California Legal Search Engine by gmf13850


More Info
									From the desk of Rodney Stich
P.O. Box 5, Alamo, CA 94507; phone: 925-944-1930; FAX 925-295-1203
Association Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO)            Association of National Security Alumni
International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI)  Lawyers Pilots Bar Association (LPBA)
Former FAA air safety investigator                         Former airline captain and Navy pilot
E-mail:                search engine: “Rodney Stich”
Web sites:

                                                     June 6, 2002

Justice Ronald M. George
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St
San Francisco, CA 94102

    Ref: The Justices’ criminal involvement in combination of massive due process violations in
    combination with scheme to block reporting of criminal activities, and links to September 11 events:

To Justice George:

    The intent of this letter is to make a record of the relationship between corruption involving California
judges and Justices through massive violations of state and federal substantive and procedural due process
violations to insure the success of a scheme to block reporting of criminal activities. These documented
offenses have links to matters affecting national security, and the events of September 11, 2001.
    A few highlights are stated in this letter, with further information in the third editions of Unfriendly Skies
and Defrauding America, and at the websites, and
    A brief description follows, to reveal the highlights of the role of Justices of this court and judges of the
appellate and superior courts:
     As a federal air safety agent holding the assignment to correct the conditions causing the worst series
        of airline crashes in the nation’s history, I discovered and documented a pattern of hardcore
        corruption. The great loss of life arising from this misconduct, and the standard pattern of cover-up
        in government caused me to leave government service. I then used my considerable assets to inform
        the public of these matters through publishing books, appearing as guest and expert on hundreds of
        radio and television shows, and giving speeches. These public-spirited activities, funded by my real
        estate assets, threatened to expose people in key government positions.
     Somewhere in government a bizarre scheme was concocted to strip me of the $10 million in real
        estate assets and income that funded these activities. The scheme was commenced by the CIA-front
        law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross in San Francisco, through a sham lawsuit1 in the state of

1 The scheme was filed under the Family Law Act claiming that I was married to a Texas resident, and in that way orders
could be immediately rendered depriving me the use of my assets on the claim that the property and assets were community
properties. However, a January 31, 1966, divorce judgment that legally terminated the marriage almost 20 years earlier, and
that judgment was entered as a local judgment in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, and the California counties of
         California targeting the assets.
        Several dozen California statutes and rules of court, federal statutes, landmark U.S. Supreme Court
         decisions, and constitutional protections, barred the lawsuit. Further, California law specifically
         deprived California judges of personal jurisdiction.
        California judges at the Superior Court level, Appellate Court level, and Supreme Court level,
         continuously refused to recognize the absence of personal jurisdiction, the absence of a marital or
         any other relationship, and the dozens of state and federal laws that barred the lawsuit and barred
         orders from being rendered.
        Every single exercise of procedural due process by me, that was specifically provided by California
         law for any single one of the record-setting violations justified the exercise of procedural due
         process. And every exercise of defensive due process was blocked by appellate and Supreme Court
         judges, as they aided and abetted the scheme by the CIA-front law firm.
                          Fraudulent Reversal Of Frivolous and Vexatious Labels
                                 To Support Massive Due Process Violations
        Every level of the California judicial system sought to support their violations of due process, their
         violations of state and federal legal and constitutional protections, by fraudulently reversing the legal
         definition of frivolous and vexatious. They corruptly claimed that my exercise of legal and
         constitutional due process defense remedies by me against the record-setting violations were
         frivolous acts of a vexatious litigant.
        By their documented misconduct, the following harm was inflicted upon me and upon national
             o I suffered massive personal and property losses, including the taking of my home, my $10
                 million in assets that funded my exposure activities, and was converted from a multi-
                 millionaire to a state of poverty.
             o My attempts to expose and bring to justice areas of criminal activities were greatly impeded,
                 as the California judges joined the scheme to block the reporting of these federal crimes.
             o Among the criminal activities that I sought to report were those in the Federal Aviation
                 Administration that caused or allowed to occur a series of air disasters, some of them
                 occurring in my immediate area of federal air safety responsibilities. Included in the
                 collateral effects of this deep-seated corruption within the FAA was refusal to order
                 preventative measures for major air safety problems that I and other federal agents had
                 reported. In this manner the simple and inexpensive preventative measures to prevent
                 hijackers from taking control of the aircraft were blocked. On September 11, 2001, the latest
                 in a 40-year pattern of fatal hijackings occurred, which could have been prevented if I and
                 other former federal agents had not been blocked from reporting the criminal activities that
                 we had discovered. In this way, California judges became criminally implicated.
             o The corruption in the California courts was known throughout the legal fraternity, expanding
                 the contempt for the courts and legal process, and converting California courts into a
                 racketeering enterprise.
        The latest attempt to halt my exposure activities2 misused a SLAPP lawsuit filed in a distant location
         that sought to put a final halt to the distribution of the books that detailed the criminal and subversive

