMPOVERISHMENT OF PETITIONER
In February 1994, trustee
Jerome Robertson and his law firm, Murray and Murray, notified Petitioner that
he would no longer receive any living allowance from his remaining $300,000
assets, and that they were no longer paying for his health insurance. (Petitioner
had a remaining income of $495 monthly from Social Security.) Petitioner also
learned that the remaining $300,000 would be used to pay the Texas resident who
had played a major role in the scheme against Petitioner (through participation
in the sham divorce action, while declaring herself divorced in her resident
state of Texas).
EXERCISING NINTH CIRCUIT APPELLATE REMEDIES
Seeking return of his assets
on the void order doctrine and other federal remedies, Petitioner filed with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a Petition for writ of mandamus and
prohibition on June 9, 1994. requesting that all properties and assets be
returned to him. On June 23, 1994, Ninth Circuit panel rendered an order
refusing to provide relief, refusing to provide findings of fact and
conclusions of law related to the issues raised. This appellate panel continued
the Ninth Circuit pattern of rendering unlawful and unconstitutional orders
barring Petitioner from filing any papers for rehearing or for an en banc hearing
before the Ninth Circuit.
Petitioner filed a motion
and brief for an en banc hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which was stamped received on July 12, 1994. All papers associated
with that motion were returned to Petitioner on July 14, 1994, without being
considered.
Judicial Conversion Of Petitioner To A Man Without A Country
Concurrently, on August 9,
1994, the Ninth Circuit panel rendered an injunctive order barring Petitioner,
for the remainder of his life, from filing any papers with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. In this injunctive order the Ninth Circuit threatened a
repetition of the criminal contempt of court charges that had repeatedly been
inflicted upon Petitioner since 1987, repeating the criminal violations of
Title 18 USC Section 241. He has been judicially persecuted for seeking to
report subversive and criminal acts against the United States. All relevant
defenses guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States have been
judicially denied to him. He has been judicially persecuted with prison
sentences and criminal contempt of court charges in retaliation for seeking to
halt the enormous personal and financial harm inflicted upon him, and for
exercising the courage to report government corruption. The combination of judicial
persecution for the past ten years, combined with a judicial voiding of all
constitutional and statutory protections, and concurrent felony persecution for
exercising constitutional and statutory defenses, has made Petitioner a man
without a country.
The court of first instance,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had jurisdiction to hear the petition for
writ of mandamus and prohibition under Supreme Court Rule 10.1 (a), and Title
28 USC Section 2101(e); 28 USC Section 2103.
U.S. SUPREME COURT AS HEAD OF
A VAST RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE
Whether the Justices of the
U.S. Supreme Court knew of this practice of judicial corruption is not being
addressed in this Petition. However, these corrupt judicial acts, the
defrauding of the United States and the American people, and Petitioner, have
been and are being perpetrated by judges and officers of the court over whom
each and every Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has supervisory
responsibilities. None of these acts could continue without each and every Justice
of this Court aiding and abetting the crimes. The Justices of the Supreme Court
have an even greater vicarious criminal liability for these corrupt judicial
acts than a person, company, or corporation that lack the legal expertise.
RELIEF IS UNAVAILABLE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE
Relief is not available from
any other source. Judges in the Ninth Circuit district and appellate courts
have:
Consistently
refused to provide relief from the pattern of civil and constitutional
violations occurring in the sham California action and in federal actions, and
blocked every attempt to report the government corruption in which they
themselves became (or were) implicated, both through cover-ups and through the
ongoing bankruptcy court racketeering activities. They have consistently
deprived Petitioner of due process and equal protection; depriving him of the
declaratory judgment relating to the initial scheme to strip Petitioner of his
assets; depriving him of the protection against the pattern of civil right
violations; depriving him of protection against the corrupt judicial seizure of
his assets; among other violations.
Have themselves inflicted
upon Petitioner many of the civil rights and criminal violations described in
this Petition and in the references.
Rendered unlawful and
unconstitutional orders barring Petitioner access to federal court, and voiding
civil and constitutional protections. Federal judges have concurrently aided
and abetted the record-setting judicial violations of federally protected
rights. These orders have blocked an exposure of the government corruption
Petitioner sought to expose, blocked Petitioner from defending himself against
the retaliatory judicial acts, and protected those committing the acts through
the misuse of the California and federal judiciary. Feloniously retaliated
against Petitioner, since 1987, for having sought to report the criminal
activities of federal personnel, and for having exercised constitutional and
statutory remedies against the judicially-inflicted harm described in this
Petition. Ninth Circuit judges have, and are, continuing to charge Petitioner
with criminal contempt of court for exercising federal crime-reporting
responsibilities and exercising federal defenses, while concurrently inflicting
major human rights violations upon him.
