Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Judicial Corruption Defrauding America
by Rodney Stich
08 Apr 2002
Things Americans need to know, I just wish the main stream media had the integrity to help expose some of this corruption instead of helping to cover it up!
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. §§ 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 $10 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, § 1 (privileges and immunity clause); Article IV § 2 (constitutional right to unabridged interstate travel); and under:
b. Title 28 United States Code § 1331, which provides that anyone stating facts raising a federal cause of action has the right to file in the district courts a civil action stating claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
c. Title 28 United States Code § 1343, which provides a federal court forum in which citizens may seek redress from the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities under color of state law.
d. Civil Rights Act, Title 42 United States Code §§ 1983-1986, that provides a federal remedy to anyone suffering from violations of his civil rights perpetrated under color of state law.
e. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, based upon the conspiracy by the defendants that repeatedly violated plaintiff's civil rights.
f. Title 42 United States Code § 1986, which provides for damages from those defendants who had knowledge of the violations of plaintiff's civil rights, who had the duty and the ability to prevent or aid in the prevention of them, and who failed to perform that duty.
g. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Bivens claim is based upon the violations of plaintiff's civil rights under color of federal law, which occurred continuously and inter-related from 1983 to the present date.
h. Title 18 United States Code §§ 1961-1964. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (hereafter "RICO") claim arises from the pattern of multiple predicate acts perpetrated by defendants over a 17 year span. The predicate acts of racketeering by multiple defendants affected interstate commerce.
i. Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 United States Code §§ 2201 and 2202, which provides for district courts to declare rights and legal relations that are in controversy, and provide whatever remedies are appropriate. (Also FRCivP 57)
j. Title 18 United States Code § 4. This federal crime reporting statute requires any person who knows of a federal crime to promptly "report it to a federal judge" or other officer.
k. The matters in controversy exceed ten million dollars.
2. Venue is based upon the following:
a. A number of the wrongful acts and federal causes of action occurred while plaintiff was a resident of the Northern District of Nevada.
b. Plaintiff resides in Nevada and California and considers Nevada his domicile.
c. Plaintiff's solely owned corporation was and is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of business in the Northern District of Nevada.
d. A divorce judgment entered as a local judgment in Nevada, establishing plaintiff's personal and property rights, is heavily involved with this action.
e. Property in the Northern District of Nevada and in other states was acquired by plaintiff while he was a resident and domicile of Nevada and is involved with this lawsuit.
f. Property that was wrongfully taken from Plaintiff included property located in the Northern District of Nevada.
g. All defendants participated in wrongful conduct that affected Northern Nevada interests, including property and plaintiffs residences and domicile.
h. Venue exists in any location for reporting criminal activities to a federal judge, as required by federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
i. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a), (b), (e); 1392(b); 1402(b).
j. Further, plaintiff cannot exercise the rights and responsibilities in district courts of California because of the following conditions:
i. Federal judges in the district and appellate courts have blocked the reporting of criminal activities by Plaintiff and his group of government whistleblowers which plaintiff sought to report to a federal judges under the mandatory requirements of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. The internal security of the United States continues to be adversely affected by these criminal acts and the obstruction with the reporting of them to a federal judge.
ii. Federal judges in Northern and Eastern California have feloniously retaliated against plaintiff for seeking to report these crimes. These retaliatory acts were felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513(b). They are also felonies by obstructing justice under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.
Statute Of Limitations
3. The violations of federally protected rights, for the purpose of this lawsuit, continued without interruption from 1982 to the present date, consisting of continuing violations. One of the latest acts in the continuing series of wrongful acts occurred on March 25, 1999, when Chapter 11 judge Edward Jellen issued an order in plaintiff's Chapter 11 cases at Oakland, California disposing of the last of plaintiff's $10 million in assets that were corruptly, unlawfully, and unconstitutional seized.. Certain federal causes of actions constituting major violations of federally protected rights, a part of a convoluted pattern of unlawful conduct, occurred when plaintiff sought refuge in Chapter 11 courts from the civil rights violations occurring during the past 20 years. The bankruptcy case was closed on September 3, 1999.
4. Rodney F. Stich is a former Navy pilot in World War II, a former international airline captain, a former inspector-investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and for many years a private investigator. His discovery of serious criminal activities relating to a series of fatal airline crashes occurring in his area of federal air safety responsibilities led him to embark on a crusade to bring these matters to justice. Over a period of many years, his activities were joined by a group of other government whistleblowers who sought to report criminal activities in high government offices and covert government operations. He published eight books and appeared as guest and expert on over 3,000 radio and television shows since 1978. These books include the third editions of Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies and the first editions of Drugging America and Disavow.
5. Western Diablo Enterprises, incorporated in Nevada in 1984, contained the bulk of plaintiff's real estate properties that funded his exposure activities, and was plaintiff's de facto properties. Both of these plaintiffs are hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff."
