1
2
3
Rodney F. Stich
Diablo Western Press
PO Box 5
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 925-944-1930
(MotVacJudgment)
4
5
6
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
8
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
RODNEY F. STICH,
DIABLO WESTERN PRESS, Inc.
Petitioner,
vs.
14
15
16
STEVE GRATZER,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 00-cp-18-646
MOTION TO VACATE FOREIGN
JUDGMENT
Code Civil Procedure §1710.40
Code Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP)
Jury Trial Requested For Damages,
Legal Fees and Costs
AFFIDAVIT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign SLAPP Judgment --
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2

Table of contents
........................................................................i

California law
........................................................................ii
5

Federal law
........................................................................ii
6
1. Statement of the case and facts
........................................................................1
7
2. Argument
........................................................................10
3
4
8
9
10
11
a. Complaint and judgment violated constitutional protections
and the anti-SLAPP statute ........................................................................11
b. Applying the Broad Protections of Anti-SLAPP Legislation To
SLAPP Lawsuits Seeking To Halt Reporting Of Corrupt, Criminal,
And Treasonous Misconduct ........................................................................12
12
13
c. SLAPP Lawsuit Seriously Affects Major National Interests .........................13
14
d. South Carolina Lawsuit and Judgment Attacks Protected Activity ...............13
15
e. Federal Case Law Relating To SLAPP Lawsuits ..........................................14
16
f. SLAPP Doctrine Further Supported By Federal Statute................................15
17
g. Whistleblower Laws Provide Additional Protection .....................................15
18
19
h. SLAPP Lawsuit Halt Exposure Of Crimes Against the United States ..........16
20
i. Facts Showing Fraud Nature Of SLAPP Lawsuit ..........................................16
21
j. False Statements In the South Carolina Judgment .........................................17
22
23
24
k. The SLAPP Lawsuit and Judgment Knowingly Obstructs Justice ................19
l. Book’s Entry In Judicial Proceedings Make the Contents Privileged ...........19
25
m. Absence Of Personal Jurisdiction By South Carolina Judge .........................19
26
n. An Internet Presence Does Not Provide Worldwide Personal Jurisdiction ...21
27
o. Truth Is Defense To Libel Or Slander ...........................................................24
28
p. Serious Consequences Of Recognizing South Carolina SLAPP Judgment...24
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign SLAPP Judgment --
i
1
3. Summary
........................................................................25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign SLAPP Judgment --
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
3
California law
CCP §1710.40
........................................................................1
CCP § 425.16
........................................................................1,10,11
4
5
6
Boaz v. Boyle & Co. 40 Cal.App.4 at p.717 ........................................................................20
7
Briggs. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115 ......................13
8
ComputerXpress, 93 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1002-1003 ...............................................................14
9
Ferreira v. Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 409, 413 .....................14
10
11
Morehouse v. Chronicle Publishing, 37 Cal.App.4th 855 (1985) ..........................................12
12
Paul for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 11363-1367................................13
13
Richard A. Chavez v. Enriqueta Mendoza ((No. D037586) ..................................................11
14
Shekhter v. Financial Indemnity Co. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 141,151 ...................................13
15
16
Thomas E. Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Limited (2000 Daily Journal D.A.R.12597) .....20
Federal Law
17
18
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462 ..........................................................21
19
Bartel v. Federal Aviation Administration, 725 F.2d 1402, 1415 (D.C.Cir. 1984) ...............15
20
Bush v. Lucas, 462 US 367
........................................................................16
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984)
........................................................................23
21
22
23
City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 .....................................22
24
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................22
25
Famer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (1977)
26
........................................................................15
Gaingolo v. Walt Disney World Co, 753 F.Supp. 148 (D.N.J. 1990) ....................................22
27
28
Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1984) ....................................15
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign SLAPP Judgment --
iii
1
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) ......................................................................20
2
Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414-416
3
........................................................................21
IDS Life Insurance Company v. SunAmerica, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1258 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ........22
4
5
In the Matter of Holliday’s Tax Services, Inc., 417 F.Supp 182 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) ................2
6
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770, 104 S.Ct. 1473 (1984) ......................................2
7
McDonald v. Smith (1985) 472 U.S. 479, 485 .......................................................................14
8
New York Times v. Sullivan, 19674, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710 ..........................................14
9
Olguin v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, 740 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1984) .........15
10
11
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574 (1968) .................................................15,16
12
Rannoch, Inc. v. Rannoch Corporation, 52 F.Supp. 2d 6811 (E.D. Va. 1999) .....................23
13
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.464 U.S. 238 (1984).............................................................22
14
Stokes v. Bechtel North American Power Corp., 614 F.Supp. 732 (N.D. Cal. 1985 .............15
15
16
Weber v. Jolly Hotels, 977 F. Supp. 327 (D..N.J. 1997) ........................................................22
17
Federal statutes:
18
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4
19
20
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,3,35,111,153,2411,242, 245,246,371,1341, 1343,1503, 1505, 1512,
1513,1515
........................................................................8,19
21
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361
........................................................................4
22
Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 14501-14505
........................................................................15
23
........................................................................3,8,19
Exhibit A: Complaint filed in South Carolina court.
