(Supreme.Crt\crimcont.BLK)
Number 92--
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
In re RODNEY F. STICH,)
)
Petitioner,)
)
V.)
)
VAUGHN WALKER, Judge;)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;)
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT)
OF APPEALS,)
)
)
Respondents.)
______
To: Justice HARRY BLACKMUN:
MOTION/PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Rule 20
EMERGENCY RELIEF FROM JUDICIAL RETALIATION FOR
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
RETALIATION FOR REPORTING FEDERAL CRIMES
RULE 39 FILING
NINTH CIRCUIT 92-70048
RODNEY F. STICH P.O. Box 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 510-820-7250
Petitioner in pro se
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
ISSUES PRESENTED
A similar Petition for emergency relief has been sent to Justice Bryon White and denied by personal letter dated October 28, 1991 (Exhibit "F"). Petitioner then petitioned Chief Justice Rehnquist, and again relief was denied by notice dated July 7, 1992.[1]
The extreme nature of the constitutional offenses, committed in a pattern by federal officials, including federal judges and justices, and the extreme harms inflicted upon the United States, demands that a Justice of the Supreme Court exercise their duties. Petitioner seeks to report to this Court a pattern of major federal crimes[2] of treasonous and subversive nature against the United States. In the perpetration of these crimes federal courts have been criminally misused by federal judges/justices and Justice Department prosecutors, to silence Petitioner's attempts to report the crimes, and Petitioner's attempts to obtain relief provided under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Petitioner seeks to have this Court halt these judicial attacks perpetrated by those federal judges that are acting under the guidance of this Court.
To silence Petitioner, Ninth Circuit judges, justices, and prosecutors, are holding that it is a crime for a citizen to report federal crimes to a federal court; and it is a federal crime for a citizen to defend against the barbaric judicial persecution inflicted upon him. It is Petitioner's contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States have not yet digressed to the point where these federal officials can make it a crime to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights, protections, and responsibilities.[3]
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
Among the federal questions and constitutional violations raised by this Petition, resulting in great harms being inflicted upon Petitioner, are the following:
1. Does the Constitution permit federal judges and federal prosecutors to prosecute and imprison a citizen of the United States, charging him/her with criminal contempt of court, in retaliation[4] for having exercised constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections? (exercising the constitutionally guaranteed right to federal court access provided by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and further provided by blocks of federal statutes and related case law)?
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
2. Does the Constitution permit federal judges and federal prosecutors to prosecute and imprison a citizen of the United States, charging him or her with criminal contempt of court, in retaliation[5] for that citizen having exercised the statutory requirement[6] to report federal crimes to a federal court; as permitted to be reported by the First[7] and Fifth Amendments[8] to the U.S. Constitution; and as permitted by Title 28 USC § 1361?
3. Is it a major constitutional offense, and an even greater crime under Title 18 USC § 241, for a federal judge, in unison with Justice Department prosecutors, to inflict upon a citizen, including Petitioner, a series of criminal contempt of court charges, and imprison him or her, in retaliation for having exercised the above rights, protections, and responsibilities?
4. Were Petitioner's constitutional rights violated when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to act on Petitioner's Petition for relief, filed in forma pauperis (when the method of filing was necessitated by federal judges corruptly and unconstitutionally seizing and looting Petitioner's life's assets)?[9]
5. Were the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Justices engaging in obstruction of justice when they refused to allow Petitioner to report the federal crimes,[10] which were a part of the Petition for relief?