E. Are themselves heavily
involved in the criminal and subversive activities against the United States
which Petitioner seeks to expose. The details of these criminal activities are
found in Defrauding America.
CREDIBILITY OF CHARGES IN THIS PETITION
The accuracy
of the charges made by Petitioner in this Petition and references arises from:
·
Court records, including transcripts, to be produced
in subsequent briefings.
·
Petitioner was a former federal investigator trained
and authorized by federal law to make determination of federal violations.
·
Attached to this Petition is a letter from former
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bryon White to Petitioner, implying support for
Petitioner's charges, and lamenting that without the help of other Justices he
could not help.
·
Attached to this Petition are excerpts from
sophisticated book reviewers, including the association of retired intelligence
agents, praising the accuracy of the book's contents.
·
Documents and details stated in Defrauding
America, a copy of which had been previously sent by Petitioner to each of
the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court by certified mail.
ARGUMENT
I. THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1987
VERBAL ORDER, AND THE WRITTEN OCTOBER 7, 1987 ORDERS, SEIZING PETITIONER'S ASSETS,
ARE VOID AND VOIDABLE ORDERS
The orders seizing
Petitioner's assets were rendered after the court verbally and in writing
refused to accept jurisdiction. These abstention orders were never vacated, and
there is no evidence that they were. Orders rendered without jurisdiction are
void orders. The orders violated important constitutional safeguards and
statutory protections, including the requirement of a noticed hearing, a
hearing, and legally recognized cause.
LAW RELATING TO VOID AND VOIDABLE ORDERS
Under long-accepted law, an
order rendered without jurisdiction is absolutely void. 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.
In Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) the
court held:
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 party cannot be precluded from raising the issue of voidness in a direct or
collateral attack because of the failure to object prior to, or at the time of,
entry of the judgment. ... a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess
of its jurisdiction.
"A void judgment does not create any binding obligation."
Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex
parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861: "A judgment which is
void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment
roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial
tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." (1
Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) 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; 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; A void
judgment is regarded as a nullity. (Valley v. Northern F. & M. Ins Co.
254 US 348, 65 L Ed 297.
It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a
personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud
v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled
to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving
his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the
question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an
opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego
v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to
respect in any other tribunal. The right to due process requires that certain
basic procedural protection be afforded before a person is deprived of
property. In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, the Court wrote:
The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is
required before a person is finally deprived of his property interests.
A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional
protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give
the constitutionally required due process notice. Prather v Loyd, 86
Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. See also Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b) and an opportunity to be heard. Earle
v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. The limitations inherent in the
requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial
as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be
rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson
v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid
adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any
tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. 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.
CALIFORNIA LAW ON VOID JUDGMENTS
Where the record shows that a judgment was rendered without
personal or subject matter jurisdiction it is void, and subject to collateral
attack. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 15 C.3d 942, 126 Cal.Rptr 805, 544 P2d
941; Olivero v. Grace, 19 Cal 2d 570, 122 P2d 564; ALR 1328.) and the
situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. In People v.
Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448] the court wrote:
"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any
authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void."
A PATTERN OF JUDICIAL FRAUD AND
CONSPIRACY FURTHER SUPPORTS THE VOIDNESS OF THE ORDERS SEIZING PETITIONER'S
ASSETS
The pattern of judicial misconduct following Petitioner's filing of
Chapter 11 far exceeds federal case law criteria establishing the existence of
a criminal conspiracy. A federal judge lacks jurisdiction to engage in fraud
and other criminal acts. The validity of a judgment may be affected by fraud in
the obtainment thereof. Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 26, 23 L Ed 286; Wyman
v. Newhouse (CA2d) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460, cert den 303 US 664, 82 L Ed 1122,
58 S Ct 831; or by collusion between the parties. Fraud or collusion in
connection with the rendition of a judgment is regarded as rendering the
judgment void. League v. DeYoung US 11 How 184, 13 L Ed 657.
