Source: http://www.defraudingamerica.com/supreme_court_petition.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-23 14:00:57
Document Index: 223050864

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1503', '§ 1512', '§ 1513', '§ 241', '§ 1331', '§ 1254', '§ 1294', '§ 1361', '§ 2201', '§ 2401', '§ 1254', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2401', '§ 1291', '§ 1294', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2201', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 1503', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 241', '§ 2201']

Petition for writ of certiorori to U.S. Supreme Court, documenting judicial obstruction of justice.
1997-1998 Term
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES
RODNEY F. STICH, Petitioner	Pro se
(510) 944-1930
QUESTIONS PRESENT FOR REVIEW
1. May federal judges block the reporting of major criminal activities implicating high-level government personnel that must be reported under federal crime-reporting statute Title 18 USC Section 4?
2. May federal judges retaliate, and inflict great and irreparable harm, against a person who seeks to report criminal activities under the mandatory requirement of Title 18 USC Section 4?
3. May federal judges render orders forever barring that person from federal court access, effectively blocking that person's reporting of criminal activities that are required to be reported to a federal judge under Title 18 USC Section 4?
4. May federal judges void, for that person, the rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States, denying him access to federal court when that person is suffering great and irreparable harm from government retaliation for having sought to report criminal activity in government?
5. Have federal judges engaged in a pattern of unlawful and unconstitutional actions as they voided the important crime-reporting statute, as they blocked Petitioner's reporting of criminal and subversive activities, and voided for Petitioner the statutory and constitutional defenses guaranteed for all citizens against the type of tactics judicially inflicted against him?
The parties to the proceedings are Rodney F. Stich,
Petitioner, and the U.S. Government, Respondent.
Reference to Lower Court Decisions &	Jurisdictional Statement
A.	Petitioner Has A Duty Under Federal Criminal Statutes To Report Federal Crimes To A Federal Court
B.	Federal Judges Have A Mandatory Duty To Receive Evidence of Criminal activities Offered Under the Mandatory Crime-Reporting Statute
C.	Federal Judges Lack Authority To Convert	Any Person Into A Man (or Woman) Without A Country By Voiding His Access To Federal Court and Voiding Civil and Constitutional Protections While That Person Is Suffering Great Harm From Civil Rights Violations.
D.	Federal Judges Lack Authority To Misuse	Their Judicial Position To Retaliate and Inflict Great harm Upon Any Person Seeking To Report Government Corruption.
E.	The Judicial and Justice Department	Retaliation Against Petitioner For Seeking To Report Government Corruption Are Crimes Under Federal Criminal Statutes.
F.	Judge Sporkin's Order Permanently	Barring Petitioner From Federal Court Access Was, at best, Outrageous Judicial "Error."
G.	Petitioner Made Valid Claims Under the Federal Torts Claims Act Stated Claims That Also Barred Dismissal.
H.	Judicial Pattern Of Repeated Violations	Of Important Substantive and Procedural Law Is Prima Facie Evidence Of a Scheme To Obstruct Justice.
I.	Exceptional Circumstances Demand That	the Supreme Court Exercises It Jurisdiction In This Case.
Escalera v. N.Y. Housing Auth., 425 F.2d 853 (2nd Cir. 1970) at 857
Stich v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.C.Nos 86-2523
Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board,685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table) cert. Denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1983)
Stich v. United States, 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir)(table), cert. Denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)
Title 18 USC § 1503
Title 18 USC § 1512
Title 18 USC § 1513
Title 18 USC § 241
Title 28 USC § 1331
Title 28 USC § 1254
Title 28 USC § 1294(a)
Title 28 USC § 1361
Title 28 USC §§ 2201, 2202
Title 28 USC § 2401
Federal Tort Claims Act Title
Defrauding America (2nd Edition), filed as exhibit with Complaints in lower court.
Unfriendly Skies (3rd Edition).
REFERENCE TO LOWER COURT DECISIONS
AND JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The date of the entry of judgment by the Court of Appeals was April 14, 1997. Petitioner filed a request for rehearing, and this was denied on June 5, 1997. This petition for a writ of certiorari is filed within the 90 day jurisdictional period as provided by Supreme Court Rule 13.
Supreme Court jurisdiction arises under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1254 in petitions for writ of certiorari from the orders of U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Justices of the Supreme Court also have a responsibility under federal crime reporting statutes, particularly Title 18 USC § 4,(1) to receive evidence of high-level government crimes being perpetrated against the United States.
