Docket Nr:

  IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

October 2001 Term

In re RODNEY F. STICH

Petitioner

  PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

To Justice Clarence Thomas

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Court Of Appeals # 00-17358

U.S. District Court, Reno, NV # DC CV-00-152-ECR

Petition for Emergency Writ

Due Process Denial Court Appeal October 24, 2000

Rodney F. Stich

P.O. Box 10587

Reno, NV 89510

Phone: 775-786-9191

 


QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1.    Is Petitioner, or any other citizen, without any meaningful remedies from great personal and financial harm inflicted by the systematic acts of federal judges repeatedly violating rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States?

2.    Does the Constitution and the laws of the United States permit federal judges to:

a.         Issue orders depriving Petitioner, or any other citizen, the right to access federal courts for the remainder of that person’s life, depriving him relief from great personal and financial harm arising from violations of federally protected rights?

b.         Deprive Petitioner the right to exercise legal and constitutional defenses against record-setting violations of state and federal laws perpetrated under color of state and federal laws?

c.         Inflict great personal and financial harm upon Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s exercise of legal and constitutional due process, which are felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241?

d.         Inflict great personal, financial, and physical harm upon Petitioner, a former federal agent, in retaliation for seeking to report criminal activities to a federal court, under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, [1] as required to be reported under the federal crime reporting statute, which are felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 35, 111, 153, 241, 242, 245(b)(1)(B), 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513(b), 1515(a)?

e.         Are Supreme Court Justices responsible to take prompt and meaningful corrective actions when federal judges over whom they have supervisory responsibilities misuse the courts and their judicial positions in this manner?

List Of Parties

The parties to the questions presented here are defendant federal judges. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions presented                                                   i

List of parties                                                             iii

Table of Contents                                                         iv

Index of Appendices                                                    iv

Table of Authorities                                                     v

Citations of district and appellate court decisions     ix

Basis for jurisdiction                                                     x

Statement of the case                                                    1

Summary                                                                       11

Index Of Appendices

Exhibit “A”: Ninth Circuit appellate court October 24, 2000, response to Petitioner’s notice of appeal.  

Exhibit “B”: August 31, 2000, Petitioner’s filing of notice of appeal of the order dismissing the federal judges.  

Exhibit “C”: District court’s August 16, 2000, denial of Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of order dismissing defendant federal judges.  

Exhibit “D”: Order by district court dated July 26, 2000, dismissing defendant federal judges on holding that federal judges have total immunity from the pattern of corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional acts, perpetrated in a conspiracy, against Petitioner, that inflicted grave personal and property harm, and which were part of a conspiracy to block Petitioner’s reporting of criminal activities.  

Exhibit “E”: November 28, 2000, letter from Supreme Court acknowledging receive of petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari, which had never been filed or acted upon.  

Exhibit “F”: One of several injunctive orders barring Petitioner from federal court as available to other citizens.  

Exhibit “G:” Justice Bryon White’s October 28, 1991 letter expressing regret at not being able to act singularly in response to Petitioner’s charges.  

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES  

Cases:

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
             403 U.S. 388 (1971)                                                              7  

Coe v Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378                                                   4

Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541                                             5

Perrin v. Perrin 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969)                            5

Sabariego v. Maverick  124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, S Ct 461    12

Sherrer v Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 43                                          5

Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board,
            685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)table), cert. Denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982)    3  

Stich v. United States,
            554 F..2d 1070 (9th Cir.)(table), cert denied, 434 U.S. (1977)        3

 Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416                                 5

Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092       5

Constitutional Provisions

Fifth Amendment due process clause of U.S. Constitution             5

Fifth Amendment equal protection clause                                         5

Article IV § 1 full faith and credit clause                                           5

Article IV § 2 right to unabridged interstate travel clause             5

Fourteenth Amendment due process                                                5

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection                                          5

Fourteenth Amendment property rights                                           5

Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause             5

Federal Statutes

Title 18 U.S.C. § 2                                                                           14

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3                                                                           14

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4                                                                           14