6. The defendants in this lawsuit are California judges, federal judges, and attorneys and law firms. The California judges who perpetrated the wrongful acts stated in this complaint include Dwight Ely, Michael McInnis, William Jensen, Harold F. Wolters; John A. Deronde; Dennis Bunting, J. Clinton Peterson, Donald King, Harry Low, and Zerne Haning. The California judicial defendants were directly involved in the wrongful acts constituting federal causes of actions from 1982 to 1986 and as part of a conspiracy were implicated throughout the 1982 to 2000 time period covered by this lawsuit. They violated and conspired to violate plaintiff's civil rights and knowingly inflicted great and irreparable harm upon plaintiff. They became part of a RICO Enterprise and RICO conspiracy. California judges are sued in their official and non-official capacities. Some have left their former judicial positions.
7. Federal judges aided and abetted, and expanded on the wrongful acts. For the purpose of this lawsuit, they included Milton Schwartz, Raul Ramirez and Magistrate John Moulds; San Francisco Judges Marilyn Patel and Vaughn Walker; Las Vegas Chapter 11 judge Robert Jones, and Oakland Chapter 11 judge Edward Jellen. Federal judges are sued in their official and non-official capacities. Some of these federal judges have left the federal judiciary.
8. Attorneys and law firms named as defendants include Stanley J. Friedman, Paul G. Sloan; Lawrence C. Gibbs; Jeffrey S. Ross; John W. Murray; Christopher A. Goelz; Carolyn E. Moore; Merle C. Meyers; Rene Feinstein; Joshua Landish; Estelle Mannis; Susan E. Weber; Friedman, Sloan and Ross, P.C.; Goldberg, Stinnet and Meyers, P.C.; Murray and Murray, P.C.
9. Defendants who were Chapter 11 trustees include Charles Duck and Jerome Robertson.
10. Other defendants include Robile, Inc and Concord Properties in the Concord, California area and Texas resident Emma Stich.
11. The United States of America is listed as a defendant for its role in allowing federal personnel to engage in the wrongful acts described in this amended complaint.
12. Matters of grave national issues are intertwined with this lawsuit and are adversely affecting the internal security of the United States. Serious allegations are stated in this lawsuit, most of which are proven by judicial records.
13. This action raises multiple federal causes of actions for which federal judges have a mandatory responsibility to provide a federal court forum and relief. Plaintiffs, both individually and as a class, a whistleblower against corrupt government personnel, have been deprived of personal and property rights without, and in direct and repeated violations of due process of law. Although all allegations must be accepted as true at this stage of the pleading, most of the allegations are proven in judicial records, and plaintiff requests that judicial notice be taken of these records. Further, during discovery, this evidence will be entered into these proceedings.
Thumbnail Highlights Of the Convoluted Scheme To Obstruct Justice
14. Basically, the evidence strongly indicates that the reasons for the record setting numbers of violations judicially inflicted upon plaintiff by California and federal judges arose from a convoluted scheme concocted somewhere high in the federal government to strip plaintiff of the considerable assets he possessed that funded his exposure of high-level corruption in government.
15. The overt part of the scheme was initiated by the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, which had been identified to plaintiff by two reliable sources as a CIA-front law firm. The apparent thought was that plaintiff's assets would be promptly taken from him by cooperating California judges. But when plaintiff unexpectedly exercised federal remedies for the multitude of violations of federally protected rights, it then became necessary to obtain the cooperation of federal judges. The escalation of the violations of law by federal judges increased the number of remedies under the laws and Constitution of the United States. A judicial crisis was eventually reached, which federal judges rendering unlawful and unconstitutional orders converting plaintiff into a citizen of the United States stripped of the protections in law while the judicial offices and the courts openly and corruptly inflicted great and irreparable harm upon him. Further details can be found in the attached Addendum "A," which is the third edition of the book, Defrauding America. Bizarre as this sounds, for those who have an inside knowledge of covert government operations, it is easy to understand and proven by judicial records.
16. Plaintiff seeks:
a. A return to him of the assets that were unlawfully and unconstitutionally seized by judicial defendants named herein, who acted without jurisdiction while concurrently violating large numbers of federal laws and constitutional safeguards, and compounding these acts by felonious retaliation when plaintiff exercised federal due process remedies.
b. Damages from the defendants as stated herein.
c. Declaratory judgment to declare certain rights and legal obligations as stated in this action.
d. A demand for this court to receive reports and evidence of criminal activities that Plaintiff and his group of present and former government agents have discovered, as can provide. Federal judges must receive these reports and evidence under the clear wording of the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony).
e. "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
e. These present and former government agents include plaintiff, who is a former federal investigator, from former heads of secret Central Intelligence Agency airlines and CIA financial operations, and agents of the FBI, CIA, DEA, Customs, INS, Secret Service, and other government and non-government insiders.
f. Included in these criminal activities are drug smuggling by the Central Intelligence Agency, judicial corruption in the bankruptcy courts, the cover-ups of these matters by other government personnel, as detailed in this action and in plaintiff's books, including the third editions of Defrauding America and Unfriendly Skies, and the first edition of Drugging America. The book Defrauding America is made a part of this lawsuit and included as Addendum "A."
