How Supreme Court Justices Are
Implicated in a Pattern of Corruption

Judicial and other records show the following:

Unprecedented Lawsuit Against
Justices of U.S. Supreme Court

A federal lawsuit was filed against the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of their cover-ups and complicity with other federal judges. October 20, 1989. (Adobe PDF) That lawsuit was assigned to former CIA legal counsel Stanley Sporkin, who was then a federal judge.

The statements in that lawsuit, and their response, reveal that they were fully aware of the charges of criminal activities, the consequences, for which they claimed judicial immunity. This may sound bizarre, but the seriousness of the charges, the gravity of the consequences to the United States from the criminal activities and the cover-ups, dictated unusual attempts to circumvent the blocks.

Key statements made in that lawsuit included the following:

This lawsuit addresses (a) graft, corruption, and conspiracies related to a series of ongoing air tragedies; (b) government and judicial misconduct misusing facilities of the United States government to silence plaintiff's reporting, exposure, and correction of the air disaster, government, and judicial corruption; (c)  subversion of our form of government, and of the laws and constitution of the United States of America by those paid and entrusted to uphold them; (d) the deaths of several thousand persons in air tragedies caused and made possible by the wrongful acts stated in this complaint.

This cause of action specifically addresses the actions taken by the defendants [Supreme Court Justices] within the last 120 days. These include aiding and abetting of criminal actions, by denial of relief, from (a) unlawful, unconstitutional acts by indicted former bankruptcy trustee, Charles Duck, whose unlawful, unconstitutional  and RICO acts, committed with the aid of federal judges in the Ninth Circuit, caused seizure and looting of plaintiff's assets; (b) the conspiratorial, unlawful, unconstitutional, acts of California state judge William Bunting. Both of these parties and groups acted in a judicially originated and engineered conspiracy to silence plaintiff's exposure of the multi-faceted corruption related to an ongoing series of air tragedies.

The defendants are Justices of the United States Supreme Court who are paid, entrusted, and required, to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States, and have supervisory responsibilities. The defendants include Justices William Rehnquist; Antonio Scalia; Sandra O'Connor; Anthony  Kennedy; Thurgood Marshall; William Brennan; John Stevens; Byron White; Harry Blackmun. The defendants, by denying plaintiff relief from massive and repeated civil, constitutional, and racketeering activities which they are paid and entrusted to provide, have aided and abetted the following unlawful and unconstitutional acts that are part of the conspiracy to silence plaintiff's reporting o the underlying air disaster corruption:

(a) protected the unlawfully unconstitutional, and conspiratorial actions of convicted trustee Charles Duck, who is part of a widespread Ninth Circuit bankruptcy racketeering enterprise comprising federal judges;

(b) protected these federal judges whose wrongful acts financially destroyed thousands of people who sought the congressionally provided relief in Chapter 1, only to be looted by the judicial racketeering enterprise;

(c) obstructed plaintiff's exposure and correction of deeply ingrained air safety corruption that has, is, and will continue to play a causative and contributory role in air tragedies;

(d) protected the judicial conspiracy inflicting outrageous harms upon plaintiff, as described within this complaint; (e) undermining our form of government, and making meaningless the laws and constitution of the United States.

U.S. district court judge Stanley Sporkin, former legal counsel for the CIA, dismissed the lawsuit against the Justices on January 17, 1990. (Adobe PDF) Stich then filed an appeal

The Supreme Court Justices sought to have the appeal dismissed without filing appeal briefs through a motion for summary affirmance, raising various statements that admitted the charges but claiming they were immune from the consequences of their actions. (Adobe PDF)

As could be expected with such serious corruption in high government places, the system protected itself and the appellate judges dismissed the lawsuit. But Stich made a record. However, protective media people made no reference to the lawsuit with its serious implications.

Catastrophic Ripple Effects of
Complicity by Supreme Court Justices

Implications of the misconduct by Supreme Court Justices continued for many years, and some of the consequences were felt on September 11, 2001, with the hijackings of four airliners.