Title 18 U.S.C. § 35                                                                           ii

Title 18 U.S.C. §111                                                                          ii

Title 18 U.S.C. §153                                                                          ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 241                                                                         ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 242                                                                         ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 245                                                                         ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 246                                                                         ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 371                                                                         ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341                                                                      ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343                                                                     ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505                                                                   ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510                                                                   ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512                                                                   ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (b)                                                               ii

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)                                                                ii

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738                                                                   5

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201                                                                   6

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202                                                                   6

Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988                                                        6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures:

FRCivP 57                                                                                       6

California Statutes:

California Civil Code § 4351                                                           5

California Civil Code § 4554                                                           5

California Civil Code § 5004                                                           5

California Civil Code § 5102                                                           5

California Civil Code § 5103                                                           5

California Civil Code § 5108                                                           5

California Civil Code § 5110.720                                                   5

California Civil Code § 5118                                                           5

California Civil Code § 5164                                                           5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 699(b)                                5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 1713.1                                5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 1713.3                                5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 1908                                   5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 1910                                   5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 1913                                   5

California Code of Civil Procedures § 1915                                   5

California Rules of court 1201(c)                                                      5

California Rules of court 1211                                                           5

California Rules of court 1212                                                           5

California Rules of court 1215                                                           5

California Rules of court 1222                                                           5

California Rules of court 1229(a)                                                      5

California Rules of court 1230(a)(2)                                                 5

California Rules of court 1234                                                           5

California Rules of court 1239(a)(2)                                                 5

California Rules of court 1281                                                           5

California Rules of court 1282                                                           5

California Supreme Court:

Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796                                           5

Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249                                                          5

Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498 C.2d 210                                               5

Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656                                           5

Citations Of District and Appellate Court Orders

·      None of the lower court orders have been published.

·      Order by District Court at Reno, Nevada filed November 9, 2000, (Exhibit “B”) refusing to address matters under the Declaratory Judgment Act and dismissing defendants Joshua M. Landish and Rene Allen Feinstein. 

·      Petitioner’s notice of appeal (Exhibit “D”) filed on November 9, 2000.

·      Letter from clerk of the Supreme Court dated November 28, 2000, acknowledging receipt of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (Exhibit “E”)

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

The district court’s order dismissing the defendant federal judges was filed on July 26, 2000. The district court’s order refusing Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed on August 1, 2000. Petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed on August 31, 2000. The court of appeal’s response—refusing to act on the timely filed notice of appeal, was dated October 24, 2000. Petitioner petition for writ of certiorari was received by the Supreme Court on November 20, 2000. The court refused to respond to that petitioner. Petitioner submitted a brief for extraordinary relief to Justice Sandra O’Connor under Supreme Court Rule 22. She refused to respond to that petition.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions Primarily Involved

Statutory and constitutional issues involved in these issues include systematic and long continuing judicial acts that violated:

·      Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection of the law.

·      Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Right to all citizens to federal court access to file a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

·      Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Right to federal court access for relief from systematic violations of civil and constitutional rights occurring under color of state law and under color of federal law, and financial damages arising from such violations.

·      Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Right to obtain a declaratory judgment to declare:

o          The validity of personal and property rights established in multiple judgments that have been unlawfully taken from him.

o          The void status of orders taking Petitioner’s life assets without any notice of hearing, without a hearing, and without legally recognized cause.

o          The void nature of injunctive orders that voided for the remainder of Petitioner’s life the rights and protections guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States. 

o          Financial damages arising from systematic violations of civil and constitutional rights arising under color of state law and under color of federal law.

·      Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988. Right to have a federal judge order a halt to the documented series of hard-core civil and constitutional violations associated with a scheme to strip Petitioner of the assets that funded his exposure of criminal activities in government offices and in Ninth Circuit courts, and for financial damages against the judicial and non-judicial defendants who systematically and repeatedly inflicted great harm upon Petitioner through violations of civil and constitutional rights.

·      Bivens doctrine. The repeatedly violations of Petitioner’s civil and constitutional rights by judicial and non-judicial defendants acting under color of federal law.