17. More details are presented in this amended complaint because of the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires that allegations of fraud, condition of mind, and conspiracy be stated with specificity rather than general allegations. Further, the great number of repeated violations of federally protected rights over a 20-year period requires more detail than a single violation of federally protected rights. Prior to that 20-year period, plaintiff documented, as a federal inspector, criminal activities related to a series of fatal airline crashes occurring in plaintiff's area of federal air safety responsibilities.
18. This lawsuit addresses a convoluted pattern of unlawful and unconstitutional acts that focused on blocking plaintiff's reporting of serious criminal activities that plaintiff and his group of government whistleblowers sought to report. Each defendant listed in this amended complaint covered up for, and enlarged upon, the criminal and civil rights violations of those who preceded them.
A Brief History Of Earlier Events
19. To help understand the events that preceded the attacks upon plaintiff which, for the purpose of this lawsuit, commenced in 1982 and continues to this day, plaintiff presents a brief outline. As an inspector-investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Plaintiff discovered and reported federal air safety and criminal violations relating to a series of airline crashes in his area of federal air safety responsibilities while he held air safety responsibilities for the most senior program at United Airlines. Implicated in the corrupt activities were management personnel at United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration. Federal inspectors were blocked from carrying out federal air safety responsibilities. Harassment and threats by key management personnel at United Airlines and within the FAA blocked inspectors from carrying out the federal government's air safety responsibilities in such a manner that a series of fatal airline crashes occurred. Evidence of this misconduct is in plaintiff's possession, and detailed in plaintiff's book, the third edition of Unfriendly Skies and in a condensed section in the third edition of Defrauding America. These were criminal acts associated with the deaths of many people in a series of specific airline crashes.
20. Possibly because of the enormous implications between the pattern of corrupt and criminal acts and the great numbers of fatal crashes, and the liabilities incurred by the federal government if this information became known, a pattern of cover-up and obstruction of justice followed. These included key personnel in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB--called CAB Bureau of Safety at that time), and the Department of Justice.
21. The cover-ups and criminal obstruction of justice by NTSB officials required falsification of government accident reports, which expanded the criminal activities. In turn, the cover-ups and the falsified accident reports covered up for the air safety and criminal violations involved in prior crashes, which then became involved in subsequent crashes. As expected, the cover-ups and falsified accident reports continued.
22. Plaintiff documented many of the crash-related misconduct as he forced an unprecedented four-month-long hearing upon the FAA during which he acted as a self-appointed independent counsel. Three other fatal crashes in plaintiff's area of direct air safety responsibilities occurred during that hearing which were due to the air safety and criminal violations plaintiff and other inspectors had discovered. Perjury and subornation of perjury by FAA management and FAA legal counsel was rampant and proven during that hearing.
23. Armed with additional evidence of criminal activities arising during the four-month-long hearing and associated with identifiable airline crashes, plaintiff offered evidence to the Department of Justice and to the U.S. attorneys at Denver, Oklahoma City, and eventually San Francisco. In the first of what plaintiff discovered for the next 35 years, each office engaged in cover-ups and obstruction of justice. Seeking to circumvent this high-level block, plaintiff appeared before a federal grand jury at Denver. It was here that he discovered the ability of the U.S. attorney to block a grand jury investigation of high-level corruption in government.
24. These attempts to meet responsibilities as a federal investigator resulted in retaliation, which caused plaintiff to eventually leave the FAA and continue the exposure of these criminal activities as a private citizen. As the covered up corruption continued to play a key role in other air disasters, plaintiff used his considerable assets to publish books, appear as guest on hundreds of radio and television shows, and filed federal actions in San Francisco and Los Angeles district courts under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. These included:
Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982)); Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District California.).
25. In the actions filed in the U.S. district courts at San Francisco, the judges were sympathetic but denied they had the responsibility under these statutes, claiming it was the responsibility of Congress to take action. Every filing was authorized under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
a. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
b. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony). "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
26. These dismissals by federal judges made possible the continuation of the air safety and criminal violations that plaintiff and other FAA inspectors discovered at United Airlines and within the FAA. As expected, further crashes and further deaths followed the cover-up. These matters are detailed in plaintiff's third edition of Unfriendly Skies.
27. In Plaintiff second edition of Unfriendly Skies, he named the federal judges who refused to act and who made possible the continuation of the air safety and criminal violations that made possible other air disasters. Plaintiff's continued appearances on radio and television shows and the continued sales of the book threatened to expose federal judges, Justice Department offices, members of Congress, and United Airlines personnel.
The Probable Motive For the Start Of Judicial Retaliation
28. The start of the judicial violations of federally protected rights commenced with the filing of a sham lawsuit against plaintiff in California on December 12, 1982. (In re the Marriage of Stich, 83472, Solano County Superior Court, Fairfield, California.).