24
25
Exhibit B: Special appearance: objection to personal jurisdiction by South Carolina judge.
26
Exhibit C: Motion by Gratzer to strike special appearance of Diablo Western Press.
27
Exhibit D: Response to that motion to strike.
28
Exhibit E: South Carolina order refusing to recognize absence of personal jurisdiction.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign SLAPP Judgment --
iv
1
Exhibit F: July 5, 2001, judgment received on December 5, 2001.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign SLAPP Judgment --
v
I. Statement Of the Case and Facts
1
2
3
Rodney F. Stich (“Stich”) and Diablo Western Press, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (“Diablo”),
files this motion to vacate the entry of the South Carolina default judgment that was in favor of
4
5
6
Steve Gratzer (Exhibit “A”), and for this court to award legal fees, costs, and damages. The
authority for this motion arises under CCP §1710.40.1
Authority for vacating the foreign default judgment arises under (a) California’s Anti-SLAPP
7
8
statute, CCP § 425.16; (b) the Complaint and default judgment violated constitutional right to
9
free speech and to petition government (c) absence of personal jurisdiction by the South Carolina
10
11
court over Stich and Diablo; (d) South Carolina Complaint and judgment are the latest attempt to
12
block the reporting of corrupt and criminal activities affecting major national issues, using a
13
SLAPP lawsuit in a far-off jurisdiction; (e) fraud in the South Carolina complaint and judgment;
14
(f) felony implications arising from using the SLAPP lawsuit to obstruct justice and conduct to
15
16
17
block the reporting of criminal activities to federal offices; and (g) involvement of major national
issues affecting national security.
Procedural History Of South Carolina SLAPP Lawsuit
18
19
A lawsuit (Attachment “A”) was
20
filed on July 5, 2000, in the State of
21
South Carolina by Steve Gratzer
22
23
against Rodney Stich, a resident of
24
the state of California and Nevada,
25
and against Diablo Western Press,
26
Inc., a Nevada corporation. The
27
28
1
A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action
in this state on the sister state judgment, including … and another and different judgment entered …
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
1
1
lawsuit claimed that Stich, author of
2
the book, Drugging America, and
3
Diablo, a non-profit operation that
4
distributes the book, defamed South
5
6
Carolina resident Steve Gratzer
7
(“Gratzer.”)
8
Stich made a special appearance
9
in pro se status on behalf of himself
10
and Diablo Western Press, Inc. by
11
12
filing a September 28, 2000,
13
objection to the court’s personal
14
jurisdiction. (Attachment “B”)
15
On October 16, 2000, Gratzer
16
17
filed motion to strike the “responsive
18
pleading of Diablo Western Press,
19
Inc. on the basis that the corporation
20
could not be represented by anyone
21
other than a licensed attorney.”
