No. 02-5240
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the District of Columbia Circuit
______
RODNEY F. STICH, Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Appellee
______
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Columbia
______
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
Rodney Stich
POB 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Tel: 925-944-1930
CERTIFICATE AS TO INTERESTED PARTIES
As a matter of law, there are no interested parties. None of the defendants named in the Complaint had been served because of the court’s sua sponte dismissal shortly after the Complaint was filed.
As to meaningful matters, the facts and issues involved here are of interest to people and entities interested in the integrity of government offices, to the public, and especially to the families of those who were killed by the actions of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001. Also, to those who will suffer similar fates to those referred to in this appeal and in the underlying Complaint.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate as to Interested Parties i
Table of Contents ii
Table of authorities iii
Basis for district court’s jurisdiction 1
Basis for court of appeals’ jurisdiction 3
Standard of Review 3
Statement of issues presented for review 3
Statement of the facts 5
Summary of argument 8
Argument 9
1. Blocking reports of federal crimes is not a judge’s prerogative under criminal
statutes, and constitutes obstruction of justice 9
2. The injunction by Sporkin Was Patently Void, Unlawful, Unconstitutional,
and Knowingly Obstructed Reports Of Criminal and Subversive Activities 9
a. The injunction reversed the requirement that it halt great
and irreparable harm 9
b. The injunction reversed the requirement that it halts unlawful acts 10
c. The injunction reversed the requirement that it be in the public’s interest 10
d. The injunction violated the requirement for meaningful findings
of facts and conclusions of law 11
e. The Injunction Violated Constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection 11
f. Further Irregularities In Sporkin’s Injunctive Order 11
g. The Injunction Obstructing Justice Was Not A Lawful Order 12
h. Pre-filing Requirement Of Injunctive Order Violated Equal Protection
and Due Process Guaranteed By the Constitution, While Simultaneously
Obstructing Justice 12
i. Pre-filing Order Was Another Judicial Tactic
To Block Reports Of Criminal Activities 12
3. Dismissal Violated Bar Against Sua Sponte Dismissal Of Complaint 13
4. Dismissal Violated Bar Against Dismissal When A Federal
Cause Of Action Is Stated 14
5. Dismissal Violated Requirement That Allegations
Stated In Complaint Be Accepted As True 15
6. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Findings Of Facts
and Conclusions of Law 15
7. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Discovery 16
8. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right To Jury Trial 16
9. Dismissal Violated Due Process Right Under Supreme Court’s
Void Order Doctrine Relating To Seizure Of Stich’s Life Assets 16
10. Dismissal Violated Rights To Declaration Of Legal Rights and Responsibilities
Established In Five Judgments That Are In Controversy 18
11. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights To Reinstatement Of Legal and
Constitutional Rights Terminated Through Injunctive Orders 18
12. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights
Under the Civil Rights Act 18
13. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Bivens 19
14. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 19
15. Dismissal Violated Due Process Rights Under Civil RICO 19
Conclusion 19
Relief Requested 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL STATUTES:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2 12
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3 12
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 1,3,5,6,8,9,11,14
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 3
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 2
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343 2
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1346 4,19
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 1,5,6,18
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202 1,5,6,18
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2401 4
Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2674 4,19
Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986 1,3,4,5,8,21
Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965 1,4,5,8,22
FRCivP 5(d) 16
FRCivP 8(d) 8
FRCivP 12 13,14,16
FRCivP 26 18
FRCivP 27 18
FRCivP 38 16
FRCivP 41 17
FRCivP 52 17
FRCivP 54 14
FRCivP 56 12,14,16
FRCivP 57 1,5,9,
FRCivP 65 65
Fifth Amendment, due process, equal protection, U.S. Constitution 6,13
Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine 2,5,6
FEDERAL CASES
Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233 13
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) 17
Augustine v. McDonald, 770 F.2d 1442, 1444 (9th Cir. 1985) 13
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S Ct 948, 3 L Ed 2d 988 10
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) 4,5,8,19
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 17
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-79 (1971) 17
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 (1954) 11
Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627, 97 S.Ct. 882, 884 17
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102 .14
Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1980) 10
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980). 15
Doe v. United States Department Of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (1985) 14
Far Out Products., Inc. v. Oskar 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) 3
Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967) 15
Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 796 (9th Cir. 1962) 13
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) 17
King v. Wall & Beaver Street Corp., (App DC 1944) 145 F2d 377 15
Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972) 17
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 U.S. 90 16
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 346 U.S. 1, 19 (1978) 17
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, v. Stidham, 658 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1981) 10
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565 17
Public Service Com. v. Wycoff Co. 344 US 237, 73 S Ct 236, 97 L Ed 291 10
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1696, 40 Led.2d 90 (1979) 14
Tarin v. County of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir.) 14
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897 17
U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) 17
Williamson v. Tucker (CA5th, 1981) 645 F2d 404, cert den 454 US 897 15
Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914 16
Winter Park Telephone Co. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. 181 F2d 341 15
APPELLANT APPEAL BRIEF vi
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court’s jurisdiction arose pursuant to:
· Federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, which requires anyone who knows of a federal crime to report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer).