District Court jurisdiction arose under Title 18 USC § 4 (requiring it to receive evidence of criminal activities); and under the Federal Torts Claim Act, Title 28 USC §§ 2401 et al. The District Court entered its judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice on January 3, 1997.
Court of Appeals Jurisdiction arose under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1294(a), as the Judgment appealed from was final, and disposed of the action as to all claims by all parties. Appellant-Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on January 6, 1997, which was timely under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1).
The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal by order filed April 14, 1997. On May 19, 1997, Petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration, suggesting an en banc rehearing. This request was denied by order filed June 5, 1997.
Petitioner Rodney Stich filed three diverse-matter Complaints on December 12, 1995, seeking to report patterns of high-level criminal activities(2) that he and a group of former FBI, CIA, and other deep-cover agents-operatives had discovered. Petitioner exercised the authority to report these crimes to a federal judge, as provided by 18 USC § 4.
Concurrent with seeking to report these criminal activities, Petitioner's district court filings raised federal causes of actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The basis for this remedy was the great and irreparable harm inflicted upon Petitioner by the tortious and criminal acts of government employees as they sought to block his reporting of the high-level criminal activities, and to retaliate against him for attempting to do so.
Without notice, District Judge Charles Richey promptly rendered an order consolidating the three filings, dismissing two of them, and ordered the Defendant to file a motion requesting dismissal of the remaining filing. This was done.
By order filed January 3, 1997, Judge Richey dismissed the remaining action, blocking Petitioner and his group of former federal agents and operatives from reporting the criminal activities that they had discovered.
Seeking to justify his actions, Judge Richey cited a September 23, 1991 order by Judge Stanley Sporkin permanently enjoining Petitioner from access to federal court. Judge Sporkin was one in a long line of federal judges who had repeatedly blocked Petitioner from reporting the criminal activities. This pattern of judicial dismissals also blocked the federal remedies upon which Petitioner sought relief from the great harm being inflicted upon him in the scheme to block his reports of government corruption.
Judge Sporkin was formerly legal counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency, and surely was aware or involved in the CIA's criminal activities that Petitioner and his group of former federal agents had discovered. It was in Sporkin's self interest to block any reporting of these matters.
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal of this dismissal on January 6, 1997. Subsequently, the court of appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal by order filed April 14, 1997, seeking to justify their decision by making reference to Judge Sporkin's order barring Petitioner from federal court access.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration on May 19, 1997, suggesting an en banc hearing by the entire court, as provided by FRAP 35 and 40. Petitioner reminded the panel of their responsibility under Title 18 USC § 4 to receive evidence of the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute. This motion for reconsideration was denied on June 5, 1997. This petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court is timely filed.
To understand the judicial tactics used in the pattern of obstruction of justice and government-funded retaliation against Petitioner, brief reference is made to the history of judicial acts taken against Petitioner.
Some years ago, Petitioner (and other federal inspectors) discovered a pattern of criminal activities associated with a continuing series of fatal airline crashes occurring in Petitioner's area of federal air safety responsibilities. This misconduct involved management within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), United Airlines, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). All checks and balances in the Executive Branch of government refused to act when the criminal activities were reported to them, making possible additional airline crashes and deaths. This misconduct is detailed and documented in Petitioner's third edition of Unfriendly Skies, in FAA records, and in various court filings.
This obstruction of justice and the related air tragedies motivated Petitioner to circumvent the high-level government block and exercise judicial remedies provided by the federal crime-reporting statute, Title 18 USC § 4. This use of the important federal crime-reporting statute started a series of Justice Department and judicial retaliatory acts that over the last two decades inflicted enormous personal and financial harm upon Petitioner, and continued the harm being inflicted upon the United States, its national security, and its government institutions.
Exercising Judicial Remedies In Federal Crime Reporting Statute
In the late 1970s, Petitioner filed several federal actions(3) against the FAA and NTSB under the federal crime reporting statute, which remained active through the appeal processes in the federal courts from 1976 to 1982. These actions detailed and documented the ongoing criminal activities, showing their relationship to specific crashes and, of course, specific deaths.
During this period, Petitioner published the second edition of Unfriendly Skies, and appeared as guest and expert on hundreds of radio and television shows, describing the criminal activities and also the obstruction of justice reaction by federal judges and Justice Department personnel.