22
(Attachment “C”)
23
24
Stich submitted a reply to that
25
objection (Attachment “D”) on
26
December 23, 2000, stating facts
27
showing that Diablo had no assets,
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
2
1
that constitutional due process was
2
violated, and that under federal law2
3
an officer of the corporation could
4
appear in court for the corporation.
5
6
The court file-stamped that reply on
7
January 2, 2001, a day before the
8
hearing on Plaintiff’s motion.
9
On November 3, 2000, South Carolina Judge Jackson V. Gregory, signed an order
10
11
12
(Attachment “E”) claiming he had personal jurisdiction over Stich and Diablo [underlining added
here]:
13
The Plaintiff, Steven Gratzer, argued that this Court should deny Defendants objection to
personal jurisdiction raised by their Notice of Special Appearance based on Keeton v. Hustler
Magazine, 465 U.S. 770, 104 S.Ct. 1473 (1984), maintaining that the Defendants established
the requisite contacts with this forum by carrying on a “part of its general business” in South
Carolina and that the injury that resulted from Defendants’ libelous conduct occurred in
South Carolina and resulted from that business activity.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court finds that jurisdiction is proper in this case,
the Defendants having established sufficient contacts with this forum through their web site,
as well as national retailers, which market and sell the book from which this cause of action
arises, and that harm complained of occurred in South Carolina, and that the cause of action
arose from the very activity being complained of. [Underlining added here]
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
On December 5, 2001, Stich sent a letter to the court requesting the status of the lawsuit.
21
22
(Attachment “G”) The court responded on December 10, 2001. The court sent a certified copy of
23
the court’s July 5, 2001, order. (Attachment “H”) This notice of the court’s order was received
24
beyond the period when an appeal could have been filed to that order.
25
Stich’s Books Attempted To Influence Government Actions Toward Criminal Activities
Affecting Major National Interests Through Constitutionally Protected Rights
26
27
28
In the Matter of Holliday’s Tax Services, Inc., 417 F.Supp 182 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), the court held that a corporation
could be represented by its owner where both had filed Chapter XI proceedings and neither the corporation or the
individual owner could afford an attorney. The corporation was therefore denied due process and equal protection of
the law.
2
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
3
1
Stich is a former federal air
2
3
safety inspector3 who discovered as
4
part of his official duties corrupt and
5
criminal activities within the Federal
6
Aviation Administration (FAA) that
7
played key roles in a series of fatal
8
airline crashes,4 and the felony
9
10
cover-ups and obstruction of justice
11
by other people in government. His
12
attempts to report these matters to
13
various government checks and
14
15
balances were repeatedly blocked,
16
constituting federal crimes, including
17
obstruction of justice.
18
Seeking to exercise his
19
20
responsibilities as a citizen and under
21
the federal crime reporting statute,
22
and seeking to bring about
23
government actions and legislation,
24
Stich engaged in activities seeking to
25
26
27
28
Stich was a federal air safety inspector responsible for air safety over the most senior program for the world’s
largest airline, during the 20-year span that the airline was experiencing many fatal airline crashes. Prior to that, he
was an international airline pilot, and prior to that, a Patrol Plane Commander and instructor in the U.S. Navy during
World War II.
4
The corrupt activities and related airline crashes are detailed in the third edition of Unfriendly Skies, authored by
Rodney Stich as part of his activist attempts to influence government actions and to make this information known to
the public.
3
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
4
1
inform people of these matters.
2
Stich authored books,5 appeared as
3
guest and expert on over 3,000 radio
4
and television shows since 1978, and
5
6
gave speeches. He filed federal
7
lawsuits6 under the authority of the
8
federal crime reporting statute7 and
9
the statute8 permitting any citizen to
10
seek a court order requiring a federal
11
12
official to perform a legal duty and
13
to halt unlawful conduct. These
14
lawsuits included as exhibits, or
15
through reference, the various books
16
17
Stich wrote, including the book
18
Drugging America which was the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Books on matters of major national concern included Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging
America.