·      Article IV § 1 full faith and credit clause

·      Article IV § 2 right to unabridged interstate travel clause.

·      Fifth Amendment due process, equal protection, rights and privileges, property rights.

·      Fourteenth Amendment due process, equal protection, property rights, privileges and immunities clause.  



STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This petition for an extraordinary writ focuses directly on the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant federal judges, and secondarily, on the pattern of repeated violations of federal laws and constitutional protections by Ninth Circuit federal judges, that are closely interwoven with a pattern of obstruction the reporting of criminal and even subversive matters that Petitioner sought tot report to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4).

ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT

Matters of extreme national interests, including great harm upon the internal security of the United States, are involved in this petition. These include, inter alia:

·           Pattern of documented judicial obstruction of justice that are making possible the continuation of criminal activities that inflict great harm upon the United States and upon its internal security.

·           Pattern of federal judges misusing their positions and the courts to destroy rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. These violations are juxtapositioned with judicial activities to block the reporting of criminal activities that Petitioner, a former federal agent, and his group of other former federal agents, sought to report.

·           Conversion of federal courts into criminal enterprises, being perpetrated in the areas for which Justices of the Supreme Court have supervisory responsibilities.

·           The underlying criminal activities that Petitioner sought to report under the federal crime reporting statute and which federal judges have repeatedly blocked from being reported, include matters of grave national consequences. These include, for instance drug smuggling into the United States by people acting under cover of government offices and covert government operations, deeply engrained corruption in the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board related to a series of fatal airline crashes, extensive corruption in Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts, and much more, including the criminal offenses detailed in Petitioner’s books and Internet sites.

ARGUMENT

Because of the bizarre and convoluted nature of the judicial misconduct, all of which is documented in judicial records, this petition provide more background than would otherwise be necessary. The pattern of judicial misconduct followed Petitioner’s attempts to report and expose patterns of criminal activities in key judicial and government offices. Many of these federal offenses have been described in Petitioner’s books, [2] and on his Internet sites. [3]

IMMEDIATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

The immediate constitutional violations forming the basis of this petition is the dismissal of defendant federal judges from the underlying lawsuit on the holding that despite the allegations of repeated civil and constitutional due process, the felony retaliation against Petitioner for exercising constitutional due process, and the obstruction of justice activities, and more, citizens of the United States have no defenses against these judicial acts.

Also raised in this petition is the 20 year uninterrupted pattern of hard-core civil and constitutional violations perpetrated by Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges that make a mockery of human right protections, combined with documented obstruction of justice activities. Every relevant legal and constitutional due process protection has been denied to Petitioner by Ninth Circuit judges, and the pattern of documented judicial misconduct—occurring in the Supreme Court justices’ area of supervisory responsibilities—makes it impossible to obtain due process without this Court’s intervention.

Initial Discovery Of Criminal Activities Affecting Important National Interests

       Petitioner discovered a pattern of air safety and criminal violations associated with a series of fatal airline crashes while he was an inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration holding air safety responsibilities for the most senior program at United Airlines. These violations prevented the federal government from carrying out its air safety responsibilities with the result that many crashes and many deaths occurred. Petitioner documented this relationship in various government records and proceedings.

       These federal offenses caused Petitioner to leave government service. As a private citizen, he used his considerable assets to fund attempts to force federal checks and balances to perform their duties. Petitioner exercised federal remedies to report these criminal activities to a federal court [4] under the requirements of the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4) and as his right as a citizen under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

       Ninth Circuit federal judges repeatedly refused to receive this evidence. These violations of the federal crime reporting statute permitted the federal offenses to continue, with the expected continuation of fatal airline crashes.

       Petitioner reacted to these judicial by using his $10 million in real estate assets to fund activities seeking to inform the public of these mattes. These activities included publishing books, appearing as guest on hundreds of radio and television shows, and giving speeches.