29. The lawsuit was filed by the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. The Friedman law firm and their attorneys (hereinafter called "Friedman") who took part in the lawsuit fraudulently claimed that plaintiff was married to their client, Texas resident Emma Stich (hereafter "Emma"), and that she wanted a dissolution of the alleged marriage. That lawsuit also claimed that plaintiff's $10 million in personal and corporate assets were community properties and that the Texas resident wanted half of these. These were the assets that funded plaintiff's investigative and exposure activities that threatened federal judges in the Ninth Circuit and other implicated government personnel.
Legally Divorced For the Prior Two Decades
30. The divorce action was a sham and apparently the bizarre scheme concocted in a powerful government position intended to strip plaintiff of the assets that funded his exposure of corruption and the cover-ups. There was no marital relationship, either in law or in fact. The parties had been divorced for the prior two decades following a bilateral consent divorce proceeding, from which a divorce judgment was rendered on January 31, 1966. Neither party had any contact with the State of California at that time, and neither party had any physical contact with each other after a 1964 separation in Colorado and the rendering of the 1966 divorce judgment.
31. As plaintiff changed residence over the years, he had the 1966 divorce judgment entered as a local judgment in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nevada, and in two counties in the State of California (Contra Costa and Solano).
a. Registration of the January 31, 1966 divorce judgment in the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, action number 251773 (under C.C.P. §§ 1699(b) and C.C. § 5164); Registration of the Contra Costa divorce judgment filing in the Superior Court, Solano County, State of California, action 91929; Judicial entry of the Contra Costa county confirmed judgment into the Nevada courts, Second Judicial District of Nevada, County of Washoe, case number 85-5391, and foreign judgment registry, number 31; Registration of the 1966 divorce judgment in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Case number FD-86-5870; Registration of the Contra Costa confirmed judgment in the Civil Courts of Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, in Volume Two, Page 78, Foreign Judgment Register.
32. Other evidence of plaintiff's divorced status existed:
a. After the 1966 divorce, over 100 title insurance policies were subsequently issued on plaintiff's real estate properties, insuring him as the sole owner.
b. Subsequent to the 1966 divorce, plaintiff, in his various states of residence, and Emma in her resident State of Texas, repeatedly declared themselves divorced in real estate transactions and credit applications. After Friedman filed the California divorce action, claiming that Emma wanted a termination of an existing marriage with plaintiff, Emma continued to declare herself divorced in her resident State of Texas.
c. After the California divorce action was filed by the Friedman law firm claiming Emma wanted a divorce, Emma applied to the Social Security Administration for higher Social Security benefits on the basis of the 1966 divorce judgment.
d. The federal government, through the Social Security Administration, recognized that 1966 divorce judgment and increased her Social Security payments.
33. When it became necessary, Emma declared herself married to plaintiff in the California action, while simultaneously declaring herself divorced in her resident state of Texas. This fraud, the false declarations, the perjury during the California lawsuit, was suborned by Friedman.
Record-Setting Violations of California and Federal Laws and Constitutions
34. The California lawsuit violated large numbers of California laws required California judges to recognize each of the existing divorce judgments and the divorced status and property rights established in those judgments. Over 21 California statutes and over nine rules of court blocked the continuation of the lawsuit. In addition, California law deprived California judges of personal and subject matter jurisdiction for the cause of action filed under the Family Law Act. For six years, from 1982 to 1988, the defendants, acting under color of state law, violated these laws and constitutional safeguards while inflicting great and irreparable harm upon plaintiff. The laws repeatedly violated included:
a. California law requiring recognition of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights stated in those judgments: Civil Code §§ 4554, 5004, 5164; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1699(b), 1713.3, 1908, 1913, 1915 (effective when the 1966 judgment was rendered and for nine years thereafter).
b. California full faith and credit statutes that required recognition of each of the prior judgments and personal and property rights stated in those judgments: Civil Code § 5004 (Full Faith and Credit Requirement); § 4554 (final and conclusive effects of prior judgment, local, foreign state, foreign country); C.C. § 5164 (a filed custody decree has the same effect as a California judgment); C.C.P. § 1713 (a foreign state judgment is conclusive between the parties); C.C.P. § 1908 (effect of a California judgment is conclusive between the parties (and this conclusiveness applies to foreign judgments under, inter alia, C.C. § 5164.
c. Law depriving California judges of personal and subject matter jurisdiction for the cause of action under the Family Law Act on the basis of the prior divorce judgments. Rules 1201(c), 1211, 1212, 1215(b), 1215(c), 1222, 1229(a), 1281, and 1282; Civil Code §§ 4351, 4357(a), 4370, 4503, 4554.
d. Law depriving California judges of jurisdiction over separate properties. Even if there had been a marital relationship, California law deprived California judges of jurisdiction over plaintiff's separate property. The property was legally separate as a result of being adjudicated as separate and on the basis of having been acquired after the 1964 separation and 1966 divorce. Civil Code §§ 4800.1, 5102, 5103.