6. Is it outside the discretion of a Supreme Court Justice to (a) refuse to provide relief to Petitioner under these circumstances; (b) refuse to receive evidence related to the federal crimes implicating federal judges and Justice Department attorneys over whom the Supreme Court Justices have supervisory responsibilities; (c) when the Supreme Court Justices have a duty to provide such relief and court forum?[11]
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions presented...... i
Table of contents...... v
Table of authorities...... vii
Opinions below...... 1
Jurisdictional statement...... 2
Why Relief Cannot Be Obtained From Any Other Source...... 3
Constitutional and Statutory
Provisions Involved...... 4
Federal Questions Are Substantial...... 5
Assisting the Court To Meet Its Duties...... 6
Statement of the case...... 7
Reasons for Granting Writ...... 13
Discussion...... 16
I.The Latest Criminal Contempt Of Court Charge Again Violates
Fundamental Constitutional Rights and Protections...... 16
1. It Is A Federal Crime To Harm A Citizen For Having Exercised
Rights and Protections Guaranteed under the Laws and Constitution
of the United States17
2.It Constitutes Multiple Federal Crimes To Harm A Victim For Exercising
Federal Remedies To Halt Great Harms; Or To Harm An Informant
Or A Whistleblower For Having Reported Federal Crimes to
A Federal Court...... 17
3.Renegade Ninth Circuit Federal Judges and Justice Department
Prosecutors Are Corruptly and Criminally Making It A Federal
Offense For A Citizen To Exercise Constitutional and
Statutory Rights and Protections...... 18
II.A Person Cannot Be Charged With Criminal Contempt For Failure To
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
Forfeit Rights and Protections Guaranteed Under the Laws and
Constitution Of the United States...... 23
III.A Person Cannot Be Charged With Criminal Contempt For Reporting
Criminal Acts Committed By Federal Officials, Or For
Exercising Federal Remedies To Halt the Great Harms Inflicted
Upon Him or Her...... 24
IV.Void Orders Cannot Support A Criminal Contempt Charge...... 25
V.Contempt Of Court Must Be To Protect the Public Interest and the
Lawful Process of Federal Courts, Rather Than Aid and Abet
Criminal Acts By Federal Officers...... 26
VI.The Causes Of Action In the Chicago District Court Filing Are
Different, and In Addition To Those Raised In Earlier Actions,
None Of Which Have Been Adjudicated...... 27
VII.The Injunctive Orders Were A Classic Example Of Unlawful and
Unconstitutional Judicial Acts...... 28
VII.Petitioner Is Enduring Great Sufferings And Harms From the
Combination Of Judicial Persecution and the Pattern Of
Judge-Protecting-Judge...... 30
IX.The Same Parties Inflicting Great Harms Upon Petitioner Are
Inflicting Great Harms Upon the United States, Threatening
the Survival Of Our Form Of Government...... 31
X.The Massive Breakdown Of Constitutional Checks and Balances
Prevents Petitioner From Receiving Due Process and Equal
Protection Of the Law In the Judicial System For Which
This Court Has Supervisory Responsibilities...... 32
XI.Justice Bryan White's Previous Decision Claiming Inability To
Provide Relief Due To Failure Of Other Justices To Act Violates
Duties Of Supreme Court Justices...... 32
XII.Relative Comparison Of These Judicial Crimes On A National Level...... 33
XIII.Summary...... 34
XIV.Relief Requested...... 35
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4...... 2,3
Title 18 U.S.C. § 24113
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3712
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505...... 1
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512...... 9
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513...... 9
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961-19654
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331...... 3,14
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343...... 3,15
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361...... 10
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651...... 2,3
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201...... 14,15
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202...... 14,15
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983-19864,15
First Amendment...... 3
Fifth Amendment...... 3
FTCA...... 16
Supreme Court Rule 20.1...... 2
FEDERAL CASE LAW:
Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233...... 21
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
403 U.S. 388 (1971)...... 16
Dennis v. Sparks (1972) 449 U.S. 2421
Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1962)...... 21
APPENDIX:
Appendix A:Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order filed March 16, 1992, denying relief to Petitioner.
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
Appendix B:Copy of May 8, 1992 order refusing to provide relief, refusing to accept reports of criminal and treasonous activities. July 11, 1990 Justice Department report describing criminal corruption in Chapter 11 courts, including the names of officers of the court who committed crimes upon petitioner. Because of the injunctive orders, petitioner could not defend against these crimes committed by officers and judges of the court.