       Petitioner included in his second edition of Unfriendly Skies the names of federal judges and Supreme Court justices who blocked the reporting of these federal offenses. Following the publishing of these names, a bizarre lawsuit [5] was filed against Petitioner in the California courts that targeted the $10 million in property assets that funded Petitioner’s exposure activities. That lawsuit was barred by large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions. In addition, California law specifically deprived California judges of jurisdiction. Despite these record-setting violations, California judges continued to issue orders inflicting great personal and financial harm upon Petitioner.

       The lawsuit in the California courts was an attack upon the validity of a 1966 divorce judgment (which had already been entered as a local judgment in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, and the California counties of Contra Costa and Solano.) Neither party in that 1966 bilateral consent divorce proceeding had any residence relationship to the state of California.

       The attack upon these judgments, and Petitioner’s personal and property rights, alleged that the 1966 court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff in that lawsuit (the petitioner in this filing) did not intend to reside permanently in that court’s jurisdiction. That preposterous argument would invalidate most of the millions of divorce judgments issued every year and obviously violate important constitutional rights.

       That argument was barred by federal law, [6] (including landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, by federal statutes, and constitutional provisions), and the laws of the state of California [7] and of prior states of residence.  In addition, California law specifically deprived the court of jurisdiction under the Family Law Act if there has been a prior divorce judgment, or to attack the exercise of jurisdiction by a prior court (in this instance, a court 20 years earlier, whose judgment had already been entered as a local judgment in five other state jurisdictions.

       Every procedural due process defense in the California courts against the unprecedented civil and constitutional violations were violated and denied to Petitioner. In one instance, California appellate judges retaliated against Petitioner in a published decision for having exercised legal and constitutional due process remedies. The judicial retaliation violated Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.

       Petitioner then exercised his federal remedies under:

·        The Declaratory Judgment Act, [8] to declare the validity of the six judgments that had already established Petitioner’s divorced status as of 20 years earlier, the parties’ property rights and legal obligations that were being taken by California judges acting without jurisdiction and violating dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions. If federal judges had exercised their mandatory responsibilities and issued an order addressing these judgments, the underlying scheme would have been halted and the perpetrators subject to exposure.

·        The Civil Rights Acts, [9] to obtain an order halting the repeated violations of civil and constitutional rights perpetrated under color of state law. Again, if federal judges had exercised their mandatory responsibilities ordering the halt of these documented and record-setting violations of federally protected rights, the scheme and the participants would have been exposed and the plan to strip Petitioner of the assets that funded his exposure of corruption in judicial and government offices would have been halted.

State Due Process Violations Expanded Into the Federal Courts

       Federal judges repeatedly dismissed Petitioner’s lawsuits at the pleading stage, frequently without notice. These judicial due process violations caused the civil and constitutional violations to escalate in the California courts, inflicting additional personal and financial harm upon Petitioner.

Combining Federal Remedies Against Civil & Constitutional Violations With Attempts To Report Criminal Activities To A Federal Court

  While these judicial attacks were continuing, Petitioner continued to receive information and documentation on other areas of criminal activities beyond those that he initially discovered as a federal investigator. To meet his responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4), and exercising his right as a citizen (28 U.S.C. § 1361) to report criminal activities in judicial and government positions, Petitioner added to his attempts to obtain relief from the civil and constitutional violations an intent to report the criminal activities to a federal court.

       The subsequent judicial response added more evidence that the judicial attacks upon Petitioner and the obstruction of justice were related. This conclusion was repeatedly established in subsequent judicial conduct.

Judicial Chicanery (i.e., Lying) To Support Total Due Process Denial

       Federal judges sought to support their repeated refusal to provide Petitioner a federal court forum by reversing the legal and common-sense definition of frivolous and placing that label on Petitioner’s federal court filings that stated multiple federal causes of actions for which federal relief exists. That frivolous label was applied to Petitioner’s right to a declaration relating to the seven judgments that established Petitioner’s personal and property rights and legal responsibilities that were being violated. That frivolous label was applied to his Civil Rights Act causes of actions despite the documented pattern of unprecedented violations of state and federal laws and constitutional rights. That label was applied to Petitioner’s attempts to report criminal activities that he first discovered as a federal investigator and later enlarged with the information and documentation obtained from numerous other former federal agents.

