Supreme Court Justices Against Whistleblowers

<body> Supreme Court's Self-Serving Decision Targeting Whistleblowers A recent 5-4 decision (May 30, 2006) by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court has removed all protections from government employees who expose corruption in government offices. Garcetti v. Ceballos (No. 04-473). That decision means that if any government employee was to report criminal activities, even subversive activities in government offices involving government officials (as described in the list of books of such activities), the people perpetrating the crimes can retaliate against the government agent and the Justices of the Supreme Court decided the employee suffering the retaliation has no legal redress. That decision has grave consequences for the public and government institutions. Threatens Any Government Employee Who Exposes Criminal Activities in Government, and Encourages Criminal Activities and Retaliation Against Any Government Employee who exposes Such Crimes Expose Corruption in Government, Suffer Retaliation, Lose Constitutional Protection Ruling that whistleblowers--government employees reporting corrupt or criminal activities in government can be retaliated against by their superiors--often the ones guilty of the misconduct. This decision was stated in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (May 30, 2006, S.C. # 04-473) In that 5 to 4 decision, it took only one justice to strip a person exposing corruption in government office of constitutional protection. Ceballos was a prosecutor in the Los Angeles County and wrote a memo (as required by his position) stating that a county sheriff deputy lied in a search warrant affidavit. In retaliation for reporting what he was required to report, Ceballos was demoted and denied a promotion. In stripping those Ceballos and any other government employee whose legally-required report exposes misconduct in government) Justice Anthony Kennedy and four other justices stated: We reject the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. Supervisors must ensure that their employee' official communications ... promote the employer's mission. But Ceballos was not expressing an opinion, or acting as a whistleblower; he was including in his report--as required of his position--the corrupt act of a county sheriff deputy. An editorial in the Las Vegas Sun (June 1, 2006) stated: The ruling was seen as the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's political shift toward statism--a willingness to defer to the convenience and prerogatives of those who run government agencies--following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Samuel Alito. A year ago, Justice O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistle-blowers to report sex discrimination in schools. But on Tuesday, her replacement joined in the slim majority. Parrot the party line, or get busted back to proverbial foot patrol? So the "mission" of the Los Angeles County prosecutor's office is to present a uniform and reassuring face to the public--not to investigate possible police misconduct? Critics predict the ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos could have a sweeping impact for the nation's 20 million government employees, silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption. Of course a thorough probe into charges of official malfeasance [or criminal!] will tend to be "inflammatory"--and to inflame public outrage and demands for reform. That's Bad? Behind that Decision Was Something More Sinister― With Ripple Effects on 9/11 Calamities To fully understand the significance of that decision, and how a prior decision by Anthony Kennedy, contributed to the retaliation against a whistleblower, with ripple effects making possible the events of 9/11--and other tragedies, the book, Defrauding America must be read. However, the following are highlights: In the late 1980s, while Justice Kennedy was a federal court of appeal judge in San Francisco, former federal agent filed a petition with Anthony Kennedy, after he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court but still serving as a federal court of appeal judge. That petition raised matters of grave importance for the United States, with ripple effects far beyond what a superficial examination shows. It even had ripples that made 9/11 possible (this is not hyperbole!). The petition stated, for instance: That former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report corrupt and criminal activities in government offices and covert government operations that he and a group of other former government agents had discovered during their professional and official duties with the federal government. These included the corrupt culture in the government's aviation safety offices that had, among other responsibilities, preventing hijackings; and the corrupt culture in the FBI and CIA--the agencies responsible for matters affecting national securi5ty, such as the actions of terrorists. That the reports were attempted to be made to federal judges under the requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and that federal judges had blocked the reports. That federal judges had a mandatory duty to receive reports of federal crimes under their administrative duties rather than their judicial duties, and that they had obstructed justice by refusing to receive the reports. That serious harm had already resulted, including deaths, and would continue to occur, from the criminal acts that the former agents had sought to report--and from the obstruction of justice arising from the misconduct of the federal judges. That federal judges (Milton Schwartz and Marilyn Petal at that time) had issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring former federal agent Rodney Stich from filing any papers in any federal court for the remainder of his life. That these