e. California law deprived the judges of personal jurisdiction on the basis that plaintiff had filed a timely motion to quash challenging the court's personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Until there was a hearing and a decision on that motion to quash, the judges and Friedman lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff. The hearing on the motion to quash was limited to presenting evidence of the prior divorce judgments. Instead, four years later, after rendering numerous orders without jurisdiction arising from the prior divorce and from the motion to quash, which inflicted great harm upon plaintiff, California judges conducted a trial relitigating the divorce proceeding that had been litigated and finalized 20 years earlier.
f. California Supreme Court decisions required recognition of the prior divorce judgments and plaintiff's divorced status and property rights. (Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249; Whealton v. Whealton (1967)67 C.2d f656). These early case law decisions were followed by statutes requiring the recognition of the prior divorce judgments, the personal and property rights adjudicated in those judgments, and the property rights acquired as a divorced person.
g. Statute of limitations. In addition to the statutory requirement to recognize the prior divorce judgments, the statute of limitations provided an additional bar to the lawsuit: Code of Civil Procedure §§ 318, 338, 343; Civil Code §§ 880.020, 880.250, required recognition of prior judgments, prevented attacks upon prior judgments, and required that the prior courts be recognized as acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.
h. Requirement to recognize a prior judgment that comes under attack after accepting the benefits of the prior judgment: Evidence Code §§ 666, 665, 622.
i. Res judicata doctrine, in that the divorce litigated two decades earlier could not be relitigated.
j. Estoppel doctrines, including collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, estoppel by deed, estoppel by inaction, estoppel by judgment, estoppel by record, estoppel by oath, and estoppel in pais.
k. Full faith and credit statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which required recognizing plaintiff's divorced status and property rights established in the prior divorce judgments.
l. Full faith and credit constitutional protection in Article IV, § 1, which also required recognizing the prior divorce judgments filed in several jurisdictions, and the divorce status, property rights, and no-spousal-support status. Plaintiff was denied the same due process rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States, the states of prior residence, and the state of California, that apply to every other person, including illegal aliens.
m. U.S. Supreme Court decisions that required recognizing each of the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights arising in and from those judgments. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354 U.S. 416; Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948); Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343; Coe v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969). These Supreme Court decisions settled the matter years before blacks were no longer required to sit in the back of buses, to use separate drinking fountains, and separate toilets.
n. Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law. Violated the substantive and procedural due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, violated procedural due process protections, and denied, solely to plaintiff, the right to have his personal and property rights that were acquired in prior states of residence to be recognized by California judges.
o. Privileges and immunity clause under Article IV, § 1. Violated this protection by depriving plaintiff the right, while a resident of another state and jurisdiction, to obtain a divorce on a universally recognized basis, and deprived plaintiff of the right to change residence without losing previously acquired personal and property rights.
p. Constitutional right to unabridged interstate travel, under Article IV, § 2. Violated this protection by violating plaintiff's right to change residence without losing previously adjudicated personal and property rights and previously acquired property rights as a divorced person. The right to travel is provided by the Commerce Clause; the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, section 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
q. On or about March 1, 1988, Superior Court judge Harold F. Wolters, in violation of California law, placed plaintiff into a default status, and refused to advise plaintiff of subsequent hearings or allow plaintiff to defend against the taking of his liberties and his properties.
r. Without plaintiff's presence, on July 28, 1988, Superior Court judge Dennis Bunting rendered a judgment purporting to terminate a marital relationship between plaintiff and Emma, and ordered plaintiff's separate properties divided with Emma, and made other money awards, while plaintiff was barred the due process right to a hearing.
s. California Superior Court and Courts of Appeal judges repeatedly refused to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law, which simplified hiding their violations of state and federal due process protections. This judicial tactic would be repeatedly duplicated by federal judges when plaintiff exercised federal remedies.
Filing Lis Pendens On Plaintiff's Personal and Corporate Properties
35. Shortly after filing the California lawsuit, despite the absence of a marriage, despite the record numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections barring the lawsuit, and despite the absence of jurisdiction, and despite the fact that Emma continued to declare herself divorced in her resident State of Texas, Friedman filed lis pendens on over 60 of plaintiff's California properties, knowing that some of these properties would be lost when mortgages came due and could not be replaced.
36. Losses of many hundreds of thousands of dollars in equities promptly occurred, including the loss of plaintiff's residence with an equity in excess of $250,000. If Friedman had actually believed that there existed a marriage, and that plaintiff's real estate was community property, the law firm and its attorneys would have been guilty of malpractice for allowing these properties to be lost forever.
37. In 1987, plaintiff was ordered incarcerated by California Judge J. Clinton Peterson when plaintiff lacked funds to pay a money order to Friedman. The lis pendens filed by Friedman had halted plaintiff's source of funds, and plaintiff was unable to pay the order. Peterson knew of the lack of jurisdiction and the record-setting violations of state and federal laws and that he also lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff.
