Lawsuits and Letters Documenting Complicity by Supreme
Court Justices in Corruption and Great Tragedies
Former federal agent Rodney Stich, starting in the late 1970s, filed lawsuits in the federal courts seeking to report the criminal activities that he had discovered as part of his professional and legal duties as a key government aviation safety inspector, and the airline crashes and hundreds of deaths associated with these matters. The authority for filing those lawsuits arose under the crime reporting statute and another statute that permits anyone to file a federal action seeking to force a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful conduct. The federal crime reporting statute requires that anyone who knows of a federal crime must report it to a “federal judge or other federal official.”
Support for Serious Charges
Reliability of charges by corruption-exposing whistleblower Rodney Stich:
Effects upon Stich for attempting to halt the series of horrific consequences of the systemic corruption and systemic cover-ups:
- • Criminal contempt of court charges by Department of Justice prosecutors and federal judges—aided by those that had responsibility to prevent such criminal retaliation against a former federal agent and corruption-reporting whistleblower.
- • Gross human rights violations by powerful people and groups in the government of the United States.
- •Other forms of harm upon the former aviation safety expert.
- • Corrupt seizure of the assets that funded his exposure activities, involving dozens of federal judges and Department of Justice personnel.
Consequences if any of the charges are true:
- •A sampling of the decades of consequences caused or enabled by the evidence-supported charges.
Pattern of Justices Covering Up for Crimes Against The
United States, the Resulting Consequences, and The
Massive Civil, Constitutional, and Criminals Violations
Against A Persistent Whistleblower
Letters were sent to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court for the past 20 years seeking to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4), reporting the pattern of obstruction of justice by federal justices over whom they had supervisory responsibilities, reporting the misuse of judicial positions and the federal courts in a pattern of civil and constitutions violations that were part of the judicial tactics to block the reporting of serious criminal activities that Stich and his group of other federal agents sought to report.
In every case, Supreme Court Justices refused to respond (with the exception of Supreme Court Justice White). This refusal made possible the continued criminal misuse of the courts, the cover-ups of criminal and even subversive activities, and the continued harm inflicted upon the United States and many innocent people.
In later letters, after it was obvious there would be no response, Stich’s intent was to make a record showing that the Justices had been informed of corrupt and criminal activities affecting national security and the involvement of large numbers of federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities and vicarious liability.
The first in a series of cover-ups by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when former federal aviation safety agent Rodney Stich filed federal lawsuits seeking to circumvent the numerous blocks he encountered at every level in government offices. The heavy death toll in preventable airline crashes arising from the deep pattern of corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices−enabled by cover-ups and indifference−caused Stich to use the law in a creative manner.
Eventually, he again sought to report criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute commencing in 1986 after starting to receive information and evidence from an increasing number of other former and present government agents. Concurrent with these filings lawyers and law firms started filing sham lawsuits against him to strip him of the $10 million in assets that funded his exposure activities.
Supreme Court Justices Repeatedly
Aided and Abetted the Corruption
Starting with these lawsuits, federal judges and Justice Department personnel blocked the reporting of every attempt, thereby committing crimes arising from obstruction of justice. Each dismissal was appealed to the federal court of appeals in that area, thereby implicating still other judges in the cover-ups, and then appealed (petition for writ of certiorari to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court), adding them to the increasing number of judges involved in the misconduct and the apparent conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Each judicial block enabled the corrupt activities, the related airline disasters, and other harm to national security to continue. That stark and documented sequence made it urgent that every subsequent federal judge continue to block any attempts to expose the corrupt activities that by then had expanded far beyond the boundary of aviation safety areas.
Combining Obstruction of Justice with Complicity
In Gross Civil Rights Violations
Stich also sought a halt to the continuing harm arising from the actions by the CIA-FBI-front law firm and California judges, acting in unison, and apparently dual and parallel attempts to halt Stich’s actions that were making the public aware of major areas of corruption in government.
Many federal statutes and controlling case law required federal judges to provide a federal court forum to present evidence of violations of federally protected rights and a requirement that if the charges are proven, a federal judge had a mandatory duty−in addition to allowing the plaintiff to present his case−but also a duty to order a halt to the violations. Instead, in every instance that Stich exercised the procedural remedies under such federal law as the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, federal judge protected the California judges and the lawyers in the Friedman law firm.
Federal law requires that the allegations made in the Complaint must be accept as true to determine if a federal cause of action had been stated.
Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true.”)
If a federal cause of action had been stated, federal judges must provide a the Plaintiff the right to a court hearing, and relief if the charges are established.
