NO. 95-


In re Rodney F. Stich,                               )
                    Petitioner,                               )
v.                                                                 )
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT,                 )
Northern District of California;                 )
Respondent.                                               )
JEROME ROBERTSON, trustee           )
Real party in interest.                                )
____________________________             )


To the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit






(28 USC Section 1651(A); Rules 13, 20)

NINTH CIRCUIT 94-70303 & 70304


RODNEY F. STICH, Petitioner
P.O. Box 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 510-944-1930
Petitioner in pro se (Rule 39)


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?


Rodney F. Stich
Western Diablo Enterprises, owned by Rodney F. Stich.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California
Jerome Robertson, trustee


QUESTIONS PRESENTED                                         i

LIST OF PARTIES                                                         ii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS                                             iii

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES                                         iv

 REFERENCE TO NINTH CIRCUIT ORDERS                                       1

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT                                                            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


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



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 
(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


First Amendment                                                                                                  2

Fourth Amendment                                                                                                2

Fifth Amendment                                                                                                2,9


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


30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44, 45                                                                  21

Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b)                                                                         21


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



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."


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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 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.


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.



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.


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.


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."


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.


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.


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."


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.


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



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