Exposing Justice Department and Judicial Misconduct Was Followed By Pattern of Government Retaliation
Petitioner's exposure activities were followed by a series of judicial retaliatory acts that continue to this day. These judicial activities included seizing and destroying Petitioner's life assets of $10 million--that funded his exposure activities. In addition, orders were rendered that barred Petitioner from defending in court against the harm judicially inflicted upon him.
Orders were rendered that blocked Petitioner from reporting federal crimes, blocked him from access to federal court, and blocked him from the protection of the laws and Constitution of the United States. The page limitation for this filing does not permit going into detail, but the details and documentation appear in the underlying complaints and the attachment to those complaints, being the second edition of Defrauding America.
Start of Bizarre Judicial Acts
In 1982, apparently to strip Petitioner of the assets that funded his exposure activities, a covert CIA and Justice Department law firm (Friedman Sloan and Ross, San Francisco) commenced an action in the California courts against Petitioner that was barred by large numbers of state and federal statutes, case law, and rules of court.
The action was mislabeled a dissolution of marriage action so as to immediately seize Petitioner's assets on the community property doctrine. But Petitioner had already been divorced, for over 16 years, as judicially established by five divorce judgments. Further, Petitioner's former wife, residing in Texas, had repeatedly declared herself divorced in real estate and personal dealings, continuing to do so after the sham action was filed.
For the next 13 years, every state and federal law that barred the action was repeatedly violated, along with every relevant procedural protection. Orders were repeatedly rendered, without jurisdiction under California law, that inflicted great personal and financial harm upon Petitioner. These orders constituted major violations of the Civil Rights Act, invoking federal court jurisdiction.
Whenever Petitioner exercised state and federal remedies, Judges mislabeled the exercise of them as frivolous, promptly dismissed the filings, and either ordered Petitioner to pay huge financial sanctions or ordered Petitioner incarcerated for alleged contempt of court.
Federal Protections Judicially Voided
Petitioner repeatedly sought relief in federal court under the Civil Rights Act for the continuing series of civil rights violations. He also filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 USC §§ 2201, 2202) to have a determination made showing the validity of the five prior judgments showing Petitioner to be a divorced person for the prior two decades. But instead of meeting their responsibilities, federal judges blocked every attempt by Petitioner to have the validity of those five divorce judgments, and his personal and property rights, established as provided by federal law. The same tactics were used to block his reporting of the high-level criminal activities, both matters apparently related.
Forcing Petitioner To Seek Relief In Chapter 11
The refusal by federal district and appellate judges to exercise their responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act forced Petitioner to seek relief in Chapter 11 proceedings from the financial harm arising from the judicial acts.
Discovering Another Area of Government Corruption
Petitioner's Chapter 11 filing revealed another area of corruption that had received very little national attention, involving many of the same federal personnel involved in other areas of corruption. These included federal judges, Justice Department and judge-appointed trustees, law firms and others.
This corruption resulted in the unlawful seizure and liquidation of Petitioner's $10 million in assets, converting Petitioner from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty (in addition to having been stripped of all statutory and constitutional remedies and subjected to years of government-funded persecution).
These corrupt judicial acts raised additional federal causes of action for which Petitioner sought relief from the same federal judges whose conduct had brought him to this stage. Again, as with Petitioner's attempts to report criminal activities in government, as with Petitioner's attempts to invoke federal protections against the sham state court action, federal judges united in blocking the federal defenses intended to protect citizens against these outrages.
Discovering Still Other Areas of Criminal Activities
From approximately 1986 Petitioner started developing contacts with a large number of former FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA and other deep-cover agents and operatives who sought to expose the high-level corruption that they had discovered during their official government duties. These contacts gave Petitioner evidence of high-level government corruption far beyond what Petitioner had already discovered as a former federal investigator and then in the bankruptcy courts (as explained in Defrauding America).
Guilty Of A Crime If He Did Not Report the Criminal Activities Made Known To Him Through FBI, CIA and Other Government Agents and Operatives
If Petitioner did not promptly report these crimes to a federal judge (or other federal officer), he would be guilty of a criminal act under the clearly worded crime-reporting statute, Title 18 USC § 4. Because of the Justice Department pattern of coverups, a federal judge was the only federal personnel to whom Petitioner could make such reports of criminal activities involving high-level government personnel.