Letters Informing Justices of Ongoing Corruption,
Related Major Tragedies, Cover-Ups, and Retaliation
2005 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
- •Letter to Supreme Court clerk (March 7, 2005) referring to the latest block by the Supreme Court Justices to the filing of an appeal (petition for writ of certiorari) related to the block by federal judges in New York to the action Stich filed seeking to report the corruption in the government’s aviation safety officers that created the conditions enabling terrorists to hijack four airliners on 9/11. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
- •Letter to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (January 24, 2005), making him aware of the latest obstruction of justice by federal judges and the consequences of such crimes. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
2004 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
Letter to Justice Rehnquist, January 30, 2004 (with copies to every other Justice), describing the actions by judges in the Second Circuit district and appellate courts at New York City blocking the reporting of criminal activities, some of which constituted the primary blame for the conditions enabling hijackers to seize four airliners on September 11, 2001. The documented obstruction of justice was closely interwoven with major violations of federal due process requirements. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Those letters, and their documentary support, charge federal judges with a series of major felonies that include blocking reports by government insiders of crimes against the United States associated with the events of 9/11, felony retaliation against a former government agent seeking to report the crimes, obstruction of justice, all of which played major roles in causing or allowing the conditions to exist that led to the immediate murders of 3,000 people and catastrophic peripheral consequences.
2003 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
Letter to Justice 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) Similar letter to Justice Ginsburg and all other justices.
2002 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
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 déjà vu tragedies. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
2001 Filings—The Year of Other Consequences of the Corruption
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)
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, February 8, 2001 Petition for emergency relief. The purpose of this petition was to report to a federal court the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4), to report the obstruction of justice actions by federal judges who were blocking the reporting of federal crimes to a federal court, and to report the retaliation by federal judges for attempting to make these reports. These judicial acts played a role in the misconduct that insured the success of the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings. No response. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Petition for emergency writ to Supreme Court Justice Sandra O’Connor, 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. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF) This petition raised the misconduct that later that years enabled terrorists to hijack four airliners on September 11, 2001
Letter to Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, January 2, 2001 with copies to all 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) (Adobe PDF)
2000 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
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. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
Petition for emergency relief, October 20, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
1997 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
Letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, clerk, William K. Sutter, (August 23, 1997) making reference to his role in 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 to Supreme Court dated August 15, 1997, which sought to report patterns of criminal 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, with distribution of the 81-filed book-format copies distributed to law libraries throughout the United States. This petition met all requirements for filing. Instead, its filing was blocked, a tactic that was used frequently by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they blocked the reporting of criminal activities in government offices and the felony obstruction of justice and retaliation by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
1995 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
1994 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
Petition to U.S. Supreme Court seeking relief from the judicial seizure of $10 million in assets that funded exposure of the corruption in government offices. This August 15, 1994, petition addressed the seizure of the assets while violating the legal and constitutional requirement of a hearing, notice of hearing, and legally recognized cause for seizure. The violations were further compounded by judicial orders barring Stich from filing objections, and then when he did file objections, they were unlawfully unfiled and Judge Edward Jellen (Oakland) charged him with criminal contempt of court. This was followed by denial of a jury trial and then a sentence to federal prison for filing objections to the property seizure. Ninth Circuit appellant judges upheld these acts, as did justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
1991 U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
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 massive 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. Relief denied. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
1970s U.S. Supreme Court Filings or letters
The initial lawsuits sought to report the corruption/federal crimes associated with several specific airline disasters that occurred in Stich’s immediate area of responsibilities, and involving key people in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and political board members of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The officially documented corrupt and even criminal actions of certain key people at United Airlines were also referred. All federal judges and Supreme Court Justices had a mandatory responsibility to receive the evidence of major high-level federal crimes and to act on the evidence. That statute, among others, makes it mandatory that the federal official to whom the crime is being report, receives information and evidence that is offered. Refusal to do that makes that person guilty of a felony under federal obstruction of justice statutes.
First lawsuits were those against the FAA seeking to report the corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices. Those early lawsuits, that were brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, were the first to make the Justices complicit in the long series of worsening corruption in key government offices and the resulting corruption. It was then in the Justices’ interest to continue to cover up for what today is probably the most sordid and worst series of scandals in any modern nation.
In the first series of lawsuits relating to the corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices filed for everyone to see their refusal to hear the cases−that documented in widely publicized judicial records the Justices’ obstruction of justice actions.
Blocking Filings to Avoid Making a Judicial Record
Thereafter, on petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court that were properly filed, reporting the criminal activities related to a series of aviation disasters and other harmful activities, each submission sent with a filing fee was denied a hearing, eliminating making a widely publicized record of their role in aiding and abetting these serious matters.