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 under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
· Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986, for violations of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions, while acting under color of state law in state courts.
· Bivens, which extends the rights and protections of the Civil Rights Act to violations of civil and constitutional rights occurring under color of federal law in federal courts.
· RICO, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965, arising under the predicate acts taken in a conspiracy to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities, and affecting interstate commerce—as in hijackings of airliners.
· Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, along with FRCivP 57. The federal causes of actions under the Declaratory Judgment Act includes:
o Declaring Stich’s legal rights, legal responsibilities, and legal relations established in five judgments that are in controversy. These rights were violated as part of a sham lawsuit filed by a CIA-front law firm that violated dozens of state and federal statutes, rules of court, controlling case law, and constitutional protections.
o Declare as void injunctive orders that permanently deprives Stich of due process and equal protection of the law . These injunctive orders terminated Stich’s due process and equal protection right to access federal courts, thereby terminating for him all legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses, while federal judges simultaneously violate multiple federally protected rights. The effect—and surely the intent—of these injunctive orders were to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities that he and his group of other government agents had discovered, and to block Stich’s exercise of federal defenses against record setting violations of federally protected rights that were violated in an attempt to halt his exposure activities.
· Void judgment doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal causes of actions under this federal remedy seeks to:
o Declare as void the orders seizing and liquidating Stich’s $10 million in assets. These orders violated the due process right to a hearing, notice of hearing, legally recognized cause, and in a pattern of fraud. These major due process violations seizing Stich’s life assets were followed by further due process violations, including orders barring Stich from exercising the legal and constitutional right to object to the seizure and liquidation, the unfiling of such objections, and the retaliatory criminal contempt of court charge for exercising these due process rights. Subsequent orders liquidating Stich’s assets, seeking author from the earlier void seizure orders, were void orders. These enormous due process violations require return of Stich’s assets.
o Declare as void the injunctive orders permanently terminating Stich’ legal rights, legal protections, and legal defenses. These orders acted to block Stich’s reporting of criminal activities, including those that were primarily responsible for the conditions enabling 19 hijackers to seize four airliners on September 11, 2001.
· Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “federal courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
· Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person [including federal judges, or the federal government] who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.
· Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986, which requires anyone who knows of a violation of a person’s civil rights to take whatever action is within their responsibilities to prevent such violations, and if they refuse to do so, they are responsible for financial damages.
· Due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
The Court of Appeals jurisdiction arises pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This appeal is from the District Court’s final order filed on July 1, 2002, dismissing the lawsuit that had been filed three weeks earlier, on June 12, 2002. Stich filed a notice of appeal on July 31, 2002. Further jurisdiction arises under the federal crime reporting statute, which requires that any officer of the United States receive information and evidence of federal crimes offered by anyone knowing of such a crime or crimes.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review is de novo. A dismissal under Rule 12 or Rule 56 is reviewed de novo. Far Out Products., Inc. v. Oskar 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001). Secondary standard of review is for plain error.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The issues raised by this appeal include the following:
· Reporting federal crimes to a federal courts under 18 U.S.C. § 4. Refusal by the district court judge to receive information and evidence of federal crimes that Stich and his group of other former and present government agents had discovered during their official duties (and elsewhere). Any federal judge to whom such information and evidence is offered must receive it as part of his or her administrative duties, and has no authority to obstruct justice by refusing to receive the information. The events of September 11, 2001, are one of the consequences of blocking such reports.
· Unlawful and unconstitutional dismissal of Stich’s Complaint that stated multiple federal causes of actions for which relief exists under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Dismissal of the Complaint violated due process and equal protection of the Constitution by:
o Dismissing the Complaint that stated facts showing multiple federal causes of actions for which federal relief is available.
o Requiring the court to accept as true the statements made in the Complaint to determine if one or more federal causes of actions had been stated, which would bar dismissal of the Complaint.
o Violated equal protection rights under the Constitution of the United States, using the tactic of requiring Stich to off-the-record submit any filing to the same federal courts that had engaged in record-setting obstruction of justice, record-setting violations of dozens of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, with a 100 percent violation of every procedural due process right and defense.