Federal law provides that any person in the United States can file a federal lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment to establish his personal and property rights under federal law, and under the federal Constitution. Federal law provides that a person can file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief to halt actions taken under color of state or federal law that violate federally-protected rights. Federal law provides that lawsuits can be filed seeking damages against others who violated these federally-protected rights.'25 To avoid being guilty of a federal crime, federal criminal law requires a person to report federal offenses to a federal court.
Every action I filed contained many serious federal causes of action involving violations of rights protected under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Any one of these violated rights invoked mandatory federal court jurisdiction. But the judicial gridlock was everywhere.
IMAGINATIVE USE OF LAW
Realizing that I may never recover from the persecution, I sought to put on notice those who had responsibilities to prevent the criminal activities including members of Congress who had a duty to act, and who, instead, engaged in various forms of criminal coverup and obstruction of justice.
One federal statute that is little known but which has very clear language, is Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343, which permits any person who has suffered harm due to violation of his civil rights to sue another person who knew about the violations and who could have prevented or assisted in their prevention and the related harm. Members of Congress, for instance, knew about the violations and the harms, and under the clear wording of the statute they were liable.
I filed two lawsuits against certain members of the U.S. Senate and House(l26) on the basis of section 1343, and which I filed to draw attention to the corruption I sought to expose. The defendants knew of the violations of my civil and constitutional rights. They had a far greater responsibility than that of an ordinary citizen to prevent and report the criminal activities. Under federal law they incurred liability for themselves, and those who were federal employees incurred liability on the part of the federal government, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Another purpose of the lawsuits was to put into a judicial record their responses to the charges I made against them.
THEY ADMITTED THEIR COVERUP
In response to the filing of these actions, the Senate legal counsel filed a motion to dismiss my complaint on February 27, 1989. The motion to dismiss admitted that the defendant senators and representatives knew of my allegations and knew of the consequences of the criminal acts I brought to their attention. Under federal pleading practice, any allegation in the complaint that is not denied is deemed admitted as true.(127) The defendants admitted the truth of the charges in my complaint concerning government corruption and that they had knowledge of my charges.
These members of Congress based their defense on one issue: that regardless of any wrong they may have committed, they were immune from the consequences of their acts under the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. Put this response in perspective. Visualize an air disaster scene and the corruption that led to a series of airline crashes; that these members of Congress knew about the criminal acts making the crashes possible; that they had a duty to act and refused to do so, making possible other crashes.
Their only defense was that they are immune from the consequences. The same set of conditions exist with every pattern of criminality stated within these pages. Members of Congress knew about the ongoing criminal and...
126) in U.S. District Court in District of Columbia: No. 89-0170 SS. Stich v. [Senators] Edward Kennedy Strom Thurmond, Ernest Hollings, A Ibert Core, Pete Wilson; [Representatives] Joseph Biden, Jack Brooks, John Conyers, Peter Rodino, Harley Staggers, and Henry Gonzalez; in District Court at Reno: Stich v. U.S Senator Alan Cranston from California, and U.S Representatives George Miller, Fortney Stark Norman Mineta, Don Edwards, and Daniel Lundgren, No. 89-85. February 10, 1989. U.S. District Court at Reno, Nevada, under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, and 1343, and Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, 1986.
127) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d):