Documented Civil and Constitutional Violations With Obstruction of Justice

  Federal judges reacted to the long list of federal remedies arising from their misconduct, and to Petitioner’s attempts to report the criminal activities, by promptly dismissing the lawsuits and issuing unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders barring Petitioner from filing any papers in the federal courts for the remainder of Petitioner’s life. These orders voided for Petitioner the federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights, while concurrently blocking the reports of criminal activities and the obstruction of justice by federal judges and Justice Department lawyers.

Violating Every Requirement For An Injunctive Order

  The series of injunctive orders issued from 1986 to 1990—which remain in effect to this day—violated every legal requirement for such orders:

·      Instead of protecting the party suffering great and irreparable harm, the orders insured the continuation of the harm and protecting the persons inflicting the harm.

·           Instead of halting the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct, the orders insured the continuation of the violations.

·           Instead of protecting public interests, the misuse of federal courts to destroy important federal protections, to put the judicial stamp of approval on such violations, traumatized public interests.

·           In addition, federal judges violated the requirement to issue findings of facts showing that these legal requirements were met. They fraudulently reversed the legal and common sense definition of frivolous and placed a frivolous label on the lawsuits.

       Recognizing the unlawful and unconstitutional nature of the injunctive orders, and continuing to suffer great personal and financial harm from the escalating civil rights violations, combined with reporting additional information on criminal activities from his government insiders, Petitioner filed additional lawsuits, which included civil and constitutional violations under the Bivens doctrine for violations occurring under color of federal law.

Felony Retaliation For Seeking To Report Criminal activities and For Exercising Constitutional Due Process

  Ninth Circuit federal judges, [10]   and Justice Department prosecutors, then charged Petitioner with criminal contempt of court in retaliation for seeking to report the criminal activities and for seeking to halt the harm arising from the judicially-inflicted civil and constitutional violations. These were the same groups involved in the criminal activities that Petitioner sought to expose.

Three Years Imprisonment For Seeking To Report Criminal and Subversive Activities and For Exercising Constitutional Protections

       Justice Department prosecutors sought to have Petitioner sentenced to three years in prison, charging him with being a threat to the United States. At that time, Petitioner was nearly 70 years of age. He had recently undergone open-heart surgery for six coronary bypasses, and this prison sentence could be expected to be fatal for him. Recognizing that a jury trial would be necessary for a three-year prison sentence, Justice Department lawyers lowered the demand to six months, thereby eliminating—according to Supreme Court holding—the constitutional right to a jury trial, and setting him up for a Kangaroo Court.

The Kangaroo Court Proceeding, With Its Obstruction Of Justice And Constitutional Shambles, Then Occurred

         Federal judge Raul Ramirez then found Petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court for exercising constitutional due process rights and for attempting to report criminal activities. Petitioner sought a stay from Ninth Circuit appellate judge Anthony Kennedy, shortly before Kennedy left for his Supreme Court position. Kennedy approved the obstruction of justice and retaliation for exercising constitutional due process, and approved the pattern of civil and constitutional violations. Petitioner was then transferred from county jail to county jail, in chains, spending over six weeks in solitary confinement during the next six months.

Earlier Attempts To Force A Federal Judge To Perform A Mandatory Duty

       Earlier, suffering great personal and financial harm from these violations, stripped of all due process remedies by Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges, Petitioner filed Chapter 11, seeking to force a federal judge to perform his or her duties under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act. Petitioner was unaware, at that time, of the widespread corruption in Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts, which he subsequently discovered and described in his third editions of Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America.

Documenting the Vast Criminal activities
In Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts

       The total judicial due process violations and civil rights violations escalated. Federal judges refused to provide relief under the Civil Rights Act, under Bivens, and under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Federal judges, Robert Jones and Edward Jellen, ordered the seizure and liquidation of the assets that funded Petitioner’s exposure activities, without any notice of hearing, without a hearing, and without cause.

