Years of High-Level Corruption Notifications
To Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court

Since 1978, former federal agent Rodney Stich, seeking to circumvent the standard cover-ups in government, sought to report to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court the criminal activities that he initially discovered as a key federal aviation safety inspector-investigator, but also criminal activities in other areas of government operations that he later learned from his coalition of other government agents and insiders who provided him with detailed information and evidence. Their cover-ups enabled the corruption, deaths, and national tragedies to continue.

In addition, Stich reported, and sought relief, from the series of unlawful and unconstitutional retaliatory actions taken against him that were parallel efforts to halt his exposure of criminal activities that were inflicting great harm upon major national matters, including national security, and in the aviation environment, resulting in numerous preventable deaths. These constituted additional crimes.

• Lawsuit seeking to report criminal activities of key people in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that caused or enabled to occur several specific airline disasters, most of which was in Stich's immediate area of safety responsibilities as an FAA airline safety inspector. And one against the political board members of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), addressing their cover-ups of FAA misconduct in several specific airline disasters.
   
• These lawsuits were taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Justices were made aware of the federal crimes and the resulting consequences. Under the federal crime reporting statute, they had an extra responsibility to receive information on the major federal crimes that were continuing to result in a continuing series of preventable aviation disasters.

Combination of Reporting Criminal Activities And
Judicial Retaliation for Reporting Them

Starting in 1986, a new phrase of complicity by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. 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.

• As the former federal agent attempted to report additional criminal activities, some of which were learned from information provided by other former government agents and insiders, a series of schemes were taken to halt his exposure activities. These schemes involved federal judges, Department of Justice prosecutors, and a hoard of lawyers and law firms. These tactics included, for instance:
   
  • Issuing a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. Those orders knowingly blocked him and his coalition from reporting the ongoing corruption of key government personnel, and blocked him from seeking federal defenses against a series of sham lawsuits that violated blocks of state and federal laws and constituted federal causes of actions for which federal judges had mandatory jurisdiction.
     
  • Federal judges and Justice Department prosecutors charging Stich within criminal contempt of court for exercising a citizen's right, and a responsibility under the federal crime reporting statute, for seeking to report additional high-level criminal activities, and for seeking to halt the great harm from the sham lawsuits.
     
  • Federal judges and Department of Justice trustees unlawfully and unconstitutionally  seizing and liquidating the $10 million in assets that funded the exposure activities.
     
  • Federal judges charging Stich with criminal contempt of court for exercising the legal and constitutional right to file objections to the unlawful and unconstitutional seizure and liquidation of his life assets.
     
• All of these wrongful judicial and Department of Justice acts, meeting the definition of a conspiracy, were taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices of the Supreme Court continued their prior conduct of aiding and abetting the conduct by refusing to provide any relief, even though they had the legal responsibility to do so.
   
• Legal submissions to Supreme Court justices to halt imprisonment of a former federal agent on a criminal contempt of court charge for attempting to report to a federal court−as required by the federal crime reporting statute−high-level ongoing corruption relating to an ongoing series of tragic, deadly, and catastrophic events. The issues included major violations of basic constitutional rights.

Sampling of 1991 Legal Filings with U.S. Supreme Court seeking relief from prison sentence for having reported continuing corruption associated with resulting harm, consisting of criminal retaliation against a former federal agent and witness. Relief denied.

• Submission for relief from the third criminal contempt of court involving San Francisco federal judges Marilyn Petal and Vaughn Walker. March 4, 1991. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   

• March 4, 1991, Petition for emergency relief to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking relief from the continuation of 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). (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) (html)
   

• Repeated criminal contempt of court charges by federal district court judges Marilyn Petal and Vaughn Walker, resulting in his arrest and then house arrest for five years, again for attempting to report criminal activities and exercising federal defenses against the violations of federally protected rights that were parallel efforts to halt his exposure activities. Stich filed a petition for emergency relief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. January 22, 1992. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• Petition to Supreme Court for emergency relief, return of civil rights permanently terminated by series of unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court. (August 15, 1994) The effect−and surely the intent−was to block Stich from filing papers under the federal crime reporting statute to report criminal activities in government offices to a federal judge. The other probably intent was to block Stich from exercising the multiple federal defenses against the massive numbers of repeated violations of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

• 1997 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. This petition was submitted on August 15, 1997.  (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
  • It was improperly refused filing, 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.
     

• Letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, clerk, William K. Sutter, (August 23, 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.

  August 1997 petition to the United States Supreme Court reported the corruption relating to a series of prior airline crashes and the judicial and Justice Department actions to block these reports, was submitted to the Court in August 1997.  (Word) (html)

Sampling of U.S. Supreme Court filings in 1998:

• Letter to U.S. District Judge Milton Schwartz, June 19, 1998, making reference to his role in blocking the reports of criminal activities and his role in the scheme initiated by the CIA-front law firm. (MS Word)
   
• Prior to seeking relief from the Justices of the Supreme Court from the contempt of court sentence, Stich filed a petition for emergency relief with the 9th Cir. for contempt of court sentence. (October 5, 1998) (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Sampling of 2001 U.S. Supreme Court Submissions,
Shortly Before September 11, 2001.

During 2001, shortly before the corruption of key people in the government's primary aviation safety offices (FAA) and key people in the Department of Justice played major enabling roles in the 9/11 airline hijackings, former federal agent Rodney Stich again attempted to prevent the continuation of the preventable aviation disasters that were combined with the massive civil and constitutional violations being inflicted by lawyers, California and federal judges, and Department of Justice prosecutors:

• Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, January 2, 2001, and each of the other Justices. 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. No response. (MS Word) And letter: (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• Similar January 2, 2001,  letter to Justice Ginsberg. (Adobe PDF)

• Letters to all of the 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.
   
• Letter to Justice Souter, January 2, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• January 5, 2001, Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, submitted 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. January 5, 2001. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
   
• Petition for emergency relief February 8, 2001 to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (MS Word)
   
• Letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas  (February 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)
   
• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Petition for emergency relief, 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.
   
•  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) 
   
• Known to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court was the filing of legal papers in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada, seeking to report:
   
  • The ongoing corruption of certain employees in the government's aviation safety offices that would primarily responsible for the conditions that make it easy to hijack four airliners on 9/11.
     
  • The ongoing corruption of certain employees in the FBI and other Department of Justice offices.
     
  • The ongoing corruption of federal judges that prevented reporting of the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices and within the various offices of the U.S. Department of Justice.
     
  • The pattern of corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional actions of a hoard of lawyers and law firms that were filing sham lawsuits against the former federal agent that were parallel to the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges, both groups seeking to halt his continuing attempts to publicize the deadly corruption.

Sampling of U.S. Supreme Court Filings in 2002:

Former federal agent Rodney Stich again sought to report the documented corruption that was responsible for the conditions enabling and probably encouraging the four groups of terrorists to so easily hijack four airliners.

• Lawsuit filed in in New York after 9/11, seeking to report the corruption in the FAA and DOJ responsible for the conditions that enabled 9/11 airline hijackings to occur.
   
• Lawsuit filed in the federal courts in District of Columbia. Same as the lawsuit filed in the federal courts in New York City.

By that time, so many federal judges and Justices were implicated in the 9/11 events that it was more important than before to block them. They were promptly dismissed, violating the crime reporting statute and numerous procedural due process requirements. No one feared the consequences, as a powerful force in the federal government was protecting the guilty.