orders knowingly blocked Stich from reporting criminal activities that he and a group of former government agents had discovered in government offices and government operations, and (b) prevented Stich from exercising federal defenses against the parallel massive civil rights violations that were inflicting great personal and financial harm upon the former federal agent. That after Stich sought to report additional criminal activities that he and his group of former federal agents had discovered, that federal judges and Department of Justice prosecutors had charged him with criminal contempt of court for having filed papers in the federal courts attempting to report the criminal activities. That petitioner Rodney Stich, at the age of 67, had been sentenced to six months in federal prison on a criminal contempt of court charge for attempting to report corrupt and criminal activities in several government agencies (FAA, NTSB, FBI, and CIA). The most notable--if the facts are analyzed and the ripple effects understood--would include the conditions that constituted the primary areas of blame for the successful hijackings of four airliners on 9/11; and the secondary area of blame for the poor intelligence and failure to act on known intelligence. The petition sought to obtain a stay of the prison sentence; a hearing to return to him the civil and constitutional rights and defenses taken from him by the unlawful orders; an opportunity to present to him, or any other federal judge, under the mandatory crime reporting statute, information and evidence of corrupt and criminal activities. Judge Kennedy denied each of these requests. Eighteen years later, he wrote the Supreme Court decision that further showed his protection of corrupt and criminal activities in government offices with the Ceballos decision. Several years later, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision that supported his refusal to provide relief to Stich. If Kennedy had acted in accordance with law and the Constitution, the criminal activities that Stich sought to report would have been addressed, and it is doubtful that the conditions would have continued to where four groups of terrorists were able to easily hijack four airliners on 9/11. A look at some other lawsuits arising from the corruption in government that were made known to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court provides further support to the argument that the justices have engaged in felony cover-ups for years, with deadly consequences for others. Supreme Court Justices' Effect Upon the Lives of Americans The actions by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court affects the lives of all Americans, either directly or indirectly. Obviously, the integrity and honesty of corrupt actions of any or all of the Supreme Court justices play a role in their decisions that affect the lives of tens of millions of people, government institutions, and the constitutional rights and protections. Often times it is the vote of a single justice that grants, or takes away, previously recognized rights, protections, and freedoms. Among the many decisions by justices of the U.S. Supreme court affecting the people's lives and important following examples: Decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos that encourages corruption in government offices and retaliation against any government employee seeking to report the corruption. Decision authorizing the taking of private property and giving it to another private party. Busing of students. The ruling by Supreme Court justices, resulted in millions of Americans being bused to far-off schools to satisfy the holding that schools must contain a given percentage of different races. No such requirement existed in the U.S. Constitution, but this "requirement" was read into it by the majority of the justices. Nor did it exist in the lives of the framers of the Constitution, or for two centuries after the signing. Younger people today do not know of the prior constitutional protection and assume that the argument is correct. Elimination of the right of association. For two centuries after the signing of the Constitution people had the right to associate with who they wished, exercising the natural inclination to associate with people of similar interests, habits, religions, level of lawfulness. But this changed when legislation and Supreme Court justices ruled this right to be unconstitutional and unlawful, subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment if exercised. Private property can be seized by government agencies. That 2006 An decision held that a local or state government can seize a person's property and resold to another non-government person or corporation to use for another purpose. A public that tolerates these outrages deserves what they get. Free books. For a listing of the books written by former government insiders on the continuing history of corrupt activities responsible for a continuing series of human tragedies, and to download at no charge segments of each of the books, click here. These books are now the latest attempt by a coterie of lawyers and judges seeking to remove from public availability the books that expose their own complicity in the many areas of corrupt activities. Email address for the author and activist against corruption in government: stich@unfriendlyskies.com. For more information relating to the author and his activities put "Rodney Stich" into a search engine such as Google or yahoo.com. The links run into many tens of thousands. Consider placing orders for any product from amazon.com through the following links. There is no extra cost or delay in doing this, while it provides us a small commission to help fund this site and our public-spirited efforts. Return to: www.defraudingamerica.com www.druggingamerica.com www.unfriendlyskies.com www.defraudingamericablog.com </body>