Appendix C:Criminal contempt charge by Justice Department in retaliation for exercising Constitutional right to federal court access.
Appendix D:Order barring Petitioner from traveling.
Appendix E:Injunctive orders barring Petitioner from federal court access, effectively blocking his reporting of the federal crimes and blocking the constitutional and statutory protections necessary to halt the pattern of hard-core civil and constitutional violations (rendered by Judges Milton Schwartz; Marilyn Patel; Samuel Conti; Chapter 11 Judge Edward Jellen).
Appendix F:October 28, 1991 letter to Petitioner from Justice Byron R. White.
Appendix G:De facto denial of Petition to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dated July 7, 1992.
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
OPINIONS BELOW
Petitioner petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for relief from the criminal contempt of court charge;[12] from the orders preventing Petitioner from traveling;[13] from the orders voiding for Petitioner the rights and responsibilities under the laws and Constitution of the United States.[14] The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition on March 16, 1992 (Exhibit "A"). The order denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was filed May 8, 1992 (Exhibit "B"). The criminal contempt charge for having exercised fundamental constitutional rights was dated December 10, 1990. (Exhibit "C.") Justice Bryon White sympathized with Petitioner, but wrote in his October 28, 1991 Rule 22 response via a personal letter stated that as a single justice he was unable to provide relief. (Exhibit "F.") Petitioner's next Petition for relief, under Supreme Court Rules 20.3(b) and 22, to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was denied by the Chief Justice refusing to respond, and the Supreme Court's clerk refusal to file the Petition. (Exhibit "G.")
REFERENCE TO DISTRICT COURT OPINION
District judge Vaughn Walker rendered an order on December 10, 1990, barring Petitioner from traveling, as a condition of being released from prison pending trial, limiting Petitioner to the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa (with a narrow extension to travel to Reno, Nevada). (Exhibit "D.")
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
This petition for an extraordinary writ is filed pursuant to Rules 20, 22, 23, and 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States; under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); under federal crime-reporting statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (reporting federal crimes to a federal court); and the alternate writ remedies of rule nisi and ne exeat.
Petitioner seeks a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, and/or an alternative writ or rule nisi, writ of ne exeat, or whatever remedy the Court seeks to exercise, on the
basis of the grave constitutional issues presented. The pattern of record-setting civil, constitutional and criminal violations perpetrated by Ninth Circuit judges and justices expands on the treasonous and subversive acts which Petitioner demands to be reported and expects this Court to act upon. (Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651.)
This petition also incorporates a report of serious federal crimes, as required to be made to a federal court under federal crime-reporting statutes, including Title 18 USC § 4. The nature of the crimes and the federal positions of those committing the treasonous and subversive acts, and the supervisory role of Supreme Court Justices over those federal judges, trustees, Justice Department attorneys, who are implicated in the criminal cartel, demands that the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court exercise their duties in this precedent-setting threat to our form of government.
STATUTORY PROVISION CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THIS COURT AND WHICH RAISE EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN
1. Supreme Court Rule 20.1, in that the issues presented:
(a) are of exceptional importance to the United States;[15]
(b) adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other court;[16]
(c) this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the officers of the court implicated in the criminal acts;
(d) it will aid this Court, and the Justices of this Court, to meet their duties and obligations to the United States.[17]
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
2. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which provides for petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court for an extraordinary writ.
3. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and other Federal crime-reporting statutes, which provides for reporting federal crimes to a federal court. It is a felony for a person who knows of federal crimes not to do so. Impliedly, the same crime-reporting statutes make it a crime for a federal judge or justice to block the giving of testimony and evidence relating to the crimes.
4. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which imposes a duty upon anyone, and especially a federal judge, to provide prompt relief to a citizen suffering great harms from the violations of civil and constitutional rights. This responsibility of any single Justice of the Supreme Court is increased when such violations are perpetrated by federal judges and Justice Department attorneys over whom this Court has supervisory responsibilities.