Commencing in 1986, Petitioner exercised his responsibilities under Title 18 USC § 4, seeking to report and provide evidence of these crimes to a federal judge. The results were predictable.
Constant Pattern of Judicial Obstruction of Justice
Again and again, federal judges blocked these reports of criminal activities as they had done when Petitioner attempted to report the criminal activities related to a series of airline crashes occurring in Petitioner's area of responsibilities.
Absolute Judicial Block, Year After Year
In every instance, starting in 1976 when Petitioner sought to bring a halt to the continuing fraud-related airline crashes, federal judges blocked his reports, blocked his defenses against the government-funded retaliatory acts, and never allowed him to present his facts or have his day in court.
As a former trained federal investigator, it was clear that these judicial acts were part of a scheme to block Petitioner's reporting of the criminal activities and to concurrently void federal law intended to protect him against such government outrages.
Judicial Tactics Were To Bar Petitioner From Court and Void Statutory and Constitutional Protections
The continuing pattern of wrongful judicial acts continued to raise additional federal causes of action for which statutory and constitutional defenses were available. To avoid abandoning federal remedies, Petitioner had to file federal actions seeking to halt the new violations of federally protected rights. In turn, federal judges had to cover up for the underlying criminal activities that Petitioner had sought to expose, they had to cover up for the scheme in the California courts, and they had to cover up for the actions and inactions by federal judges. In addition, it became known that Petitioner had developed sources in the FBI and in deep-cover operations that were revealing to him additional areas of very great criminal activities.
Necessity Of Voiding All Federal Protections
The massive numbers of federal causes of action that were developing required that Petitioner be denied access to federal courts, thereby blocking his reports of worsening criminal activities and removing all federal protections against the increasing onslaught of civil and constitutional violations judicially inflicted upon him.
In 1986, federal judges commenced rendering orders barring Petitioner from even filing papers in federal court, a restriction that exists to this very day. Petitioner is powerless to exercise the statutory and constitutionally guaranteed protections, and as a result, has suffered catastrophic personal and financial losses that will continue for the remainder of his life.
Federal judges made Petitioner powerless to defend against the sham California action, the seizure and liquidation of his assets in the bankruptcy court racketeering activities, and the reporting of federal crimes.
Repeating This Scheme In the Instant Actions
This blocking practice occurred in the instant actions. Immediately after filing the present actions seeking to report the criminal activities under Title 18 USC § 4 and seeking relief from the outrages inflicted upon Petitioner, Judge Ritchey dismissed the actions. He sought to justify the dismissal by making reference to Judge Sporkin's 1991 order that voided for the remainder of Petitioner's life the right to federal court access.
The issues involved in this case are of great national importance, and failure to properly address them will have even worse repercussions for the nation than the repercussions arising from the judicial coverup of tragedy-related corruption in the aviation area.
A.	Petitioner Had A Duty Under Federal Criminal Statutes To Report Federal Crimes To A Federal Judge.
The most important federal statute available to the American people to defend themselves and the country against government corruption is the federal crime-reporting statute, Title 18 USC § 4. This statute is especially important when federal personnel in control of the highest law-enforcement agency are engaging in criminal coverup and obstruction of justice, as exists in the U.S. Department of Justice.
Petitioner's Qualifications
Federal crime-reporting statutes do not require a person reporting federal crimes to a federal judge to meet any competency or credibility standards for the information to be received. In addition, Petitioner has been a highly respected and qualified federal inspector-investigator. He has been in a position to have discovered these criminal activities. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Petitioner's initial motivation was the combination of hard-core criminal activities and the continuing consequences of brutal airline crashes.
The accuracy of Petitioner's reports of widespread corruption in government, and its criminal cover-up, are given further support by the evidence provided by a group of former FBI, CIA, and other former agents and operatives who are seeking to provide testimony to a recognized government body of the high-level crimes that they discovered.
B. Federal Judges Have A Mandatory Duty to Receive Evidence of Criminal Activities Offered Under The Mandatory Crime-Reporting Statute.
Implicit in the crime-reporting statute is that federal judges have a mandatory requirement to receive evidence of federal crimes brought to a federal court under the mandatory requirement of Title 18 USC § 4. This includes the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
C.	Federal Judges Lack Authority To Convert Any Person Into A Man (or Woman) Without A Country By Voiding His Access To Federal Court and Voiding Civil and Constitutional Protections While That Person Is Suffering Great Harm From Civil Rights Violations.