Expanding On the Judicial Contempt For the Laws and Constitution

       Following this seizure, federal judges issued additional orders barring Petitioner from filing objections to the seizure and liquidation. When Petitioner did exercise legal and constitutional due process right to file objections, he was again charged with criminal contempt of court. He was denied a jury trial. He was denied his own funds to hire legal counsel. He was denied court-appointed counsel. And he was again sentenced to federal prison. Because Chapter 11 judges lack authority to do this, the sentence was never carried out.

District Court Approval Of the Property Seizure 
and Felony Retaliation

       In response to this seizure, and to the prison sentence, Petitioner again exercised his constitutional rights. He filed a lawsuit seeking relief, and again, encountered a judicial block. The lawsuit was promptly dismissed. In addition, federal judges again charged Petitioner with criminal contempt of court. From 1986 to 1995, Petitioner was either in prison, or under literal house arrest, waiting for trial on criminal contempt of court charges for defending himself and for seeking to report criminal activities in judicial and other government offices.

Latest Attempt To Exercise Legal and Constitutional Protections

       In 1999, within one year of the final liquidation of Petitioner’s life’s assets, which was the latest act in the series of events constituting a conspiracy, Petitioner filed a federal lawsuit that sought federal relief from the violations of federally protected rights for which federal remedies existed. He again exercised his rights to:

·        A decision under the Declaratory Judgment Act (and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57) to:

o           Declare the validity of the seven judgments and the personal and property rights established in them. Again, this was refused. At this time, there are contradictory judgments with contradictory legal rights and legal obligations, which will continue until a federal judge performs his or her duty.

o           Declare the void status of the orders seizing and then liquidating Petitioner’s assets. Under Supreme Court decisions, [11] orders rendered in violation of due process are void, are forever void, and orders based upon those void orders are also void.

o          Declaration returning to Petitioner the rights and protections which were taken from him by the series of unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders rendered by Ninth Circuit judges.

·        Petitioner attempted to file this lawsuit in the U.S. district court at Oakland, California, but was denied the right to file on the basis of one of the injunctive orders issued in 1986 by U.S. district judge Marilyn Patel. Petitioner then filed the instant lawsuit in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada. Defendants in the lawsuit include:

o           California judges who issued orders against Petitioner for six years under color of state law, knowingly acting without jurisdiction, and knowingly violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, violated federal statutes, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional rights.

o          Federal judges, who acted under color of federal law, repeatedly:

§           Violating state and federal laws and constitutional rights.

§           Violating legal and constitutional due process.

§           Retaliated against Petitioner for exercising these constitutionally protected rights.

§           Retaliated against Petitioner for seeking to reporting federal crimes to a federal court

o           Attorneys and law firms who aided and abetted the corrupt misuse of the courts by California and federal judges, and who assisted in converting the courts into a racketeering enterprise.

Continuing the Judicial Due Process and Civil and Constitutional Violations

       The lower court in this lawsuit is continuing the systematic due process violations that continued from 1983 to the present date without interruption. These violations of due process include:

·      Refusing to declare the validity of the seven judgments establishing Petitioner’s personal and property rights that were taken by California and federal judges. In a decision, the lower court has ruled that since the defendant California judges were dismissed, Petitioner can never have a declaration of his personal and property rights and legal obligations. In another decision, the lower court has ruled that since the defendant federal judges have been dismissed, the orders seizing Petitioner’s properties, that are void orders under Supreme Court holdings, can never be addressed.

·      Refusing to reinstate Petitioner’s rights legal and constitutional rights that were taken by the injunctive orders.

·      Continuing to protect the defendants who were part of the conspiracy, including the defendant California and federal judges, lawyers and law firms, and who repeatedly subverted the laws and Constitution of the United States and their role in the obstruction of justice.

·      Refusing to receive the evidence of criminal activities that continue to undermine the internal security of the United States and that continue to result in grave harm to large numbers of U.S. residents.