WHY RELIEF CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE
Petitioner has repeatedly sought relief from the same Ninth Circuit district and appellate courts (including en banc) that are inflicting the harms upon Petitioner. Ninth Circuit judges are deeply implicated in the pattern of hard-core civil, constitutional and criminal violations. They are deeply implicated in the related Chapter 11 corruption, and with renegade personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency that are key parts of the criminal activities Petitioner has sought to report. It is this reporting of criminal activities that was followed by felony persecution by federal judges and Justice Department prosecutors, the total destruction/violation of every relevant protection under the laws and Constitution of the United States. A judicial coup has occurred in the Ninth Circuit, making impossible the attaining of relief from the same group inflicting the great harms.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
1. First Amendment right to federal court access.[18]
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
2. Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the constitution.[19]
3. Title 28 USC § 1331 (right to federal court access on the basis of any one of the multiple federal causes of action stated by Petitioner);
4. Title 28 USC § 2201 (declare rights and legal obligations that were being violated;[20] and Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202, to enforce these rights.
5. Title 42 USC §§ 1983-1986, (to obtain injunctive relief from a ten-year pattern of violations of federally protected rights perpetrated by persons acting under color of state law);
6. Title 28 USC § 1343, (to obtain damages from those who knew of the civil and constitutional violations, who could have prevented or aided in their prevention, and who did not do so (and who instead aided and abetted the violations);
7. Bivens doctrine (to obtain damages from persons operating under color of federal law who violated Petitioner's civil and constitutional rights);
8. Title 18 USC §§ 1961-1965, (to obtain injunctive relief and damages from those acting in a conspiracy against Petitioner, and whose conduct adversely affects domestic and international travel).
9. Federal crimes reporting statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, which makes it a crime if a person knowing of federal crimes does not promptly report such crimes to a federal court or other federal tribunal. Petitioner demands to present testimony and evidence to this court, describing a pattern of federal crimes implicating federal officials, including federal judges/justices, federal trustees, Justice Department attorneys, over whom this Court and each member of this Court has supervisory responsibilities, derivative liabilities, and vicarious liability.
THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND INCLUDE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THREATENING OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT
PETITION TO HALT JUDICIAL PERSECUTION/RETALIATION FOR
1
EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
The federal questions are of monumental importance to the United States. The pattern of judicial violations are a part of vast criminal activities, all of which are destroying the inflicting great personal, property, and physical harms upon U.S. citizens, upon the United States, and selectively destroying constitutionally provided protections under our form of government. These renegades are aiding and abetting corrupt federal officials who are criminally misusing their federal offices.
MEETING THE SUPREME COURT'S APPELLATE AND SUPERVISORY DUTIES
This Court's exercise of a duty is required by the exceptional circumstances brought to this Court's attention in this Petition and the attachments (and earlier petitions and appeals). There is no other Court to whom Petitioner can go for relief.[21] Each and every Justice of this Court, individually and collectively, have a responsibility to Petitioner, and to the United States, to act.
PRIOR REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUSTICE WHITE
In response to an earlier Petition, Justice Bryon White responded with a letter dated October 28, 1991, implying that he would provide assistance, but was unable to do so without the assistance of other Supreme Court Justices. (Exhibit "F.") He wrote:
"As a single Justice, I just cannot help you."
Petitioner disagrees with Justice White. A Supreme Court Justice can provide relief, can receive evidence of treasonous and subversive activities. A Supreme Court Justice has a duty to provide relief from the outrageous human rights and other harms inflicted upon Petitioner. A Supreme Court Justice has a duty, far more than the of an ordinary citizen. This duty is made infinitely worse by the fact that federal judges, federal justices, federal trustees, Justice Department attorneys, are perpetrating their great crimes under this Court's supervision.