Contra Costa and Solano. Under the Family Law Act, there is no personal jurisdiction when there has been a prior divorce
judgment that must be recognized under California and federal law.
2 The extent of the criminal activities that I sought to expose extended far beyond the corruption within the FAA, as several
dozen government agents provided me with information and documentation over the years on other areas that even included
subversive conduct. These were agents from the FBI, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, and CIA.
        activities. When a South Carolina default judgment was entered in the California courts, I exercised
        due process defenses, as specifically provided by California law. Again, I encountered a total due
        process denial by every level of the California courts. The Superior Court judge refused to address
        any of the facts and law raised in my defenses. The California court of appeal judges refused to
        recognize my notice of appeal on the sham argument that I was a vexatious litigant (for having
        exercised defenses against the earlier wholesale violations of substantive and procedural due
        process). California Supreme Court Justices then refused to file and recognize my petition for review,
        calling me a vexatious litigant. In this way, the entire California judicial system continued their
        earlier pattern of gross due process violations that were part of the scheme to block the reporting of
        criminal and subversive acts, the latest and most publicized consequences occurring on September
        11, 2001. The 3,000 deaths on September 11, and the massive collateral damage, did not cause this
        coterie to change their conduct.
     After the California appellate court judges denied me appellate due process against the latest tactics
        to silence me, on the claim that I have been barred from due process defenses in California courts,
        on the sham holding that I am a vexatious litigant, I exercised my due process right to petition the
        California Supreme Court. In this court’s May 20 response, it refused to file the petition, claiming
        that I was “a vexatious litigant.” In this way the California Supreme Court Justices have continued
        the misuse of the California courts as a racketeering enterprise, combining massive civil and
        constitutional violations to insure the success of the schemes to block the reporting of criminal and
        subversive misconduct, and to hell with the consequences!
               Description Of Supreme Court Justices’ Definition Of Vexatious Litigant
    Your definition of a vexatious litigant is a sham. The term is applied because I exercised defense due
process remedies specifically provided by California law against six years of unlawful and unconstitutional
orders rendered without personal jurisdiction while simultaneously violating dozens of state and federal laws
and constitutional protections. These are listed at the end of this letter. Exercising defense due process
remedies against any single one of the dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections
justified my exercise of defense remedies.
    The vexatious litigant label reversed the legal definition of the term that no judge—however legally
ignorant he or she may be—could misinterpret! What the Supreme Court Justices are doing, as was done by
the lower court judges, was engaging in judicial fraud, corruptly misusing the California courts, to insure that
the sham lawsuit filed to again block my reporting of criminal and subversive activities succeeds.
    The vexatious litigant label applies to a party who initiates lawsuits that have no arguable merit. My
court filings exercised due process defense remedies against massive civil rights violations initiated by the
CIA-front law firm. These could not possible meet the definition of a frivolous filing or the acts of a
vexatious litigant.
    The vexatious litigant label was simple a corrupt judicial tactic to for California judges to support the
massive violations of legal and constitutional due process while supporting the scheme initiated by the CIA-
front law firm to block the reporting of major crimes against the United States.
The vexatious litigant sham label was corruptly fabricated for several reasons:
     To aid the success of the sham lawsuit filed by the CIA-front law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross,
        whose intent was to destroy the $10 million in assets that funded the exposure of criminal and
        subversive activities.
     To repeatedly deny to me the multiple defenses against the massive violations of state and federal
        laws and constitutional protections by California judges.
     To insure the success of the scheme seeking to block the reporting of the criminal activities that I and
        my group of other government agents sought to report.