II. ALL JUDICIAL ORDERS AND TRUSTEE ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO
THE FRAUDULENT AND VOID APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE ARE VOID, AS A MATTER OF
FEDERAL LAW
A judgment or proceedings founded on a void judgment are void. 30A
Am Jur Judgments §§ 43, 44, 45. A void judgment is a simulated one,
or one apparently rendered, where some essential element, which would authorize
the court to proceed to judgment, is lacking. Henderson v. Henderson,
232 NC 380, 100 SE2d 227. See Restatement, Judgments, ' 8. Under this protection, the orders and acts
of the trustees and their attorneys are void.
An examination of the judicial pattern against Petitioner for the
past twelve years far exceed federal case law criteria for prima facie
evidence of a criminal conspiracy. That applies to the primary issue raised in
this Petition, the taking and subsequent near-destruction of Petitioner's
life's assets.
III. BASIS FOR SUPREME COURT INTERVENTION
Far more than mere "errors" are involved in these issues.
The evidence shows a pattern of judicial fraud, subverting the laws and Constitution
of the United States, and converting the federal courts into a racketeering
enterprise.
Supreme Court Rule 10 provides that a Petition for Review should be
granted if one of the following conditions has been met:
1. Reviewing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals, filed June
23, 1994, under Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 13, 20.
2. Under Rule 10, on the basis that the ruling of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals has:
A. "departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings,"
B. "Sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call
for an exercise of this Court's power of supervision."
C. "When a ... United States court of appeals has decided an
important question of federal law which has not been, but should be, settled by
this court."
D. "When a ... United States court of appeals ... has decided
a federal question in a way that conflicts with applicable decisions of this
Court."
3. Vicarious liability of Supreme Court justices. This court has a
duty, and liability, under the vicarious liability doctrine, to take prompt
action when made aware of a pattern of corrupt activities perpetrated by judges
and officers of the court over whom it has supervisory responsibilities.
Without the prior acquiescence of the Supreme Court, the harms
inflicted upon Petitioner could not have succeeded. Petitioner came to the
Supreme Court twice from 1975 to 1982, seeking to report the criminal
activities in government, including the Justice Department. Petitioner came to
this Court in 1983, seeking relief from the first stage of the judicial
attempts to silence Petitioner through a sham California action. Petitioner
came to this Court when Ninth Circuit judges were incarcerating Petitioner for
having sought to report the government corruption and for exercising
constitutional defenses against the hard-core civil rights violations
judicially perpetrated. The Supreme Court Justices are fully aware of the
extent of subversive and criminal activities in the federal judiciary. Without
this Court's aiding and abetting, many of the hard-core criminal acts against
the United States and the American people could not have expanded to the levels
that now exist. The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are at the top level of
judicial management and vicarious liability. Under this Court's reign, great
harm had been inflicted upon the United States government, the American people,
and upon Petitioner.
At this stage, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are at the
head of a criminal enterprise, arising from the pattern of criminal and
subversive acts judicially perpetrated against the United States. the American
people, and upon Petitioner. Under federal criminal statutes, Justices of the
Supreme Court have vicarious criminal liability by not taking prompt corrective
actions to relieve Petitioner of these great harms, and concurrently taking
whatever actions are necessary to bring about an investigation and prosecution
of those implicated in the charges made by Petitioner in the briefs and the
references, including the second edition of Defrauding America. The
actions of the Justices of this Court are being included in the pending third
edition of this revealing and highly documented book.
4. Statutory responsibilities to halt the judicial pattern of civil
and constitutional violations. The Justices of this court have a responsibility
under federal civil right and criminal statutes to promptly halt the enormous
harm inflicted upon Petitioner through a pattern of civil and constitutional
violations, including those that were judicially inflicted through corrupt
misuse of the federal courts. Title 28 USC Section 1343 and Title 42 USC
Section 1986 makes any person financial liable if that person knows of civil
rights violations and had the power to prevent or aid in their prevention, and
does not do so. This liability is even greater for Justices of the U.S. Supreme
Court, who have supervisory responsibilities over those judges perpetrating
these violations, and who should halt the acts on this basis, and also to set
acceptable judicial conduct. This responsibility is especially important in
light of the prima facie evidence of a judicial conspiracy to perpetrate
the civil and constitutional violations.