6
Stich v. United States, et al., 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920 (1977)(addressed hard-core
air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety
violations and misconduct); Stich v. National Transportation Safety Board, 685 F.2d 446 (9th Cir.)(table), cert.
denied, 459 U.S. 861 (1982))(addressed repeated criminal falsification of official airline accident reports, omitting
highly sensitive air safety misconduct, making possible repeated crashes from the same sequestered problems);
Amicus curiae brief filed on July 17, 1975, in the Paris DC-10 multi-district litigation, Flanagan v. McDonnell
Douglas Corporation and United States of America, Civil Action 74-808-PH, MDL 172, Central District
California.)(addressing the long standing FAA misconduct, of which the cover-up of the DC-10 cargo door problem
was one of repeated instances of tragedy related misconduct); U.S. v. Department of Justice, District of Columbia,
Nos. 86-2523, 87-2214, and other actions filed by Stich seeking to expose and correct the powerful and covert air
disaster misconduct.
7
Title 18 USC § 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.
88
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States
or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
5
1
subject of the South Carolina
2
lawsuit.
3
Government Agents Provided Additional Evidence Of Criminal Activities
In Other Areas Gravely Affecting Major National Interests
4
5
As Stich’s sought to influence
6
government actions in this manner,
7
including legislation, other former
8
and present government agents9
9
10
provided him with information and
11
documentation over a period of years
12
on corrupt activities in other areas
13
that they discovered as part of their
14
15
official duties. Again seeking to
16
influence government action, and to
17
inform the public to assist in
18
influencing official actions, Stich
19
20
used this information and
21
documentation to author other
22
books.10
23
Authoring Books, Exercising Constitutional Rights,
To Focus Attention On Major National Issues
24
25
Stich authored these books,
26
including Drugging America, to
27
28
9
These included agents from the FBI, DEA, Customs, CIA—including former heads of CIA airlines and CIA
financial operations; former drug traffickers, and others.
10
Defrauding America and Drugging America.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
6
1
petition and influence government
2
actions and to provide information to
3
the public on matters of national
4
issues. He sought no compensation
5
6
or profit, and none were ever
7
received.
8
Forming A Not-For-Profit
9
Corporation To Distribute the
10
Books
11
The corporation, Diablo Western
12
13
Press, was formed in Nevada to
14
assist in petitioning government and
15
inform the public of these matters.
16
17
Its function is to distribute the books.
18
The corporation has no assets, sought
19
no profits, and made no profits.
20
Because of lack of funds, no
21
insurance was obtained.
22
23
Many Corrupt Activities and People Were Threatened By These Efforts
24
People directly involved in the
25
corrupt and criminal activities, and
26
those implicated through cover-ups
27
and retaliation, were threatened by
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
7
1
these activities. Over a period of
2
years, numerous schemes were used,
3
consisting of legal process, to halt
4
Stich’s exposure activities (which are
5
6
detailed in the three books).
7
Becoming A Target Of
8
Retaliation To Block Reports Of
9
Major Criminal Activities
10
These efforts were exposing
11
12
criminal activities and criminal
13
cover-ups of people in key
14
government positions, constituting a
15
threat to them personally and a threat
16
17
of exposing crimes against the
18
United States. Stich became the
19
target of legal efforts to silence him
20
through a version of a SLAPP
21
lawsuit that not only violated major
22
23
civil and constitutional rights and
24
protections but blocked the reporting
25
of criminal activities.
26
The combination of
27
unprecedented violations of state and
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
8
1
federal laws and constitutional
2
protections, and termination of all
3
relevant procedural due process
4
rights, resulted in converting Stich
5
6
from a multi-millionaire to a state of
7
poverty. Instead of halting his
8
activities, he continued his public-
9
spirited efforts to expose these
10
criminal activities and to petition
11
12
government. The prior misuse of
13
legal process was then followed by
14
the filing of the sham lawsuit in
15
South Carolina, which is the basis
16
for this motion.
17
18
Sample Of Tragedies Arising
19
From Corruption Being Exposed
20
Many tragedies that inflicted
21
great harm upon the United States,
22
23
important national matters, and upon
24
individual victims, resulted from the
25
misconduct that Stich and his group
26
of other government agents sought to
27
report.