Only One Favorable Response in 30 Years

Letter from U.S. Supreme Court justice Byron R. White (October 28, 1991) in response to report of corrupt activities in government and in the federal courts, implying the seriousness of Stich's allegations but stating that as a single justice--without the cooperation of other justices--"I can be of no help to you." Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court do not send personal letters to any of the thousands of letters or briefs filed in the court. It appeared that he would have liked to help buts  court not do so, by himself. As a matter of law, this is not correct, but real-world conditions are often quite different from what the law says.  

 

 

Submissions to Supreme Court Justices in 2003
  • Letter to Rehnquist October 21, 2003. This letter  was an extensive description of the criminal activities, the felony cover-ups by federal judges, and the sham legal actions that violated large numbers of federally protected rights for which federal remedies existed, which were denied to me by federal judges. The significance of the sham lawsuits was dual efforts to halt Stich's exposure activities by stripping him of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities. Note: Every letter sent to Chief Justice William Rehnquist had copies sent to each of the other Justices. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, October 21, 2003, describing the criminal activities, including those areas constituting the primary and the secondary areas of blame for the conditions that enabled terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11, and the judges blocking the reports of such federal offenses, and the judges misusing federal courts to retaliate  (MS Word)  (Adobe PDF)
  • Letter to Rehnquist February 6, 2003. (Word) (Adobe)
     
  • Letter to Rehnquist January 26, 2003. (Word) (Adobe)

Submissions to Supreme Court justices in 2002
  • Letter to Rehnquist December 16, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter dated December 12, 2002, to clerk of U.S. Supreme Court addressing his lying in a previous letter as the clerk sought to support his refusal to file a petition with the court. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to Rehnquist October 14, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to all Supreme Court justices dated May 1, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
  • Letter to Justice Thomas May 3, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Petition to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dated May 1, 2002. The primary issues in the petition were the massive civil and constitutional violations being inflicted upon Stich by a CIA-front law firm and the aiding and abetting by federal judges. The petition included details of how federal judges were blocking the reporting of criminal activities, and listed some of the criminal activities for which Stich and his group of other former government agents had discovered and sought to report. Justice Thomas refused to provide any relief, thereby aiding and abetting the criminal activities, some of which played key roles enabling the events of September 11, 2001,  thereby insuring a continuation of the years of deja vu tragedies.  (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to Rehnquist January 2, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Submissions to Supreme Court justices in 2001
  • Letters sent to Chief Justice Rehnquist and each of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (April 11, 2001). (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) 
     
  • Petition for emergency relief to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dated March 3, 2001. The purpose of this petition was to obtain relief from the civil and constitutional violations being inflicted upon Stich in efforts to block his exposure of criminal activities, paralleling the judicial block to such reports. The petition also reported the criminal activities that Stich sought to report under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4). Some of the criminal activities that Stich sought to report were primarily responsible for the success of the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings. If Thomas--or any of the others who knew of these crimes--had responded to these charges, it is probable that the hijackers could not have succeeded in their plans that had such massive immediate and subsequent catastrophic consequences. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Petition for emergency relief February 8, 2001 to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, February 15, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (January  15, 2001), describing the corruption in the lower federal courts, their obstruction of justice tactics, their felony retaliation against the former federal agent seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. This letter was a follow-up to an emergency petition submitted to Justice Thomas. No response. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
     

  • Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, submitted on January 5, 2001, under the authority of Supreme Court Rule 12 and Rule 22 providing for application to an individual Justice, and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Even if relief was denied, a response is required under Supreme Court Rule 22.6, which says: "The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application." Following their standard practice, the submission was never acknowledged. To have done so would have made a record of the fact that the Justices were made aware of the very serious charges and did nothing about them. No response, despite the legal responsibility to at least answer, such as denying the petition. But to do so would make an official record of their cover-ups and obstruction of justice. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

  • Letter to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, January 2, 2001. The letter described documented misconduct by federal judges, including their blocking of reports of criminal activities, retaliating against the former federal agent for seeking to report the criminal activities, and the civil rights violations that were part of the scheme initiated by a CIA related law firm in San Francisco (Friedman, Sloan and Ross) to block Stich's reporting of the criminal activities Stich discovered within the FAA and other government offices. Copies sent to each of the other Justices. No response. (Word) (Adobe PDF)
     