Federal law requires that Supreme Court justices reply to a filing submitted, even if it is denied. Supreme Court Rule 22.6:
“The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”
Following their prior practice, many submissions were never acknowledged. To do 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.
Excuses by Supreme Court Clerk
Some of the Supreme Court refusals were based on such excuses as the double spacing placed on the lines by the word processing program allegedly did not meet Supreme Court requirements, or the filings were late (which was not correct), or simply no response. To insure that the Justices were aware of the serious allegations, Stich sent one copy to each of the Justices, often by certified mail to make a record of such submission.
Unprecedented Lawsuit Against Justices of
U.S. Supreme Court on Basis of Their Felony Cover-Ups
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. 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. Although this sounds bizarre, the law existed that permitted that, and the consequences of the cover-ups of the criminal activities that Stich and his group of other former government agents sought to report, and the great harm affecting the lives of many people, and also harm to national security, justified the filings.
Conduct of Supreme Court Justices
And Their Decisions Affects Everyone
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court affects then lives of all Americans, either directly or indirectly. Obviously, the integrity, the honesty, the absence of corrupt actions of any or all of the Supreme Court justices would adversely affect the decisions that affect the heart of America, its institutions, and the constitutional rights and protections.
Often times it is the vote of a single justice that grants, or takes away, previously recognized rights, protections, and freedoms.
Among the many decisions by justices of the U.S. Supreme court are the following examples:
- •Busing of students. The ruling by Supreme Court justices, resulted in millions of Americans being bused to far-off schools to satisfy the holding that schools must contain a given percentage of different races. No such requirement existed in the U.S. Constitution, but this “requirement” was read into it by the majority of the justices. Nor did it exist in the lives of the framers of the Constitution, or for two centuries after the signing. Younger people today do not know of the prior constitutional protection and assume that the argument is correct.
- •Elimination of the right of association. For two centuries after the signing of the Constitution people had the right to associate with who they wished, exercising the natural inclination to associate with people of similar interests, habits, religions, level of lawfulness. But this changed when legislation and Supreme Court justices ruled this right to be unconstitutional and unlawful, subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment if exercised.
- •Private property can be seized by government agencies. That 2006 An decision held that a local or state government can seize a person’s property and resold to another non-government person or corporation to use for another purpose.
- •When the particulars of the corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices is understood, and the corruption in the CIA and FBI, it can be understood how the Justices’ involvement in covering up for these crimes made possible the continuation of the conditions that in only one-day’s consequences resulted in 3,000 deaths on 9/11.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices
Not As Pure As they Portray Themselves
One of many newspaper articles showing Supreme Court justices receiving favors that would affect their conduct was the following article in a New York Times editorial (January 27, 2006), showing the Justices engaging in the same conduct as the lobbyist, Abramoff and members of Congress. Titled, Justice and Junkets” the article stated:
Justice Antonin Scalia certainly has poor judgment when it comes to vacations. Justice Scalia was apparently unchastened by the criticism of his 2004 duck-hunting excursion with Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the term’s most prominent Supreme Court litigants.
Last September, he skipped the swearing-in of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. because of another ethically dubious trip, this time to the posh Ritz-Carlton at the Beaver Creek ski resort in Colorado.
He was there to teach a 10-hour seminar over a couple of days for a conservative group, the Federalist Society. “Nightline” recently reported that the gig left Justice Scalia plenty of time for tennis, fly-fishing and socializing with the group’s members, some of whom have business before the Supreme Court. One Federal Society cocktail reception was sponsored in part by the lobbying and law firm that used to employ Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay’s convicted pal and benefactor for golf vacations.
Justice Scalia’s travel is part of a broader affliction on the federal bench. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004, for example, that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts in recent years, including an $800 leather jacket, a $1,200 set of tires from Nascar and an extravagant vacation from a conservative activist. Federal judges below the Supreme Court level accept dozens of free vacations each year from well-heeled special interests under the guise of “judicial education.”
The judicial lobbying problem is more serious in one respect than the scandal enveloping Congress. Lawmakers operate in an overtly political environment, but the decision-making process of judges is supposed to be impermeable to clever efforts by special interests to buy access and favor.
Supreme Court Justices’ Decision To
Block Other Whistleblowers
Ruling that whistleblowers−government employees reporting corrupt or criminal activities in government can be retaliated against by their superiors−often the ones guilty of the misconduct. This decision was stated in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (May 30, 2006, SC # 04-473)
In that 5 to 4 decision, it took only one justice to strip a person exposing corruption in government office of constitutional protection. Ceballos was a prosecutor in the Los Angeles County and write a memo stating that a country sheriff deputy lied in a search warrant affidavit. In retaliation, he was demoted and denied a promotion.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, and four other justices, stated in that decision stripping those who report corruption in government of protection, stated:
We reject the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. Supervisors must ensure that their employee’ official communications … promote the employer’s mission.