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
9
In the aviation environment,
1
2
numerous fatal airline crashes
3
resulted. The latest consequences of
4
the corrupt activities in the aviation
5
6
environment occurred on September
7
11, 2001, when four groups of
8
hijackers seized four airliners. These
9
terrorist hijackings could not have
10
succeeded if the corruption and the
11
12
collateral effects that Stich and
13
Diablo sought to report had not been
14
blocked.
15
Stich and the books sought to
16
17
report and petition government
18
corrupt activities11 in other areas
19
affecting major national interests and
20
the lives of many people.
21
The South Carolina SLAPP Lawsuit Was Latest Attempt
To Halt Exposure Activities and Government Actions
22
23
The facts indicate the South
24
Carolina lawsuit was a SLAPP
25
lawsuit, disguised as a defamation
26
27
28
11
Among the other areas of corrupt activities that Stich and his group of government agents discovered and sought
to report were (a) drug-related crimes involving government personnel; (b) massive corruption in the bankruptcy
courts; (c) misuse of government offices to obstruct justice and inflict harm upon government whistleblowers; (d)
obstruction of justice by people in government and non-government positions, including the legal profession.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
10
1
action, that not only retaliated
2
against Stich for attempting to
3
expose these criminal activities
4
through petitioning of government
5
6
and to inform the public, but also a
7
thinly disguised effort to block the
8
reporting of these criminal activities.
9
The South Carolina lawsuit and
10
default judgment falsely claimed that
11
12
Stich, as the author, and Diablo, as
13
the “publisher”12 of the book,
14
Drugging America:
15

16
Accused South Carolina resident Steve Gratzer “of killing his ex-wife and that the
murder was covered up.”
17
o The very limited wording in the book clearly makes no such statement. The
18
19
indirect reference that was made to the name, Steve Gratzer, was to a Nevada
20
resident named Steve Gratzer, and quoted what a woman, Doris Gratzer, stated to
21
her physician in Ely, Nevada, Jeb Gratzer. (Gratzer was also a Lt. Colonel in the
22
23
Idaho Air National Guard) Dr. Cserna stated in writing to author Rodney Stich
24
what the patient had said to him. The Gratzer reference was a minor and unrelated
25
part of another subject being discussed.13
26
27
12
28
13
Ownership and rights to the books were sold to other entities.
The physician made statements about the retaliation he suffered after the air National Guard unit in which he was
the medical officer refused to provide a helicopter to attack the Randy Weaver cabin in the Ruby Ridge assault. As
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
11
1

2
3
Contained defamatory language about Gratzer.
o No statement or allegation about Gratzer was made.

Made accusations against Gratzer that were untrue.
4
5
o No accusations were made or implied against Gratzer. The name Steve Gratzer, a
6
Nevada resident, arose in a statement made to the wife of a Nevada resident
7
named Steve Gratzer.
8
9
Demanding Through the SLAPP Lawsuit
What Was Unobtainable Through the Lawsuit
10
Before Gratzer and his lawyers
11
filed the lawsuit in South Carolina
12
they knew that the lawsuit could not
13
14
provide what they sought: Money.
15
They knew that neither Stich nor
16
Diablo:
17
 Had any assets or property to pay for any judgment. (Stich had been converted years
18
19
20
21
22
earlier from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty and Diablo had no assets.)
 Had any income that could be seized (Stich lived solely on a small Social Security
payment).
 Had any insurance that would pay for their lawsuit or judgment.
23
They also knew that Stich was 78
24
25
26
27
28
part of the conversation, the physician wrote that one of his patients told him that if she were found dead, her
husband, Steve Gratzer of Ely, Nevada, would have been the one who did it. This minor reference was simply
included to complete the statements made to the author and did not imply that Gratzer had killed his wife. Further,
the author stated in that section that the hospital staff did not believe anything that the woman said. Further, the
name Steve Gratzer appeared in Las Vegas newspaper articles as among the people questioned in the murder of Las
Vegas casino owner Ted Binion. Further, there are hundreds of people throughout the United States with the name
“Steve Gratzer.”