·      In still another decision that is the subject of another appeal, the lower court has ordered Petitioner to pay $3300 to the defendant California judges whose repeated violations and contempt for dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections inflicted grave harm upon Petitioner, and played a role in the scheme to block the reporting of criminal activities.

Ninth Circuit Appellate Court Involvement In the Subversion Of Civil and Constitutional Rights

  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has again refused to address Petitioner’s first notice of appeal that is the basis for this petition, as shown by the court of appeal response (Exhibit “A”). These Court of Appeal judges are duplicating the corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional acts of the defendant federal judges.

Prior Refusal Of Supreme Court Justices To Act On These Major Federal Offenses

       Throughout the 20-year period of federal offenses committed by federal judges, Petitioner has repeatedly made the Supreme Court Justices aware of these corrupt and criminal judicial acts occurring in their area of supervisory responsibilities. These notices were submitted through letters and petitions (most of which the Supreme Court has unlawfully refused to file).

Where Is The Powerful Force Protecting the Defendant Judges and Lawyers?

       The repeated documented violations of major civil rights and criminal statutes by the defendants indicate that a powerful force somewhere in government was assuring them that they would be protected against the consequences of their acts. It is obvious that one protective source would by the Justices of the Supreme Court who have direct supervisory responsibilities over the defendant federal judges.

       The only Justice who showed concern was Justice Bryan White, as shown by his letter that is attached.

Prior Cover-Ups No Longer Possible

In the past, evidence of the criminal matters that federal judge have blocked from being reported, or the judicial misconduct itself, was kept from the public. This protection no longer exists. Even though Petitioner is nearly 80 years of age, his printed and E-format books, and his websites, [12] is making this information known. Sooner or later these matters will register with the public. This petition, even though this court may again refuse to respond, will be publicized.

SUMMARY

       In the area of supervisory responsibilities of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court is a documented pattern of:

·      Obstruction of justice.

·      Misuse of the courts to inflict grave personal and financial harm upon a former federal agent to silence his exposure of criminal and subversive activities in judicial and government offices.

·      Misuse of the federal courts to subvert the rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States and misuse the courts as a racketeering enterprise.

RELIEF THAT IS LONG OVERDUE

       Long overdue is the responsibility of Supreme Court Justices to intervene and provide long-overdue relief. This petition seeks an order that the:

·           Defendant federal judges do not have judicial immunity from the acts stated in Petitioner’s Amended Complaint and that they must remain in this lawsuit, along with a requirement that they answer the discovery questions presented by Petitioner, and be subject to a jury trial.

·           That neither state judges or federal judges are immune from liability for the unlawful and unconstitutional acts perpetrated against Petitioner.

·           Petitioner has a right to a decision under the Declaratory Judgment Act for the issues raised in the Amended Complaint, and declared under controlling law—which will be a new experience for Ninth Circuit judges.

       It is also obvious that Petitioner will never receive justice in Ninth Circuit courts, or possibly any federal court. Some remedy will have to be arranged to circumvent the pattern of judicial fraud whose stench permeates the entire 20 years of litigation.  

Date: February 15, 2001.

                                                _______________________________

                                                       Rodney F. Stich
                                                           Petitioner in pro se
 


INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit “A”: October 24, 2000 notice by Ninth Circuit court of appeals refusing to recognize Petitioner’s notice of appeal, based upon 1994 order barring Petitioner from filing any papers in the court of appeals. This denial of due process enlarged upon the systematic denial of due process and injunctive orders rendered by Ninth Circuit district judges, and blocked Petitioner from exercising federal remedies to defend against the judicially inflicted violations of federally protected rights, and prevented Petitioner from reporting the criminal activities that Ninth Circuit federal judges kept from being reported under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.  

Exhibit “B”: August 31, 2000, Petitioner’s filing of notice of appeal of the order dismissing the federal judges.  

Exhibit “C”: August 16, 2000 district court order refusing Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the order dismissing the defendant federal judges.  