California Courts Of Appeal Judges Aided and Abetted the Conspiracy
38. Plaintiff exercised appellate remedies specifically provided by California law, including appeals filed with California's First District Courts of Appeal in San Francisco. These were heard by Judges Donald King, Harry Low, and Zerne Haning. Instead of halting the violations, they approved of them, protected the judges and Friedman who perpetrated the violations, and criticized plaintiff for exercising due process remedies. Their tactics followed a standard pattern:
a. They placed a frivolous label on plaintiff appeals. The great numbers of major violations of state and federally protected rights met the extreme legal opposite of a "frivolous" label. The sham frivolous label became a standard tactic by California judges and then was repeatedly duplicated by federal judges when plaintiff exercised federal remedies specifically intended for these violations.
b. Using this sham frivolous label, the three courts of appeal judges ordered plaintiff to pay Friedman $160,000 in retaliation for exercising due process remedies. It is a federal crime under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 for anyone to inflict harm upon a person for having exercised due process remedies.
i. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both
c. The courts of appeal judges aided and abetted the civil rights violations perpetrated by Friedman and the Superior Court judges. In this way they violated, inter alia, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 which required that anyone knowing of civil rights violations had a duty to prevent or aid in their prevention.
i. Title 42 U.S.C. §1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented;
d. Some appeals were simply returned without addressing them, violating due process remedies provided by California law and adding to the violations inflicted against plaintiff.
39. In an April 24, 1985 published decision signed by Judges Donald King, Harry Low, and Zerne P. Haning (In re Marriage of Stich, 167 Cal.App.3d 226), these judges upheld the record-setting violations of California and federal laws and constitutional safeguards and established as California case law the right to subject any other previously divorced person to the same great harm inflicted upon plaintiff.
40. California Supreme Court judges also aided and abetted these legal and constitutional violations. The only California Supreme Court judge who initially supported plaintiff was California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk, who held that plaintiff's appeal should be heard when plaintiff first appealed to that court. But Mosk's lone decision to grant plaintiff a hearing was undermined by other Supreme Court justices who aided and abetted the violations occurring in the lower courts. They became liable to plaintiff for damages under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
41. Plaintiff was suffering great and irreparable harm as a result of the unlawful and unconstitutional acts occurring in the California courts. These harms included, inter alia:
a. Loss of valuable properties, including plaintiff's residence, due in part to the lis pendens filed on the properties that prevented a mortgage from being replaced.
b. Loss of income, as all assets were tied up on the sham pretext that a marriage existed and that the assets were community properties.
c. Loss of investment income from real estate investments that no longer could be made.
d. Loss of credit worthiness due to inability to pay off mortgages that had come due.
e. Sentenced to jail for inability to pay a fine which could not be paid because all assets had been blocked with the lis pendens.
f. Daily crises that continued for the six years of the sham California divorce action (to be followed by 12 more years as the violations of federally protected rights went into the federal courts).
g. Inability to marry due to the pending "divorce" action.
h. Great emotional stress.
Federal Protections Specifically Intended For These Violations
42. Federal laws existed to immediately halt and remedy these record setting violations of federally protected rights, including the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Substantial federal questions, documented in court proceedings, required exercising federal remedies for the repeated violations of federally protected rights. Plaintiff filed his first federal lawsuit in 1983, raising federal causes of actions for which a federal court forum and relief was guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States
Declaratory Judgment Act
a. One federal remedy was provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act. The function of that act was to declare the rights and legal obligations where a controversy exists, such as the refusal of California judges to recognize plaintiff's personal and property rights associated with and arising out of the prior divorce judgments. The Declaratory Judgment Act is composed of two statutes:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Creation of remedy
"In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such."
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Further relief. Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.
b. After a declaratory judgment is rendered under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202, provides for further remedies, including ordering financial damages.
Civil Rights Act
c. The Civil Rights Act was legislated to provide relief and damages to any person subjected to a violation of his or her civil rights under color of state law. A record number of such violations occurred in the sham California action, and the violations were documented in court records. The barrage of civil rights violations invoked the mandatory duty for federal judges to provide a federal court forum and relief under the Civil Rights Act. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Acts:
Every person who, under color or any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State of Territory, subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
First Exercise of Federal Remedies
43. Plaintiff had multiple federal causes of action arising in the dozens of acts that violated large numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, any one of which invoked the mandatory responsibility of a federal judge to provide a federal court forum and relief. After exhausting all state remedies, and suffering retaliation for exercising these due process remedies, plaintiff filed a 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court at Sacramento, raising federal issues under the Civil Rights Act and Declaratory Judgment Act. It was assigned to Judge Raul Ramirez.