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
12
1
years of age and physically unable to
2
engage in a protracted lawsuit at a
3
distant location.
4
5
6
Knowledge That Their Lawsuit Would Halt Or Serious Impede
The Exposure Of Criminal Misconduct and Government Actions Affecting Major
Corrupt and Criminal Activities Adversely Affecting National Issues
7
Gratzer and his lawyers (and the
8
South Carolina judge) had read the
9
book, Drugging America, and Stich’s
10
other books. They knew that Stich
11
12
had acquired considerable
13
information and evidence of corrupt
14
and criminal activities that were
15
inflicting great harm upon the United
16
17
States, its security, and its people.
18
They knew that the South Carolina
19
lawsuit would interfere with, or
20
block, Stich’s exposure of these
21
criminal activities and in turn make
22
23
possible the continuation of great
24
harm arising from these matters.
25
Among the many areas of
26
documented misconduct was the
27
aviation environment, an area in
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
13
1
which Stich was highly qualified,
2
and that Stich had documented
3
numerous fatal air disasters arising
4
from the misconduct. It was obvious
5
6
that the SLAPP lawsuit filed in
7
South Carolina would block or
8
seriously impede the efforts to report
9
these criminal activities and impede
10
Stich’s efforts to force federal
11
12
officials to perform their legal duties
13
relating to these crimes.
14
The lawsuit was filed nearly a
15
year and a half prior to the success of
16
17
the September 11, 2001, hijackers.
18
Their success was made possible by
19
the misconduct14 within the Federal
20
Aviation Administration that Stich
21
sought to expose. If Stich’s efforts
22
23
had not been impeded and diverted
24
by the South Carolina lawsuit, it is
25
possible that he might have
26
27
28
14
Corrupt and criminal activities included threats against federal air safety agents not to report air safety problems
or violations; retaliation when they file such reports after being told not to; retaliation for taking authorized actions
on air safety problems; covering up for criminal falsification of government-required major safety requirements;
false testimony at FAA hearing during which Stich acted as independent prosecutor;
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
14
1
succeeded in forcing attention to
2
these matters and brought about the
3
obvious preventative measures.
4
Federal Crimes Associated
5
6
With the South Carolina SLAPP
7
Lawsuit and Judgment
8
9
Gratzer and his lawyers knew that their SLAPP lawsuit would hinder or block the exposure
of these criminal activities. Obstructing justice is a federal crime,15 and obstructing justice is the
10
11
obvious goal of the sham SLAPP lawsuit.
12
They knew that their SLAPP lawsuit would inflict harm upon a former federal agent and
13
witness who was seeking to report criminal activities, and impede or halt his efforts. In this way
14
they committed other federal crimes.16
15
They also became aware of federal crimes from reading Stich’s books, and by failure to
16
17
report these federal crimes to a federal officer they violated Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.
18
The Text In Drugging America Clearly Contradicts the Charges In the SLAPP Lawsuit
19
In the book, Drugging America, the text clearly contradicts the charges in the South Carolina
20
complaint and judgment. The book simply quoted the words written to the author by a physician
21
22
and air National Guard Lt. Colonel as the physician described what one of his patients told him.
Even that wording did not accuse the Nevada resident Steve Gratzer of any offense. No
23
24
reasonable person could misinterpret the wording as to constitute defamation. The text in
25
Drugging America, relating to a Nevada resident named Steve Gratzer, follows (with emphasis
26
27
28
15
Obstruction of justice, including Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,3,4.
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, 35, 111, 153, 241, 242, 245(b)(1)(B), 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513(b),
1515(a).
16
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
15
1
now added):
2
3
Imprisoning A Doctor On Perjured Testimony
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In 1997 I started receiving information from a physician who had been targeted in a similar
gun-charge. Dr. Jed Cserna was an MD with a private practice in Ely, Nevada, and a Lt.