     To protect yourself against the consequences of your massive due process violations combined with
         the cover-up of criminal and subversive activities.
    Purpose Of Lawsuit: Block Government Agents From Reporting Of Criminal Activities Adversely
    Affecting National Security and the Continuing Consequences Of These Crimes
    The purpose of that earlier lawsuit was to halt the reporting of criminal and subversive activities that I
and other former government agents had discovered and documented. When the loss of the $10 million in
assets didn’t halt my activities, the latest sham lawsuit seeks to seize the books that expose the corruption—
including that of California judges and Supreme Court Justices. One such book is Unfriendly Skies, which
describes in detail the corrupt tactics used by the CIA-front law firm and California judges—including
California Supreme Court justices. Other books are Defrauding America and Drugging America.
    The Deadly Consequences Of Judicial Fraud By California Judges
    The consequences of the criminal acts that I and other government agents sought to report, and the
conspiracy misusing the courts as a racketeering enterprise, had deadly consequences. These consequences
continued to occur while California judges were openly perpetrating massive civil and constitutional
violations of subjective and procedural due process. None of these consequences received any significant
publicity. However, this changed, as my déjà vu warnings preceded the 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2001.
    The sham lawsuit filed against me by the CIA-front law firm, and the massive violations of due process
by California judges—aided and abetted by California Supreme Court justices, blocked me and the group of
other government agents from bringing adequate attention to the various criminal and even subversive
    The connections between the documented criminal activities, the documented pattern of civil and
constitutional violations by California judges working with the CIA-front law firm, and the 3,000 deaths, are
easy to show. If California judges—including the Supreme Court Justices—had performed the duty for
which they were paid, and not misused the California courts for this criminal purpose, we probably could
have succeeded in getting public attention on the matters that insured the success of the four groups of
terrorist hijackers on September 11, 2001.
    Continuing Involvement In the Practices That Made Possible 3,000 Deaths
    Despite the 3,000 deaths made possible by the corrupt and criminal activities that I and my group of
government agents sought to correct, California judges, including California Supreme Court justices, are
continuing the earlier misconduct. Another sham lawsuit is filed to silence me and the de process defenses
are again being denied to me on the sham vexatious litigant label, and California judges are again aiding and
abetting the scheme to obstruct justice. What will be the next death toll made possible by the corrupt acts of
California judges!
    During the years of documented judicial corruption, only Judge Mosk entered a decision to hear the
petition that I submitted to this court. If the remaining California Supreme Court justices had exercised their
responsibilities, the documented criminal misuse of the California courts could have been halted, and I and
my group of other government agents could have continued our efforts to halt the conditions that insured the
success of the September 11,2001 terrorist hijackers. It is possible that we could then have forced attention to
the corrupt conditions that continue to inflict great harm upon national interests.
    What is said in this letter to you applies equally to the other members of this Supreme Court. By being
aware of these matters, and not taking prompt corrective actions, they are implicated.
    Be advised that I didn’t fight for my country as a naval aviation to have my life destroyed by a group of
corrupt California judges. Also be advised that I will not sit idle while these same corrupt judges engage in
criminal misuse of their courts in a conspiracy that continues to protect the criminal activities that I sought to
expose and which, in one area, made possible the terrible deaths of 3,000 people. I may be 79 years of age,
but I can give a fight to the scum that represents the judicial division of the state of California. With the
advent of the Internet, this information is being read globally, and sooner or later, someone with courage,
integrity, and resources, will expose the utterly corrupt culture in the California judicial system.
Unfortunately, I will probably not be around to see what the long overdue correction and prosecution of
corrupt judges.
    Copies of this letter are being sent to other legislative and state bodies that have a responsibility to act.
Under the existing culture, they too will cover up. But the publicizing of this sordid state of personal conduct
insures that their conduct will also be a matter of record.


