May 10, 2013

PJ-91

CHAPTER 11

 

REC #4    HATONN

 

MON., APR. 4, 1994     3:50 P.M.      YEAR 7, DAY 231

 

MON.. APR. 4. 1994

 

DEFRAUDING AMERICA, Part 16

by Rodney Stich

 

START OF ANOTHER CONGRESSIONAL COVERUP

 

Appearing on the Lany King Live television show within a few days of the holocaust, Senator Dennis DeConcini stated he would head a Senate investigative committee investigating the Waco affair. DeConcini repeated the statements of the Justice Department and President Clinton placing the blame for the deaths on Koresh. This dogmatic statement indicated his pre-judgment of the matter and his determination to protect government personnel who caused the deaths to occur. His statement blaming one of the victims came after there was overwhelming evidence showing Justice Department agents to be lying.

 

THE "INVESTIGATORS"

 

Never at a loss to find people willing to assist Justice Department mischief, a team of "investigators" came upon the scene several days later and defended the onslaught, stating the occupants themselves decided to set the building and themselves on fire. The wife of the team's leader, Paul Gray, worked for the same people who started it all, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Gray taught at the ATF's academy and had been selected by the ATF to conduct the "investigation". Gray stated that "this fire was intentionally set by persons inside the compound."

 

SUBSEQUENT REPORT

 

In response to pressure from groups of concerned citizens, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen called for an independent review to determine what really happened. In September 1993 the Treasury Department released its report, defending the use of the para-military force on the residence occupied mostly by women and children. The report admitted that there was a pattern of deception by senior officials in the aftermath of the bungled operation. Simultaneously, Department of Justice officials released a report clearing Attorney General Janet Reno and other federal officials (who had given approval to the attack), blaming the tragedy on field personnel. [H: Please don't be forgetting, readers, that both Bentsen and Reno work for a foreign government. Neither are paid by the U.S. They are paid from the International Monetary Fund. How do you like those apples?]

 

GUN OWNERS BEWARE

 

Millions of gun owners who legally purchased guns that were legal at the time of purchase can end up in prison and financially destroyed, solely at the whim of a bureaucrat from the ATF and Justice Department. One gun owner, W.J. Chip Stewart, from Springdale, Arkansas, was charged with a federal offense by the ATF, the same people responsible for the Weaver family and Branch Davidian massacres (and others). ATF and Justice Department attorneys caused him to be sentenced to federal prison for twenty-seven months. As a result of his imprisonment, Stewart lost his business, his wife who didn't wish to be inconvenienced, his credit worthiness, and his money.

 

What did the bureaucrats in the ATF and Justice Department consider to be a crime? Stewart had legally purchased two semi-automatic handguns, that were legal to own at that time: a small 22 caliber and a 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from Holmes Firearms Company, similar to those owned by millions of people in the United States.

 

ATF bureaucrats decided, after many of these guns were sold, that the widely-sold semi-automatic guns could be converted by a gunsmith to become an automatic weapon, and were therefore illegal.

 

Shortly after ATF agents notified Stewart that the guns that he had legally purchased were now unlawful, he turned the guns over to the ATF. They had gotten his name from the gun manufacturer's registration records. Eight months after ATF notified Stewart that his two pistols were put onto the banned list, and after Stewart voluntarily turned the guns over to them, Justice Department prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against him. Stewart, who owned an auto wrecking business and was a relatively permanent member of the community, could have been served peacefully with the warrant for his arrest. Instead, sixteen heavily armed ATF and FBI agents and local sheriff s department personnel converged upon his home, breaking down the door. Fortunately for Stewart, he wasn't home. Otherwise, he could have met the deadly fate of Scott, the Weavers, the Branch Davidians, or the many others who were killed by the "brave" men of ATF and FBI.

 

With this type of mindset almost anyone can be financially destroyed and put in prison, either because of violating some obscure statute, or by being falsely charged.

 

WIDESPREAD INVOLVEMENT OF

FEDERAL JUDGES

 

The direct and indirect involvement of federal judges in almost every one of the criminal enterprises shown in these pages has already been described. In Chapter 11 courts they were directly involved in the theft of billions of dollars a year. In other pages the mechanism for paying off certain federal judges is described. My impression is that they are as sleazy a group as the attorney group they represent.

 

Federal judges were repeatedly put on notice through my federal court filings of the criminal activities described within these pages that a group of CIA insiders were ready to testify. (The judges included, for instance, Ninth Circuit Judges including Marilyn Patel, Samuel Conti, Milton Schwartz, Edward Garcia, Raul Ramirez, and each of the Justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; District of Columbia judges and justices, including Stanley Sporkin, Green, Silberman; Second Circuit judges and Justices at New York City; Fifth Circuit judges at Chicago.) They blocked the reporting of federal crimes, which made them guilty of federal crimes. I repeatedly appealed and petitioned the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, as they had a duty to do.