Colonel in the Idaho National Guard, with 16 years of military service behind him. His
problems started in Ely, Nevada, where he was a physician. Cserna told me how it appeared
to start. While he was treating a patient, Doris Gratzer, she told him, AIf I=m ever shot, Steve
[her husband] did it.” Dr. Cserna told this to the hospital staff and they said that she always
had problems, and this occasion was no different than others. A week later, she was found
dead, killed by a bullet wound to the head.
Cserna said her husband, Steve Gratzer, was influential in the town, especially with the
sheriff, who was responsible for conducting an investigation into his wife=s killing. Cserna
was now a danger to Gratzer. According to Cserna, false statements were made by a
government informant, seeking to justify his position and pay, that resulted in a raid by ATF
agent Doreen on his doctor=s office. His home was broken into and possessions disappeared.
Participating in the ATF raid was the sheriff who he referred to as Burnie (Ronero), who
would soon participate in sham charges filed against the doctor.
Government agents arrested Cserna a short time later and charged him with possession of
a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. The guns in question were an AR-15 that was not an
automatic, and a Uzi 9 mm that had been sold to him with a folding stock and various barrels.
He had used both guns two and three times a week at the local police firing range and was
never questioned about their legality.
DOJ Retaliation Because of Refusing Ruby Ridge Participation?
Cserna told me about an event that happened in Idaho while he was the physician
assigned to the Idaho National Guard air wing. During the Ruby Ridge attack that killed Mrs.
Weaver and her son, ATF agents had gone to the Idaho National Guard base and told the
Commander of the helicopter division, AWe are ordering you to activate your choppers to go
north and strafe Ruby Ridge.” The colonel refused, stating, AThis is against the law, the
constitution, and finally, Randy Weaver is an Idaho Citizen. Either you get out or I=ll have
you thrown out.”
22
23
24
25
26
27
Gratzer Is Not An Uncommon Name
The book reported what a physician stated to Stich, who was quoting what a Doris Gratzer
has stated to him. No direct reference was made to Steve Gratzer, of Ely, Nevada. Many people
in the United States have that name. For any of them to sue the author because the reporting of a
28
conversation included a similar name would be absurd.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
16
1
Further, the name Steve Gratzer, with a Nevada residence, had already appeared within the
2
last few years in the Las Vegas newspapers in connection with an investigation into the murder
3
of Las Vegas casino owner Ted Binion. (It is very possible that reference was to the same Steve
4
5
Gratzer who resided in Elko, Nevada.)
6
7
II. ARGUMENT
8
The book authored by Stich, Drugging America, sought to influence government actions
9
through informing the public about matters adversely affecting major national interests. These
10
11
are protected matters under (1) the constitutional right of free speech; (2) the constitutional right
12
to petition government, either directly or by providing information to the public; (3) the
13
constitutional right of an author and a publication to report information given to them affecting
14
matters of public concern; (4) the constitutional right to publish information on major national
15
16
17
18
19
20
issues; (5) the right to report criminal activities in government offices adversely affecting
important national issues and national security; (6) …..
Stich, as an author, and Diablo as a distributor of the book, Drugging America, met this
criterion.
21
Disguising Attempt To Halt Publication Of Information
Via SLAPP Lawsuit Disguised As Defamation Action
22
The North Carolina lawsuit disguised the attempt to halt these exposure actions through a
23
SLAPP lawsuit, claiming that the book, Drugging America, charged South Carolina resident
24
25
Steve Gratzer with killing his wife. Although this may have occurred, the name Steve Gratzer
26
was limited to quoting the statements of Doris Gratzer as stated to her physician, who repeated it
27
to the author of Drugging America. No direct reference was made to Steve Gratzer, a Nevada
28
resident, and no insinuation that he murdered his wife.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
17
1
The SLAPP complaint filed in South Carolina took advantage of the inability of Stich and
2
Diablo to carry on an extensive defense nearly 3,000 miles from their locations in California and
3
Nevada. This inability arose as a result of absence of financial resources, absence of insurance,
4
5
6
and Stich’s age of 78.
