BLOCKBUSTER EXPOSURE OF WIDESPREAD JUDICIAL CORRUPTION COVERING SEVERAL DECADES
The following is a copy of the amended complaint filed in the U.S. district court at Reno, Nevada on March 23, 2000. Understanding the pattern of misconduct by the defendants will reveal how the safeguards that should have prevented the terrorists from succeeding were blocked by corrupt actions of people in the FAA, NTSB, Department of Transportation, Justice Department personnel, members of Congress, federal judges, lawyers and law firms.
The results of this ongoing misconduct has been a series of continuing tragedies inflicted upon Americans (and people throughout the world). In the aviation environment, the results of this misconduct, the cover-ups, the retaliation against former federal agents, include numerous fatal hijackings, fraud-related air disasters, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings. These people, their culture, and their misconduct, are still in position, continuing the pattern of cover-ups, and lying, that bode ominously for the American people.
The documented charges in the lawsuit include:
Federal judges repeatedly blocking the reports of criminal activities being made by a former federal air safety inspector. These reports were being made made under the federal crime reporting statute by former federal agent Rodney Stich and his group of other federal agents. Among the many areas of criminal activities that federal judges blocked from being reported were those that not only insured the success of the September 11, 2001, hijackers but also encouraged them to carry out their scheme. The judges who refused to perform their administrative duties to receive the information and evidence committed felonies. If the documented information concerning misconduct within the FAA had not been blocked by federal judges, and if they had performed their administrative duties to received the evidence, it is very probable that many prior air disasters, many prior fatal hijackings, and the 5,000 deaths due to the successful hijackings on September 11, 2001, would not have happened. The responsibility of FAA management to take the corrective steps recommended by federal air safety inspectors were repeatedly refused due to the pattern of corruption within the FAA.
Federal judges repeatedly retaliated against Stich for attempting to report the criminal activities. These judicial acts are felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. ǧ 35, 111, 153, 241, 242, 245(b)(1)(B), 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513(b), 1515(a). This judicial retaliation blocked the reporting of corrupt and criminal acts that had been involved in numerous fatalities. The judicial retaliation against Stich blocked the exposure of the corruption in the FAA and other government offices that resulted in that one day, 5,000 deaths! The continued judicial cover-ups will make possible future tragedies.
Federal judges seized Stich's million in real estate assets, which funded his exposure activities, as part of the scheme to silence this former federal air safety inspector. The assets were corruptly seized, violating the legal and constitutional requirements of a notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally required cause. Federal judges then issued orders denying Stich the right to file objections. When an objection was filed, a federal judges (Judge Edward Jellen, Oakland, California) charged him with criminal contempt of court, denied him legal counsel, and sentenced him to federal prison. When Stich filed for relief in a higher court, he was again charged with criminal contempt of court and spent six months in federal prison (on the basis that federal judges had terminated his right to federal court access for the remainder of Stich's life--which exists to this day). Among the consequences: September 11, 2001.
Federal judges worked in liaison with a CIA-front law firm (San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross) that filed a sham lawsuit against Stich that was barred by dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections. Every federal defense was blocked by federal judges working in unison. The lawsuit sought relief under the Civil Rights Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, Civil RICO, and damages.
These are only highlights. There is much more in the corruption by federal judges (and California judges) in that lawsuit that raises alarming national issues with national implications--including but not limited to the events of September 111, 2001. A start to a college education on hard-core corruption in the three branches of government can be found here, and the role played by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
PO Box 10587
Reno, NV 89510
plaintiff in pro se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RODNEY F. STICH,
WESTERN DIABLO ENTERPRISES, Inc.
Estelle C. Mannis; Kent L. Mannis;
Friedman, Sloan & Ross, P.C.;
Joshua Landish; Vernon Bradley;
Stanley J. Friedman; Paul G. Sloan;
Lawrence A. Gibbs; Jeffrey S. Ross; Charles Duck; Carolyn E. Moore;
Goldberg, Stinnet & Macdonald;
Lawrence Goldberg; Terrance C. Stinnnett; Iam Macdonald;
Christopher A. Goelz; Merle C.
Meyers; Jerome Robertson;
John W. Murray; Susan E. Weber;
Murray & Murray, P.C.;
David Levi; Edward Jellen;
Michael McInnis; Harold F. Wolters;
William Jensen; J. Clinton Peterson;
Donald King; Harry Low;
Zerne Haning; Robile, Inc;
Concord Properties; Emma Stich;
Milton Schwartz; Raul Ramirez;
John Moulds; Marilyn Patel;
Vaughn Walker; Robert Jones;
) No. CV-N-00-0152-ECR-PHA
) AMENDED COMPLAINT
) FOR DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS
) ACT (42 U.S.C. Sections 1983-1986);
) RICO (18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-1965);
) BIVENS DOCTRINE; FRAUD;
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
) (28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, 2202);
) CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS;
) REPORTING FEDERAL CRIMES
) (18 U.S.C. Section 4);
) 28 U.S.C. Section 1361 REQUIRING
) FEDERAL OFFICER TO PERFORM A DUTY
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON ALL
) JURY ISSUES
1. This action arises under:
a. The Constitution of the United States, and specifically the First Amendment (right to petition government); Fifth Amendment (right to due process and equal protection of the law); Article IV,