Justices' Supervisory Responsibilities
In addition to what is obvious, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have supervisory responsibilities over the conduct of federal judges under Supreme Court Rule 10, which states in part:
The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: an exercise of the Court's supervisory power.
To understand the significance of this page, it is necessary to understand several related pages. A start would be to go to www.defraudingamerica.com.
Obstruction of Justice Statutes
Also Apply to Justices
In addition, federal criminal statutes apply to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, obviously more so than of an ordinary citizen who does not understand the law as well as the Justices.
And for their deliberate refusal to act, there is the doctrine of vicarious responsibilities.
Starting in 1975, former federal agent Rodney Stich attempted to report to federal judges the criminal activities that he initially discovered during his duties as a government air safety inspector-investigator; and then the corruption he later discovered from the dozens of other government agents and insiders who contacted him. Stich filed the federal actions under two statutes:
(1) the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4) that requires anyone knowing of a federal crime to promptly report it to a federal judge or other federal official. The federal judge is then required to receive the information, as part of his mandatory administrative (not judicial) duties, and the pass this information to the proper law enforcement personnel.
(2) the federal statute (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361) that permits anyone to file papers in federal court to obtain an order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty, and to halt unlawful conduct. That statute requires a hearing and submission of evidence and legal argument.
In every instance, federal judges refused to receive the information on the criminal activities, usually after DOJ lawyers filed motions to dismiss the action. These actions constituted obstruction of justice, and involved federal offenses that had already resulted in numerous major airline disasters in the aviation arena, and in other areas of government corruption, were responsible for great personal and financial harm upon innocent people, as well as undermining national security.
Initially, federal judges sympathized with Stich, and stated during open district court or appeals court hearings that the charges were serious. But upon DOJ motion, they blocked the reporting of the criminal activities.
The denial of a court proceeding under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361 violated civil rights to due process.
Starting in 1986, as former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report criminal activities in other areas of government, including CIA drug smuggling, federal judges compounded the refusal to receive the evidence with a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring Stich fro the remainder of his life from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. These orders did two things:
Then, as Stich learned of still more and very serious criminal, and even subversive, activities in government positions, he again exercised his legal rights, and responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute; he filed papers in the federal courts at Sacramento, California.
U.S. Attorney David Levi, and federal judges, then charges Stich with criminal contempt of court (for seeking to report major crimes against the United States) on the basis that federal judges had previously issued orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in any federal court. Stich, at the age of 67 and just recovering from multiple coronary bypasses, was denied a jury trial, and sentenced to six months in federal prison.
Simultaneously, while in prison, federal judges (Robert Jones in Las Vegas and Edward Jellen in Las Vegas, without the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legal cause, seized Stich's $10 million in real estate assets (that funded his foolish exposure activities). When Stich filed objections to the seizure and liquidation of assets, Oakland federal judge Edward Jellen unfiled the objection, charged Stich with another criminal contempt of court, and ordered him sentenced to prison (for having objected to the seizure and liquidation of his life's assets).
All of these criminal, unlawful, and unconstitutional actions by federal judges were repeatedly brought to the attention of Supreme Court Justices by the submission of appeals (petition for writ of certiorari) and letters to the justices. In every case, Supreme Court Justices refused to take any action, thereby approving, and becoming criminally complicit, with the obstruction of justice and felony retaliation against a witness and former federal agent.
These matters are of record and cannot be denied. But to allow the American public to know of such serious subversion of major government offices would expand to the many other people who knew of the criminal activities and covered up for them.