Exhibit “D”: July 26, 2000 order by district court dismissing defendant federal judges on holding that federal judges have total immunity from the pattern of corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional acts, perpetrated in a conspiracy, against Petitioner, that inflicted grave personal and property harm, and which were part of a conspiracy to block Petitioner’s reporting of criminal activities.  

Exhibit “E”: November 28, 2000, letter from Supreme Court acknowledging receive of petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari, which had never been filed or acted upon.  

Exhibit “F”: One of several injunctive orders barring Petitioner from federal court as available to other citizens.  

Exhibit “G:” Justice Bryon White’s October 28, 1991 letter expressing regret at not being able to act singularly in response to Petitioner’s charges.


ENDNOTES

(List of record-setting state and federal laws violated by defendant judges)


[1] Title 18 USC § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[2] The books include the third editions of Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies, and the first editions of Drugging America and Disavow, and in the E-book formats.

[3] Internet sites include www.defraudingamerica.com , www. Unfriendlyskies.com, and www.druggingamerica.com.

[4] Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (tab­le), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.)(addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the cover-up of the DC-10 cargo door problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by Stich seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.

[5] The lawsuit attached the validity of the divorce judgment that was rendered 20 years earlier, claiming that the court that issued the judgment in a bilateral consent divorce proceeding lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the 1966 proceeding, had not intended to resident permanently in that court’s jurisdiction. That bizarre and unconstitutional argument was barred by dozens of California statutes and rules of court and numerous federal laws and constitutional protections.

[6] * Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, full faith and credit statute.

* Article IV, § 1, in the U.S. Constitution that requires full faith and credit recognition of Plaintiff’s personal and property rights.

* Article IV, § 2, the constitutional protection against taking of previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights upon changing residence to another state. This protection was violated as defendant California judges (assisted by every other defendant) took these personal and property rights after Plaintiff exercised his constitutional right to change residence to California.

* Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, which was repeatedly violated by the defendant California judges.

* Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause, as Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process was repeatedly violated by the defendant California judges.

* Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause was repeatedly violated by denying to Plaintiff the same rights and protections available to other citizens.

* Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, which was repeatedly denied to Plaintiff.

* Fourteenth Amendment property rights, which were repeatedly violated and taken.

* Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests.

* Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 43; Vanderbilt v. Vander­bilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416;  Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969).

 

[7] * California Civil Codes: §§ 4351, 4554, 5004, 5102, 5103, 5108, 5110.720, 5118, 5164

* Code of Civil Procedures statutes: §§1699(b), 1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1910, 1913, 915.

* Rules of court barring the attack upon the exercise of jurisdiction and when there is a prior judgment for the same matters under the California Family Law Act and deprive the court of jurisdiction: Rule 1201(c); Rule 1211, Rule 1212 Rule 1215 Rule 1222 Rule 1229(a) Rule 1230(a)(2) Rule 1234Rule 1239(a)(2) Rule 1281 Rule 1282.

* Absence of personal jurisdiction arising from Rule 1230 Motion to quash, as defined by California Rule of court 1230(a)(2); Rule of Court 1234; Rule of Court 1239(a)(2).

·        Absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act on the basis of any of the seven prior divorce judgments. Rule 1201©; 1211, 1212, 1281, 1282, 1215, 1222, 1229, 1230(a)(2), 1234, 1239(a)(2); Civil Code §§ 4351, 4503.

California Supreme Court Decisions, including Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796.; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249]; Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498 C.2d 210; Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656.

* Res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines.

* Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, providing for full faith and credit recognition of Plaintiff’s personal and property rights established in seven judgments, which were taken from Plaintiff).

[8] Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

[9] Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

[10] Federal judges implicated in the retaliation included Judges Marilyn Patel, Milton Schwartz, Raul Ramirez, Vaughn Walker, Samuel Conti, and Ninth Circuit court of appeals judge Anthony Kennedy, who is now a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[11] Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461.

[12] Websites with copies of these legal filings include www.defraudingamerica.com.


Help fund our exposure activities by placing orders for any amazon.com products through our links.