  • Letters to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (and the other Supreme Court Justices), January 2, 2001, sent to each of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court referring to documented pattern of corruption by federal judges in the West Coast's Ninth Circuit, which included a 20 year pattern of repeatedly blocking the reporting of criminal activities, judicial retaliation for attempting to make such reports that were required to be made under the federal crime reporting statute, and the involvement of numerous federal judges in a scheme to take Stich's $10 million in assets that funded his public-spirited exposure of criminal activities. That scheme required 20 years of uninterrupted violations of dozens of state and federal laws compounded by violations of every legal and constitutional due process defense guaranteed to all citizens. No response to these letters stating documented facts revealing major crimes against the United States, including those perpetrated by federal judges over whom they have supervisory responsibilities and vicarious liabilities. This non-response, the cover-up, the obstruction of justice, reflects the seriousness of the corruption against the people by those in control of the system. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Submissions to Supreme Court justices in 2000
  • Petition for writ of certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court submitted on November 10, 2000, under Supreme Court rule 12, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. No response. The court never responded to this petition and never filed it, despite the legal requirement to do so. (MS  Word) (Adobe PDF)
     
  • Letter to Justice Rehnquist April 11, 2000. (Word) (Adobe)
     
  • Letter to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, March 16, 2000, with similar information. No response. (Word) (Adobe)

Submissions to Supreme Court justices in 1998
  • Notice of appeal of the contempt of court charge, in retaliation for a former federal agent seeking to report federal crimes in the government's aviation safety offices that enabled to occur numerous specific airline crashes--and which would continue for years thereafter--making possible the conditions enabling four groups of terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11.
     
  • Petition submitted to U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit Judge Anthony Kennedy seeking stay of the prison sentence pending appeal of the judgment and sentence. Kennedy received this emergency appeal after he was named to be a Supreme Court Justice but before he left for the position. In that petition, Kennedy was notified of the criminal activities that former federal agent Rodney Stich had discovered, and that of other former government agents; the deaths associated with some of the corrupt activities, and the harmful effect upon other national issues, including national security due to the involvement of the FAA, FBI, and CIA. The wording on this petition to Judge Kennedy was similar to the wording filed on October 5, 1988, with the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. (After Kennedy denied the stay, Stich was sent to federal prison, where he filed another request, which was granted. Stich was released, only to be returned t federal prison when his appeal was denied, including denial en banc by the entire 9th Circuit list of judges. The great numbers of federal judges implicated in the criminal cover-ups and criminal retaliation reveals the awesome extent of judicial corruption and judges complicit in the resulting consequences of the criminal activities. (MS Word)  (Adobe PDF)  

Submissions to Supreme Court justices in 1997

Letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, clerk, William K. Sutter, (August 24, 1997) making reference to his role in fraudulently refusing to file a petition for writ of certiorari which would have made a judicial record of certain major segments of the judicial and other corruption which Stich and his group of government agents had discovered, including the pattern of CIA drug trafficking into the United States, the Justice Department retaliation against Stich and his coalition for seeking to report these criminal acts, and the role of federal judges in these actions. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court, which would have exposed a broad pattern of criminal and subversive activities as defined in Stich's books, the third editions of Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America, and Drugging America. This filing would have made a Supreme Court record of these matters, and required the Justices to engage in a documented cover-ups of the grave charges. August 15, 1997. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

This petitioner was unlawfully refused to be filed, apparently to avoid making a record of the corrupt activities by federal judges over whom the Justices of the Supreme Court have supervisory responsibilities. This tactic repeated the prior pattern, which would be duplicated in the future, of Supreme Court judges blocking the reports of criminal activities and misusing the federal courts as a racketeering tool through judicially perpetrated civil rights violations while concurrently voiding legal and constitutional defenses.

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

Submissions to Supreme Court 1976-1982

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

  • 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).

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

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

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

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

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

Are the Justices Complicit in 3000 Deaths?