                                                         Rodney Stich

cc: Marvin R. Baxter, Janice Brown, Ming Chin, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar

Attached are two national informational advertisements.

Abbreviated list of California and federal substantive laws and constitutional protections that were
repeatedly violated by California appellate and lower court judges in a lawsuit filed by a CIA-front law
firm, combined with a scheme to block reporting of criminal and subversive activities:
California CC §§ 4351, 4554, 5004, 5102, 5103, 5108, 5110.720, 5118, 5164; California CCP §§1699(b),
1713.1, 1713.3, 1908, 1910, 1913, 915; California Rules of court Rules 1201(c); 1211, 1212, 1215, 1222,
1229(a), 1230(a)(2), 1234, 1239(a)(2), 1281, and Rule 1282; absence of personal jurisdiction arising from
Rule 1230 Motion to quash, 1230(a)(2), 1234, and 1239(a)(2); absence of personal and subject matter
jurisdiction under the California Family Law Act: Rules 1201(c), 1211, 1212, 1281, 1282, 1215, 1222, 1229,
1230(a)(2), 1234, 1239(a)(2); Civil Code §§ 4351, 4503; California Supreme Court Decisions, including
Rediker v. Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796.; Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 C.2d 249]; Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 498
C.2d 210; Whealton v. Whealton (1967) 67 C.2d 656; Res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines.; Title 28
U.S.C. § 1738, full faith and credit statute; Article IV, § 1, providing for full faith and credit; Article IV, § 2,
against taking of previously adjudicated and previously acquired personal and property rights upon changing
residence to another state; Fourteenth Amendment due process clause; Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection clause; Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause; Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection; Fourteenth Amendment property rights; Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests; landmark U.S.
Supreme Court decisions: Williams v. North Carolina (1945) 325 US 226, 65 S Ct 1092, 89 L ed 1577; Coe
v. Coe (1948) 334 U.S. 378; Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 43; Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (1957) 354
U.S. 416; Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541; Perrin v. Perrin, 408 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1969).

Abbreviated list of California procedural due process laws and constitutional protections that were
repeatedly violated by California judges.
     Repeated without exception violations of California procedural due process for five years, while
       concurrently violating record numbers of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.
     Repeated without exception violations of requirement for findings of facts and conclusions of law
       following issuance of orders.
     Repeated without exception violations by court of appeal judges refusing to provide legally required
       relief for the massive violations of state and federal laws.
Both lower, appellate, and supreme court judges aided and abetted the massive violations, and protected
the CIA front law firm initiating the violations, insuring the success of a scheme to block the reporting of
criminal and subversive activities that continued to inflict great harm upon the United States.
      Relationship Between the 100 Percent Due Process Violations and Obstruction Of Justice
These violations occurred after plaintiff had sought to report corrupt and criminal acts related to a series of
fatal airline crashes that he discovered as a federal air safety inspector-investigator, and after filing federal
actions that exposed federal judges in a cover-up: Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (tab-
le), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air
safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct); Stich v.
National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 861
(1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting highly sensitive
air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems); Amicus
curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell
Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District
California.)(addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the cover-up of the DC-10 cargo door
problem was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District
of Columbia, Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by claimant seeking to expose and correct the
powerful and covert air disaster misconduct.

    Further related information at the following Internet sites:


To top