 

SUPREME COURT’S COMPLICITY

 

None of these criminal enterprises could have continued without the criminal cover-up by each of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1970s I brought the corruption to the attention of the Supreme Court Justices as it related to the air safety and criminal violations associated with a series of air disasters and the felony cover-up by Justice Department attorneys and federal judges. In the 1980s I brought to their attention the pattern of hard-core civil rights violations that were part of the California scheme to silence me and the destruction of federal remedies by a gang of federal judges.

 

As a matter of law, under Supreme Court procedures as specifically provided by Rules of Court of the Supreme Court, a person has the right to petition an individual Justice for relief. Also, under federal crime-reporting statutes, the law clearly provides that a citizen must report federal crimes to any federal judge. Implied in the law, a federal judge must receive the evidence. Every time that I exercised these rights and responsibilities the Supreme Court Justices blocked me.

 

Only once did a Justice of the Supreme Court make any type of response, and this was highly unusual. In response to my petition addressed to Justice Byron White, which he refused to grant, he stated in an October 28, 1991, letter.

 

As a single Justice I can be of no help to you. I am returning your petition.

 

White and the other Supreme Court Justices aided and abetted the persecution of whistleblowers and informants who threatened to expose the criminal activities in which they were involved. The charges of organized crimes involving major U.S. agencies that I brought to their attention left no discretion for any federal official to deny me a hearing, especially when the crimes included judges over whom the Justices of the Supreme Court had supervisory responsibilities.

 

SUPREME COURT'S SOILED RECORD

 

President Lyndon Johnson relied upon voter fraud to get into the U.S. Senate, as related in the 1964 publication of A Texan Looks At Johnson and Means of Ascent by Robert Caro, published by Knopf. When Johnson discovered that Texas Governor Coke Stevenson had received 112 votes more than he did, Johnson arranged for a "recanvass", of the records. Lo and be-hold, an additional 202 suspicious votes appeared, nicely arranged in alphanumerical order, in a district he controlled. When the matter was taken to the federal district court, the court issued an injunction barring Johnson from claiming victory, and setting a hearing to address the voter fraud.

 

To circumvent the unfavorable evidence being presented in the U.S. District Court in Texas, Johnson's attorney, Abe Fortas (who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court), filed a petition with Justice Hugo Black of the U.S. Supreme Court to block the federal district court in Texas from taking any action. Black ruled in Johnson's favor, without allowing the evidence of voter fraud to be presented. Johnson later rewarded Fortas as he appointed Fortas to the U.S. Supreme Court. But as the saying goes that "a leopard doesn't change its spots," Fortas' conduct on the Supreme Court was sufficiently outrageous that he was later forced to resign rather than face impeachment.

 

An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle (June 30, 1991) titled, "The Pernicious Court", stated the "judiciary is riding roughshod over rights and precedent as it enacts its legislative agenda into law." The editorial stated that "the Supreme Court rode roughshod over traditional constitutional rights, ignoring settled precedents and overturning others that got in its way." If no constitutional outrage was examined other than what federal judges have done to me in retaliation for exercising federal crime reporting requirements and exercising federal defenses, it would be prima facie evidence of a criminal mindset in the fed­eral judiciary.

 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE LAWS,

APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

 

The Supreme Court Justices in June 1989 upheld the right of state and federal agents to confiscate the assets of a person pos­sessing drugs, or who committed a crime, even though charges may not have been filed (and maybe never would be), and there had never been a trial. This seizure of assets usually deprived the person of funds needed to hire legal counsel to defend against the charges. The Court's fuzzy argument is that the Sixth Amendment right to appointment of legal counsel will in­sure proper legal representation. The Supreme Court Justices knew that court-appointed attorneys are usually a farce.

 

Even if the party is never accused, or he is found innocent, the person is usually unable to obtain his or her seized property. The Pittsburgh Press described the seizure laws as a "License to Loot--Victims lose even if charges aren't filed." These and other articles depict how police in the United States can take a person's assets, including their homes and money to pay for le­gal defenses, even without being charged with a crime. The police need simply charge the person with an offense, which can easily be fabricated. Supreme Court Justices have rendered de­cisions making police officers and prosecutors usually immune from liability. It is a stacked deck against the people of the United States, and they don't even recognize it.

 

To get the property back, if it hasn't already been disposed of, the person has to sue the government, and this takes money for legal fees, which the person usually doesn't have.

 

Simply because small quantities of drugs were found, large ships, airplanes, and buildings have been seized and forfeited, without any regard to the financial relationship between the amount of drugs and the value of the seized property. The per­son who put the drugs on the seized property may not even be its owner, while the actual owner may be totally unaware and unable to control the presence of drugs.