Consider the following:

Without addressing the other areas affected by the criminal activities that Stich and his group of former government agents sought to report, and addressing only the corruption that affected the aviation environment:

  • IF the culture and corruption within the FAA did in fact exist (as overwhelming documentation shows), which included a history of blocking the implementation of procedures addressing the known safety problems, such as hijackings);
     

  • It would explain why the known and obviously long overdue measures to prevent the hijackings of the four airliners on 9/11 were not taken;
     

  • And the preventative measures to prevent airline hijackings did exist (and Stich made such recommendations);
     

  • And the need for such preventative measures was obvious from years of airline hijackings, plus the knowledge that airline hijackings were planned by Middle East terrorists;
     

  • And if Supreme Court Justices did know of Stich's charges, and the legal and judicial actions to block his reports that involved repeated violations of constitutional protections;
     

  • Then, the Justices were, under criminal statutes, criminally implicated, which then included the 9/11 airline hijackings and 3,000 deaths, which would have been prevented if the corruption that made the hijackings possible had been addressed instead of covered up.

Supreme Court Complicity Came With a Price

The complicity of Supreme Court justices came with a heavy price for the people of the United States, and for former federal agent Rodney Stich. Although the consequences were in many areas, the following sampling of pictures show the effects of their obstruction of justice in the aviation sector:

List of print and e-books, that bring together the various pieces of the puzzle to better understand the overall picture, and why the same conditions continue year after year.

But the Complicity of Justices Had Plenty of Company

To help understand how the hijackings of four airliners on 911 occurred and the relationship to the problems former federal safety agent Rodney Stich discovered and tried to report and correct, consider the following:

  • Four groups of terrorists were able to hijack four airliners on 9/11 because the known procedures for preventing hijackings were not implemented. Remember, if these were put in place, 3,000 people would not have been brutally killed on that date, and the reason for such peripheral effects such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq would not have occurred. If this is important to you, read on!
     

  • Why weren't the preventative measures in place? The same reason why many other preventative measures were not taken that allowed decades of preventable airline disasters to occur: the corruption within the FAA that is a matter of records in the possession of former federal agent Stich, and described in the book, Unfriendly Skies: 20th & 21st Centuries.
     

  • What people were involved in covering up for this corruption? The people involved in covering up for the corruption and even criminal activities include, among others, the following:

    • Members of Congress, who for years were informed by letters of the deadly corruption affecting airline safety (as well as criminal activities elsewhere that affected national security). From 1964 to the present date, letters were sent to members of Congress on all of these matters, offering to provide testimony and evidence. Stich even filed lawsuits against members of Congress on the basis of the cover-ups, in an attempt to make a judicial record of their obstruction of justice activities. The corruption in Congress that was publicized in the latter half of 2006 were just the tip of the iceberg.
       

    • Federal judges, through legal filings seeking to report the federal crimes to a federal judge, as specifically provided by the federal crime reporting statute. Federal judges responded by (a) blocking the reports; (b) issuing unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court; (c) charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report ongoing criminal activities. These judicial acts were obstruction of justice felonies and retaliation felonies.
       

    • Media people. Starting while Stich was a federal agent attempting to get publicity to the corruption so as to bring it to a halt, Stich repeatedly notified in writing media people, stressing deaths and the great harm resulting to national security, and offering to provide the testimony of himself and numerous other former government agents. None responded, which made possible many of the nation's worst tragedies. Reasons for the non-response would include (a) those who are secretly receiving money from the CIA and other government offices; (b) not wishing to offend their sources high in government; (c) laziness, among other reasons.
       

    • Department of Justice officials. Starting while Stich was still a federal employee seeking to report the criminal activities that he discovered during his official duties, people in the various divisions of the Department of Justice were repeatedly notified of the criminal activities affecting national security. Instead of acting on the corruption, they charged Stich with criminal contempt of court in collaboration with federal judges at Sacramento, California, among other things.
       

  • They all made possible the conditions resulting in 3,000 deaths on 9/11, which were only one-day's consequences in only one of the areas involved in the corruption. Oh, one other group: the members of the public who knew of these charges, knew of the cover-ups, knew of the retaliation against the former federal agent, and who were too lazy to help!

Free book segments. 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.

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.

Download DVD videos from amazon to rent or to buy, onto your Windows XP operation system computer. For more information, click here.

To order a DVD video download, click on the following amazon link:

 

Cellphone and service deal from amazon.com, with 30-day return if not satisfied.

 

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