Obviously, Federal judges have no authority to convert anyone into a man without a country, especially someone seeking to report high level government corruption.
By blocking, and even threatening to put Petitioner into prison for seeking to report this government corruption, and for exercising federal defenses seeking to halt the brutal personal and financial harm inflicted upon Petitioner, federal judges, acting in unison with Justice Department personnel, have created a criminal environment in the nation's courts and institutions.
D.	Federal Judges Lack Authority To Misuse Their Judicial Position To Retaliate and Inflict Great Harm Upon Any Person Seeking To Report Government Corruption.
There is obviously no authority in law for any federal judge to retaliate against any citizen for seeking to report high-level criminal activities, as required to be reported by Title 18 USC § 4. Federal judges have retaliated repeatedly against Petitioner for seeking to report the federal crimes, and for exercising federal defenses specifically intended to protect people being subjected to the harms inflicted upon Petitioner.
Federal judges aided and abetted the sham action in the California courts. They inflicted huge financial penalties upon Petitioner for exercising federal defenses and threatened him with prison if he continued to report the crimes or continued to object to the harm being inflicted upon him. Federal judges repeatedly sent Petitioner to federal prison, and from 1986 to 1995, had him confined also solely to his home while criminal contempt of court charges were filed against him, seeking to insure that their obstruction of justice would succeed.
E.	The Judicial and Justice Department Retaliation Against Petitioner For Seeking To Report Government Corruption Are Crimes Under Federal Criminal Statutes
The pattern of judicial orders barring Petitioner's access to federal court, blocking Petitioner's reports of criminal and subversive activities, the retaliation against Petitioner, were clearly federal crimes under Title 18 USC §s 1512, 1513, 241.
In addition to the criminal aspects of retaliating against Petitioner, the tactics constituted other crimes, including misprision of felonies (18 USC § 4); obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503); guilty as the principles (18 USC § 2); accessory before and after the fact (Title 18 U.S.C. § 3); and conspiracy against rights of citizens (18 U.S.C. § 241).
If Petitioner was still a federal investigator, he would report the pattern of judicial and Justice Department joint cover-ups, obstruction of justice, and retaliation as a criminal conspiracy. And that the intent was to obstruct justice relating to high level government crimes against the American people and the government of the United States.
F.	Judge Sporkin's Order Permanently Blocking Petitioner From Federal Court Access Was, At Best, Outrageous Judicial Error.
Judge Sporkin's order barring Petitioner from reporting the federal crimes was clearly an unlawful order with criminal connotations. He riddled this order with false statements against Petitioner seeking to justify the pattern of judicial cover-ups in which he so eagerly joined. Page limitations prevent Petitioner from addressing the pattern of false statements made by Judge Sporkin.
It is interesting to note that some of the most notorious criminal activities that Petitioner and his government agents and operatives sought to report occurred in the CIA while Judge Sporkin was legal counsel for this corruption-riddled agency. It is "understandable" that Judge Sporkin would render his unlawful and unconstitutional September 23, 1991 order that blocked Petitioner from reporting the criminal activities that heavily involved the CIA in such serious crimes as years of drug trafficking, looting of savings and loans, and other crimes against America.
G.	Petitioner Made Valid Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act That Also Barred Dismissal.
The litany of judicial and Justice Department actions taken against Petitioner, perpetrated by federal employees, were tortious acts for which Petitioner was entitled to relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (and under RICO and Bivens). These acts inflicted great harm(5) upon Petitioner, constituting major federal causes of action that, as with every other court filing, were never addressed nor had their day in court.
There was never any hearing on these issues. These were major federal causes of action. Federal law requires that the allegations made in a complaint must be recognized as true at this stage of the pleadings. Only if these allegations do not state a federal cause of action may the Complaint be dismissed.
Controlling law clearly states that if a plaintiff alleges facts that are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, the action cannot be dismissed at that stage of the proceedings. Appellant has met that test. See Escalera v. N.Y. Housing Auth., 425 F.2d 853 (2nd Cir.1970) at 857. The same principle was stated by the U. S. Supreme Court in Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980). If a federal cause of action is stated, the Complaint qualifies to going forward in a federal court. Petitioner did state facts relating to the Federal Tort Claim issues, none of which were addressed by either district or appellate courts.