 

Property seizure laws permit taking a person's assets on the mere suspicion that the person violated the law. Justice De­partment officials either violate the law themselves, or protect those government officials who do. Made more preposterous by the CIA and other government agencies involvement in smug­gling drugs into the United States in the interest of funding covert CIA activities (many of which terminate in wholesale deaths of Americans such as in the Vietnam conflict), which makes a mockery of the so-called drug wars. [H: How can this "fly"? Because of executive order for one thing. If a "war" is "declared" by a president (on anything or anyone) it au­tomatically invokes "Executive Order" and anything goes....] In December 1993, after much public outrage, five of the nine Supreme Court Justices held that there must first be a hearing before property may be seized. Reno's Justice Department replied, "We will continue to use the forfeiture laws vigor­ously." With the heavy concentration of former Justice Department attorneys on the federal bench, forfeiture will probably continue as before, as targeted citizens must prove a negative, that they did not violate any laws.

 

SELF-IMMUNITY AGAINST JUDICIALLY-INFLICTED

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

 

The arrogance of federal judges and justices is reflected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Justices of the Supreme Court held that a citizen cannot sue a judge for harms inflicted by the judge, regardless of whether the judge acted in error, maliciously, or in excess of authority. In one instance the Supreme Court Justices ruled that a judge who ordered a young woman sterilized was immune from damages. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices have held in such cases as Stump v. Sparkman (435 US 349 [1978]) that the American public has no protection against the renegade judges, over whom the Supreme Court Justices have supervisory responsibilities, who inflict great harms upon a particular targeted person.

 

This isn't what civil rights statutes read; it is self-made law by judges that violate the statutes and constitutional protections. These self-protective case law decisions conflict with the pub­lic's right to seek damages from anyone who knowingly inflicts harms through known and deliberate violations of protected rights. [H: This SHOULD include even ones such as poor John Schroepfer against ones seeking to take his freedom and his property. So far, however, the people in the "hospital" simply bring in the law to KEEP IBM ISO­LATED--EVEN ALLUDING TO THE STEP-SON AS THE CONSERVATOR--AN OUTRIGHT MISCARRIAGE OF LAW.]

 

The greatest threat to our constitutional protections is with the present group of judges and Justice Department attorneys, who are openly destroying the protections under our form of gov­ernment. The media and every major check and balance have kept the lid on these outrageous acts, as they have done with ev­ery major scandal described within these pages. The im­plications of this are enormous. The losses of civil rights are all around us but the majority of Americans, kept ignorant of these matters by the mass media, haven't the faintest idea what is ac­tually going on and being done to them.

 

In 1993 the California Supreme Court held that a citizen could be arrested and held in jail for several days solely on the basis that he or she was not carrying identification. A swimmer walking to the beach could end up in jail, in chains, enduring body-cavity searchers, and risking rape, solely because he or she did not have identification suitable to the stopping officer. [H: Do you now begin to see how happily you will all line up for your inserted chips and tattoos so that you are never "caught" in such a compromising circumstance as not having your identification card?]

 

THE CRIMES OF CONGRESS

 

The public has a short memory. Scandal after scandal by members of Congress has surfaced, and rarely has a member of Congress been criminally prosecuted. Simultaneously, thou­sands of American citizens are charged and put in prison for committing some minor offense, or imprisoned or trumped-up charges. Even in the Savings and Loan scandal, the nation's worst financial debacle that will adversely affect Americans for decades, not a single member of Congress, including those who openly solicited money to block regulators' actions, has been sent to prison.

 

Member of Congress limited their investigation of the Keat­ing-Five to "ethics" violations, which is comparable to limiting the charges against the Murder Incorporated assassins to ethics violations. Even here, Congress couldn't hold that those who aided and abetted the greatest financial debacle had violated any ethics.

 

People in the CIA, for instance, have reported to members of Congress for years about the CIA and DEA drug trafficking, during closed-door hearings, by letters, and by petitions as I have sent. In every instance these members of Congress have kept the lid on the scandals, and are co-conspirators.

 

CREATING A CRIMINAL MINDSET THAT

ESTABLISHES GOVERNMENT AND NON-

GOVERNMENT RESPECT FOR

LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 

The conduct of Justice Department attorneys and officials, of federal judges, of the CIA, sets a pattern of lawlessness for the country to follow. The people in the ghettos know about this criminality, while the average middle-class American is unin­formed. We cannot halt or reverse the escalating lawlessness in the population while the lawlessness exists. And the system in place is so corrupt that it cannot and will not correct itself.

 

END OF PART 16.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J091.pdf