But Ceballos was not merely expressing an opinion; he was reporting a criminal act of a county sheriff deputy as part of his investigative duties.
An editorial in the Las Vegas Sun (June 1, 2006) stated:
The ruling was seen as the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court’s political shift toward statism−a willingness to defer to the convenience and prerogatives of those who run government agencies−following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the arrival of Samuel Alito. A year ago, Justice O’Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistle-blowers to report sex discrimination in schools. But on Tuesday, her replacement joined in the slim majority.
Parrot the party line, or get busted back to proverbial foot patrol? So the “mission” of the Los Angeles County prosecutor’s office is to present a uniform and reassuring face to the public−not to investigate possible police misconduct? Critics predict the ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos could have a sweeping impact for the nation’s 20 million government employees, silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption.
Of course a thorough probe into charges of official malfeasance [or criminal!]] will tend to be “inflammatory”−and to inflame public outrage and demands for reform. That’s Bad?
Justice Kennedy’s Conduct in 9th Circuit Enabled
Continuation of Corruption and Consequences
In the late 1980s, while Justice Kennedy was a federal court of appeal judge in San Francisco waiting to take his position as Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, former federal agent Rodney Stich filed a petition for emergency relief with him. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
That petition raised matters of grave important for the United States, with ripple effects far beyond what a superficial examination shows. It had ripples that made 9/11 possible! The petition stated, for instance:
- •That former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report corrupt and criminal activities in government offices and covert government operations that he and a group of other former government agents had discovered during their professional and official duties with the federal government.
- •That the reports were attempted to be made to federal judges under the requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and that federal judges had blocked the reports.
- •That federal judges had a mandatory duty to receive reports of federal crimes under their administrative duties rather than their judicial duties, and that d obstructed justice in refusing to receive the reports.
- •That serious harm has resulted, and would continue to occur, from the criminal acts that the former agents had sought to report−and from the obstruction of justice arising from the misconduct of the federal judges.
- •That federal judges (Milton Schwartz and Marilyn Petal at that time) had issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring former federal agent Rodney Stich from filing any papers in any federal court for the remainder of his life.
- •That these orders knowingly blocked Stich from reporting criminal activities that he and a group of former government agents had discovered in government offices and government operations, and (b) prevented Stich from exercising federal defenses against the parallel massive civil rights violations that were inflicting great personal and financial harm upon the former federal agent.
- •That after Stich sought to report additional criminal activities that he and his group of former federal agents had discovered, that federal judges and Department of Justice prosecutors had charged former federal agent Rodney Stich with criminal contempt of court for having filed papers in the federal courts attempting to report the criminal activities.
- •That the former federal agent, at the age of 67, had been sentenced to six months in federal prison on a criminal contempt of court charge for attempting to report corrupt and criminal activities in several government agencies (FAA, NTSB, FBI, and CIA) that had fatal and other consequences and which would continue to have such consequences. The most notable−if the facts are analyzed and the ripple effects understood−would include the conditions that constituted the primary areas of blame for the successful hijackings of four airliners on 9/11; and the secondary area of blame for the poor intelligence and failure to act on known intelligence.
The petition sought to obtain a stay of the prison sentence; a hearing to return to him the civil and constitutional rights and defenses taken from him by the unlawful orders; an opportunity to present to him, or any other federal judge, under the mandatory crime reporting statute, information and evidence of corrupt and criminal activities. Judge Kennedy denied each of these requests. Eighteen years later, he wrote the Supreme Court decision that further showed his protection of corrupt and criminal activities in government offices with the Ceballos decision.
In January 2010, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion that overturned years of Supreme Court decisions barring corporations from using unlimited funds to buy members of Congress, a decision condemned by four other Supreme Court Justices, many members of Congress, and other experts on buying of legislation.
Credibility of the Information Provided by
Former Federal Agent and Whistleblower
The credibility of these charges is established by:
- •The massive amount of evidence that such filings were made.
- •The occurrence of the catastrophic consequences.
- •The total absence of many denial.
- •The background of former federal agent Rodney Stich and his opportunity to discover the corruption. This corruption is further documented in the related documentary books.
Considerable information from many sources provides support for the seriousness of the charges and their accuracy.
Supreme Court Justices’ Conduct Had Series of
- • Harm to the American public in non-violent areas.
- • Harm to people of other countries.
- •Harm to the few people in the United States fighting the high-level corruption in a meaningful manner.
- • Harm in general.
- • Harm inflicted on former federal agent and whistleblower during multiple schemes to silence him.