Extension Of Judicial Corruption From California To Federal Judges
44. Despite the multiple federal causes of actions that invoked mandatory federal court jurisdiction, Judge Ramirez promptly dismissed the lawsuit without addressing any of the facts stating federal issues. In addition to aiding and abetting the record numbers of civil rights violations, his actions enlarged upon the due process violations. He:
a. Violated federal law that barred dismissal when a federal cause of actions is stated in the complaint. As a matter of law, all statements in the complaint must be accepted as true at that stage of the pleadings, and if any of these allegations state facts constituting a federal cause of action, the person filing the action has a right to proceed with the action.
i. A complaint must be sustained, and cannot be dismissed, if relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73. Nothing more than the complaint's allegations are needed to confer standing at this stage.
b. Violated federal law that barred dismissal when questions of facts for a jury were raised in the complaint.
c. Violated federal law requiring findings of fact and conclusion of law addressing the issues raised in the complaint and the basis for dismissal.
d. Violated his duty to halt the violations of federally protected rights. Instead, he encouraged the escalation of these violations by refusing to perform his duty to halt the violations. This refusal to act also violated Title 48 U.S.C. § 1986, which required him or any other person who knows of a civil violations occurring and who has the ability to halt them, to do so.
e. Repeated the standard judicial tactic of placing a frivolous label on a lawsuit that was the direct opposite, using this sham frivolous label to justify his dismissal. The multiple federal causes of action were so obviously outside the legal criteria for a frivolous action that his labeling represented a deliberate sham. One of many Supreme Court decisions stating the criteria for a frivolous label was:
i. Christiansburg Garment Company v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412. In that decision the Supreme Court held that a frivolous claim is one in which "a complete defense is obvious from the pleadings.... An appeal [or complaint] is not frivolous if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ..." Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; "The objective standard looks at the merits of the appeal from a reasonable person's perspective. ... whether any reasonable person would agree that the point is totally and completely devoid of merit, and therefore, frivolous. ... an appeal is not frivolous if any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits."
Endless Duplication Of This Tactic By Other Federal Judges
45. Judge Ramirez's dismissal started a documented pattern of federal judges blocking plaintiff's right to a federal court forum and the protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States, repeatedly using the sham frivolous label tactic started by California judges. Following this dismissal, the civil rights violations occurring in California lawsuit escalated, as expected, repeatedly raising federal remedies and grounds for filing lawsuits in the federal courts to halt the violations of federally protected rights. In every instance the federal remedies were denied to plaintiff using the off-the-shelf tactics:
a. Federal judges promptly dismissed the action, never once getting to the merits and never once providing plaintiff with his day in court.
b. Placed a frivolous label on every action that stated record-setting violations of federally protected rights.
c. Refused to render findings of facts and conclusions of law, thereby avoiding making obvious the sham nature of the frivolous label and violation of important due process remedies.
d. Violated Supreme Court decisions that required recognizing the facts stated in the complaint as true, which stated federal causes of actions (and which were proven as true by judicial records).
e. Violated the large numbers of federal statutes, constitutional protections, and case law that required them to perform the duties of providing a federal court forum and relief.
f. These tactics were repeatedly continued to the date of this lawsuit, and enlarged upon with even greater violations of rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Simultaneous Reporting Of Criminal Activities In Government Offices
46. Plaintiff had continued his investigations into corrupt activities, and continued his exposure activities on a national level through book publishing and radio and television appearances. These activities caused an increasing number of present and former government agents and deep-cover operatives to provide plaintiff with information on other areas of corrupt activities in government positions. These sources included agents from, inter alia, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs, and the Secret Service. With this information on additional criminal activities, plaintiff exercised his responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4: he reported, as an additional federal cause of action, starting in 1986, the criminal activities that he and his many government sources had discovered, and demanded to provide evidence of these crimes.
Compounding Civil Rights Violations With Obstruction Of Justice
47. Despite their mandatory responsibility under federal criminal statutes to receive the reports of criminal activities and receive the evidence offered, Federal judge repeated the standard practice of placing a frivolous label on the lawsuits, refused to provide a court forum, refused to address the issues raised, including the demand to report criminal activities. The criminal activities were being made by responsible present and former government agents who had nothing to gain, who reported serious criminal activities adversely affecting the internal security of the United States, and who would be guilty of criminal offenses if they had not made the reports.
Crisis In Federal Courts
48. Federal judges faced a crisis of their own making. Judicial records showed federal judges:
a. Aiding and abetting the record-setting violations of federally protected rights against a former federal inspector and whistle-blower who had been reporting a pattern of criminal activities involving people in key government positions.
b. Directly obstructing justice by blocking the reporting of criminal activities that had serious national consequences and that were already inflicting great harm upon the internal security of the United States.
c. Increasing the federal remedies available to plaintiff, which threatened to expose the explosive judicial misconduct in the federal courts.
Destroying Federal Protections While Obstructing Justice
49. Federal judges reacted to this crisis by enlarging on their previous misconduct. They rendered unlawful and unconstitutional injunctive orders barring plaintiff the right to federal court access for the remainder of his life! These orders emasculated the foundations of the rule of law in the United States, showing a willingness of federal judges to destroy these most important protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The injunctions voided for plaintiff all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States at a time when he was suffering great and irreparable harm from the lawless actions of California and federal judges.