Judicial Pattern Of Repeated Violations Of Important Substantive and Procedural Law Is Prima Facie Evidence Of A Scheme To Obstruct Justice
Judicial records, as partly described in the exhibit with the initial complaint, Defrauding America, clearly show a pattern of corrupt judicial and Justice Department tactics blocking Petitioner's reports of criminal activities, inflicting great harm upon Petitioner, and voiding for him the protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Since the scheme was first initiated in 1982, every single relevant substantive and procedural protection, numbering in the dozens, were repeatedly and openly violated by California and federal judges acting in unison, showing the federal control over all levels of government in the United States.
These judges and Justice Department personnel criminally misused their federal offices to obstruct justice, to retaliate against Petitioner, and to destroy for him the protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.
I.	Exceptional Circumstances Demand That the Supreme Court Exercises Its Jurisdiction In This Case
There are exceptional circumstances warranting and demanding that this court exercise its legal and supervisory responsibilities upon the lower court judges that have engaged in a pattern of grave misconduct and even criminal obstruction of justice.
The issues in this case are of great national importance. The criminal acts that Petitioner and his group of former agents and operatives seek to expose, and the related judicial obstruction of justice, are continuing to inflict great harm to the nation's security and well being, and to the lives and deaths of its citizens.
The crimes perpetrated by people in control of key government offices against the nation's own people, being perpetrated by federal officers over whom this Court has supervisory responsibilities, are unprecedented in the history of the United States and of any modern nation.
Exposure of these grave offenses will be traumatic to the country, but coverup can be fatal. Adequate relief Cannot Be Obtained in any Other Forum or Any Other Court.
Petitioner's charges are true and the grave misconduct must be openly addressed and corrected. Federal judges have repeatedly obstructed justice, obstructed the intent of the important crime reporting statute, have misused their office to criminally retaliate against a patriotic American seeking to meet his responsibilities.
The sordid spectacle of vast numbers of federal judges joining in conduct subverting the laws and Constitution of the United States, undermining the national security, making federal courts into criminal enterprises, constitutes a major threat to national security.
Problems Preventing Correction Of This Judicial Corruption and Obstruction of Justice
However, a serious problem exists. The Justices of the Supreme Court have known since 1977 about these criminal acts from filings, attempted filings, and letters, including the crimes perpetrated by judges over whom the Justices have supervisory responsibilities. They knew of the corruption-related pattern of airline crashes. They knew of the sham California action that grievously violated large segments of the Civil Rights Act that permitted Petitioner to suffer grievously.
The Justices knew of the criminal retaliation against Petitioner by misuse of raw government power and the courts. They knew the consequences faced by those who would later die in fraud-related air disasters. They knew of the death and destruction being inflicted upon the American people by the vast CIA drugging of America. And they aided and abetted these crimes for which they now share a criminal responsibility. Obviously, the system under our form of government has broken down, and this court can't possibly do anything but continue its prior sordid conduct.
Refusal to hear and rule favorably on this matter will not settle the case; it will simply further implicate the Justices of the Supreme Court. Refusal to adequately address these issues will of course play a role in the continuing harm inflicted upon the American people, the national security, and the further corruption of government offices.
This includes the criminal activities associated with the CIA's drug smuggling into the United States and other crimes by people in control of this covert agency. Cover-up continues the tragic harm inflicted upon thousands of American in the fraud-riddled bankruptcy courts. Cover-up continues the other crimes and tragic consequences associated with them, as discovered by Petitioner and his large group of former FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, and other deep-cover agents and operatives.
Dated: August 15, 1997.
PO Box 5, Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: (510) 944-1930
Judge Sporkin's September 23, 1991 order voiding Petitioner's access to federal court
District Judge Richard Richey's December 10, 1996 Memorandum Decision dismissing Petitioner's actions
District Judge Richard Richey's December 10, 1996Order Dismissing Petitioner's actions
Court of Appeals April 14, 1997 Order Affirming District court's decision
Court of Appeals June 5, 1997 Order denying Petitioner's Request for en banc rehearing
Fifth Amendment to Constitution
Title 28 USC § 2201, 2202
Defrauding America, 3rd edition, attached as exhibit to complaints.
Stich v. U.S., 773 F.Supp. 469 (D.D.C. 1991)Filed Sep 23, 1991