5. Duty to make known the criminal charges made by Petitioner. Title
18 USC Section 4 makes any person guilty of a criminal act if they know of a
federal crime and do not promptly make it known to a federal entity that is
capable and willing to proceed with the knowledge, and which is not itself
implicated. And surely this responsibility includes a federal judge holding
greater responsibilities than an average citizen, especially when there is a
supervisory responsibility over those who are committing the civil rights and
criminal violations.
With Liberty and Justice For All
Judges looking to this Court for guidance have made a mockery of
the laws and Constitution of the United States, and of the pledge of
allegiance, especially the part, "With liberty and justice for all."
CONCLUSION
The orders taking Petitioner's assets are void, under law, and
rendered in a criminal environment by judges over whom the Justices of this
Court have supervisory and vicarious criminal and financial responsibilities.
If this Court does not promptly act, it is probable that during a calendared
hearing on September 22, 1994 in the court room of Judge Edward Jellen, these
two cases will be closed out, reducing the probability of relief on the
void-order doctrine.
The judicial corruption described in this Petition and the
references are but the tip of the iceberg. Many people who have been victimized
by the judicial subordinates of the Justices of the Supreme Court have
committed suicide as a result of the great financial and personal harm
suffered. Only last July 12, 1994, a woman in Sonoma, California, committed
suicide by pouring flammable fluid upon herself, and ignited it. She left a
twenty-page suicide note lamenting the same judicial corruption that Petitioner
has brought to this Court's attention for the past six years. The gratuitous
press failed to report the suicide and the relationship to the corrupt judges
who answer to this Court.
It is long past the time when this Court can refuse to perform its
duty. If officials in a private corporation allowed their subordinates to
continue the pattern of civil, constitutional and criminal acts that the
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have allowed, they would not only be
financially liable for the damages suffered, but they would be guilty of
multiple felonies, including misprision of a felony, obstructing justice,
aiding and abetting, guilty as the original perpetrators of the crimes, and
other federal offenses. The corporate officials would have less of a duty, and
would have a lesser knowledge of the law and the criminal consequences, then
the Justices of this Court. Incredibly, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court
are the head of this vast racketeering enterprise. Public awareness of
government corruption will escalate to where the federal offenses committed by
this Court will be recognized. Petitioner suggests that this Court finally
exercise its duty.
The book, Defrauding America, is reaching more people all
the time, causing a very concerned reaction. The next and third edition of Defrauding
America will describe this Petition and the Court's response to it. The
Justices of this Court must decide whether it will aid and abet the judicial
corruption described in this petition, or perform its duty under federal
criminal, civil rights, and other statutes. Its first duty is to provide prompt
and meaningful relief to Petitioner.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Federal law dictates prompt and meaning relief, which should
include:
1. A writ of certiorari, for Petitioner to furnish further evidence
supporting an order vacating the orders seizing Petitioner's life's assets and
all subsequent acts relying upon those void orders.
2. Immediately provide an emergency order halting all further proceedings
by the trustee and the court in the Chapter 11 filings. If this is not done by
September 22, 1994, it may be too late.
3. Provide that all funds now held by the trustee or persons acting
in concert with him, be turned over to Petitioner for his living expenses and
other financial needs.
4. Provide court-appointed legal counsel and whatever investigators
are required, from a legal firm having the resources to properly represent
Petitioner's interests.
5. Because of the criminal nature of the acts described by
Petitioner, request that an independent counsel be appointed by the Washington
Court of Appeals panel, and that this counsel be required to receive input from
Petitioner.
Secondary issues include, for instance:
6. Vacate and declare unconstitutional each of the orders barring
Petitioner access to the federal court, the intent of such orders being to
block Petitioner's reporting of the federal crimes and block Petitioner's
defense against the judicial acts stripping Petitioner of the assets that
funded his exposure activities.
7. Vacate all criminal contempt of court charges and prison
sentences rendered in retaliation for having sought to report the federal
crimes and in retaliation for exercising constitutional and federal remedies
against the corrupt judicial seizure and destruction of Petitioner's life's
assets.
8. Address the dereliction of duty by federal judges involved in
the attacks upon Petitioner and the cowardice by judicial checks and balances.
Dated: September 5, 1994
_________________________________
Rodney F. Stich
Petitioner in pro se status
DECLARATION
I, Rodney F. Stich, declare:
The facts stated in this declaration are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief. Executed this fifth day of September 1994 in the City of Walnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, State of California.
_______________________________
Rodney F. Stich