50. The effect, and surely the intent, of the permanent injunctive orders were twofold:
a. Block the reporting of the criminal activities by plaintiff and his group of government whistleblowers.
b. Block plaintiff's access to federal remedies for the multiple violations of federally protected rights.
c. Protect the California and federal judges, and Friedman, from being exposed, with the great danger of criminal prosecution, impeachment, and removal.
d. Protect the ongoing criminal activities that plaintiff was seeking to report.
More Judicial Violations: the Legal Criteria For Injunctive Orders
51. In addition to blocking the reports of criminal activities and blocking the effectiveness of laws relating to violations of civil rights, federal judges started rendering injunctions voiding for plaintiff even the ability to attempt to obtain his federally protected rights and protections. The injunctive orders escalated the violations of these rights:
a. Injunctive orders are normally requested by a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
b. It is directed against those defendants responsible for causing great and irreparable harm.
c. It is directed against those defendants perpetrating the unlawful acts.
d. to halt great and irreparable harm inflicted through the unlawful actions of the defendant.
e. The injunctive order must protect some public interest. Instead, the injunctive order did the opposite: It inflicted major harm upon the public interests by:
i. Blocking the reports of criminal activities involving national issues that plaintiff and his group of government whistleblowers tried to report.
ii. Establishing the willingness of federal judges to subvert the laws and Constitution of the United States, converting the courts into a corrupt arm of government.
iii. Required plaintiff and his group of insiders to become an accessory to obstruction of justice, as they were unable to report criminal activities required by the federal crime reporting statute.
iv. Spreading this mindset throughout the federal court system and expanding into other segments of the government and society.
52. Recognizing that no judge had the authority to obstruct justice or subvert the laws and Constitution of the United States, plaintiff filed a subsequent lawsuit seeking relief from subsequent violations of federally protected rights, and reporting other criminal activities that had come to his attention from his group of government insiders.
Documented Criminal Retaliation
53. Federal judges reacted to this filing by retaliating against plaintiff. Judge Schwartz, aided by other federal judges, charged plaintiff with criminal contempt of court for having exercised federal due process remedies and for complying with the federal crime reporting statute.
54. Joining in this obstruction of justice and civil rights violations were Justice Department personnel. U.S. Attorney David Levi charged plaintiff with criminal contempt of court for exercising these federal protections and reporting the criminal activities in which personnel from the Justice Department and the federal judges were implicated.
55. Retaliation or harm inflicted upon a whistleblower, witness, or informant, for reporting suspected or known criminal activities is a criminal offense under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513(b).
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Title 18 U.S.C § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.
(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to:
(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. [1988 amended reading]"
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ..."
56. Retaliation or harm inflicted upon a person for having exercised due process remedies is a criminal offense under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute reads:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... They shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both.
Justice Department Prosecutors Seeking Two Year Prison Sentence
57. While plaintiff sought to force a federal judge to provide relief from the onslaught of civil rights violations and attempting to report criminal activities undermining the internal security of the United States, Justice Department prosecutor David Levi and Judge Milton Schwartz were charging plaintiff with criminal contempt of court for exercising these rights and responsibilities. And requested that plaintiff be imprisoned for two years for his acts! These had ominous implications for the United States. Justice Department prosecutors argued that plaintiff should not be released pending the trial as he was a threat to the community!
58. Simultaneously, the duty of Justice Department attorneys and federal judges to protect civil rights and to pursue leads of criminal activities were reversed. They misused their positions, the courts, and the power of the Justice Department, to inflict additional harm upon plaintiff. At that time plaintiff was 67 years old, and forced to tackle widespread corruption in the courts and U.S. Department of Justice while other checks and balances became complicit by remaining silent.
Converting the Courts and Justice Department Into Corrupt Arms Of Government
59. Plaintiff was now being tried by people in the same government offices that he had exposed in his books.
60. The constitutional right to a jury trial was denied to plaintiff. He was tried by Sacramento Magistrate John Moulds, who then held plaintiff guilty of criminal contempt of court for exercising federal due process remedies and for seeking to report criminal activities affecting the national security. Judge Raul Ramirez then sentenced plaintiff to six months in federal prison. This prison sentence was carried out in such a manner as to inflict the maximum indignity and personal humiliation and hardships upon plaintiff.
Extension Of Judicial Corruption To Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals
61. Plaintiff appealed this conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals at San Francisco. The entire court of appeals, en banc, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, upheld this never-before undermining of the civil rights and criminal statutes, meeting the definition of judicial anarchy.
Extension Of Judicial Corruption To Supreme Court Justices
62. Plaintiff than filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. As in the past, the Justices, who had supervisory responsibilities over federal judges and a responsibility to insure that the laws and Constitution of the United States were enforced and upheld, refused to provide any relief. In this way, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court became involved in the conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy to violate civil liberties and civil rights.
63. Actually, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had become implicated in the obstruction of justice years earlier, as plaintiff filed petitions for writs of certiorari in other cases involving criminal activities by government officials. (Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977); Stich v. National