911 BlowBack

HIGHLY SENSITIVE LAWSUIT WITH EXPLOSIVE RAMIFICATIONS

Posted By: Rayelan <Send E-Mail>
Date: Wednesday, 18 August 2004, 11:16 p.m.

HIGHLY SENSITIVE LAWSUIT WITH EXPLOSIVE RAMIFICATIONS SET FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK CITY, AUGUST 24, 2004

A highly sensitive lawsuit was filed in the U.S. district court in New York City by a former federal agent, Rodney Stich, seeking to report criminal activities in government offices. This is a very unusual lawsuit, and has the potential of exposing criminal activities in the three branches of government. Basically, here are some of the highlights in that federal action:

Stich initially discovered deep-seated corruption in the government's aviation safety offices after he was given the assignment to correct the conditions that were at that time resulting in the nation's worst series of airline crashes. These were the same problems that later created the conditions enabling terrorists to seize four airliners on 9/11.

Obviously, the hijackings of four airliners were aviation disasters, for which the preventative measures were known for years, the need existed for years, and the authority and responsibility to order the preventative measures were in the same government aviation safety offices that Stich discovered and documented areas of deep-seated corruption. Instead of addressing these areas, Congress and the 9/11 commission focused on the secondary and more innocent areas: the so-called intelligence failures and failures to act on known intelligence.

Attempting to expose the corruption in government offices, Stich published books and appeared as guest and expert on over 3,000 radio and television shows since 1978. These exposure activities caused other government agents to provide him with additional information and evidence of corruption in other government offices and in covert government activities. These agents were from the FBI, CIA, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, and elsewhere in government.

Stich sought to circumvent the cover-ups by members of Congress and Justice Department personnel by filing federal actions under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4). That statute states that anyone knowing of a federal crime must promptly report it to a federal judge or other federal officer.

Instead of receiving this information, federal judges blocked the reports and commenced retaliatory actions against Stich. In this way the corruption continued, along with the deadly consequences in the aviation and other government sectors. The hijackings of 9/11 were one day's blowback consequences from the corruption that Stich and his group of other former government agents sought to report.

After 9/11, Stich again attempted to report the criminal activities and the role of federal judges in covering up for them. His Complaint, filed in the U.S. district court in New York City, was blocked, and dismissed without a hearing. Stich then filed a notice of appeal, submitted written arguments, and the case is set for oral argument at 10 a.m. on August 24, 2004.

There is much more to these events, some of which can be found at www.defraudingamerica.com, and more in the books that Stich has written, including Defrauding America; Drugging America; Unfriendly Skies; and Blowback, 9/11, Iraq, Lies and Cover-ups.

Additional information on this lawsuit, including the Complaint and briefs, can be found at www.defraudingamerica.com

This lawsuit has the possibility of forcing attention to many areas of corruption in various government offices, including the real blame for the success of the hijackers on 9/11. If enough publicity was given to these matters, attention could be forced upon many other areas of corruption in government that continue to inflict great harm upon people in the United States.

Anyone can help by notifying the media of this hearing and encouraging people to attend. There may not be another opportunity like this to focus attention on such serious matters.

The case in the U.S. Court of Appeals is known as Stich v. United States, Docket number 03-6244 CV, and is calendared for oral argument at 10 a.m.