(a) Complaint and Judgment Violated Constitutional Protections
And the Anti-SLAPP Statute
7
The many anti-SLAPP statutes in
8
the United States, including
9
10
California Code of Civil Procedure
11
425.16, are intended to prevent
12
lawsuits against people who (1) seek
13
to report matters of public interest;
14
15
(2) seek to influence government
16
actions; (3) exercise the right to free
17
speech; (4) and to protect speakers
18
from exercise these constitutional
19
20
rights and civic responsibilities
21
against thinly disguised retaliatory
22
lawsuits. To these may be added to
23
protect people exposing criminal
24
activities implicating powerful
25
people in government.
26
27
The anti-SLAPP statute allows
28
the defendant media or speaker to
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
18
1
file a motion to dismiss an action
2
claiming that the lawsuit is a tactic
3
meant to scare or silence the
4
defendant. The legislature intended
5
6
the statute to be interpreted liberally
7
so as to encourage people and the
8
media to participate in matters of
9
public importance. California Code
10
Civil Procedure § 425.16 states:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CCP § 425.16. Claim arising From Person’s Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition
or Free Speech—Special Motion to Strike. (b) (1) A cause of action against a person
arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free
speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue
shall be subject to a special motion to strike.
(e) As used in this section, “action in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech
under the United States or California constitution in connection with a public issue” includes:
… (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under
consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official
proceeding authorized by law: (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place
open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest: (4) any
other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the
constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public
interest.
Stich’s writings, including those
21
22
in Drugging America, sought to
23
influence officials in the three
24
branches of the federal government
25
26
in connection with issues under
27
consideration. They were intended to
28
make detailed and documented
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
19
1
information available to the public in
2
a public forum on issues of major
3
public and national interests, and to
4
influence public officials to perform
5
6
their legally duties. These writings
7
fell under the constitutional right of
8
free speech in connection with major
9
public issues.
10
11
In Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (1999), alleging
12
defamatory statements, the California Supreme Court held that the statute must be “construed
13
broadly:”
14
15
16
The stated purpose of the [anti-SLAPP] statute … includes protection of not only the
constitutional right to ‘petition for the redress of grievances,’ but the broader
constitutional right of freedom of speech.’ (Averill v. Superior Court (1996) 42
Cal.App.4th 1170, 1176.)
17
See also Morehouse v. Chronicle
18
Publishing, 37 Cal.App.4th 855
19
(1985).
20
21
22
(b) Applying the Broad Protections of Anti-SLAPP Legislation To SLAPP Lawsuits
Seeking To Halt Reporting Of Corrupt, Criminal, and Treasonous Misconduct
23
In what may be the first such
24
reported instance to provide anti-
25
SLAPP protection, the facts strongly
26
indicate that the South Carolina
27
SLAPP lawsuit and default judgment
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
20
1
was to halt the exposure of corrupt,
2
criminal and treasonous misconduct
3
and exposing many people
4
implicated in its cover-up.
5
6
(c) SLAPP Lawsuit Seriously
7
Affects Major National Interests
8
What may be one of the most
9
shocking consequences of the
10
consequences of prior efforts, and
11
12
those people involved in the South
13
Carolina SLAPP lawsuit, may be the
14
deaths of over 3,000 people on
15
September 11, 2001, and the
16
17
collateral consequences that have yet
18
to occur. None of those four groups
19
of hijackers could have succeeded if
20
Stich’s efforts to expose the
21
documented corruption within the
22
23
Federal Aviation Administration had
24
not been repeatedly blocked by the
25
legal efforts detailed in Stich’s books
26
and documented in judicial filings.
27
Stich and other federal air safety
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
21
1
inspectors had repeatedly filed
2
reports showing the dangers and the
3
simple measures to block hijackers
4
from taking control of airliners.
5
6
Many other ongoing tragedies arising
7
from documented corrupt and
8
criminal acts are being exposed by
9
Stich’s public-spirited activities—
10
which the South Carolina SLAPP
11
lawsuit sought to block.
12
13
(d) South Carolina Lawsuit
14
and Judgment Attacks Protected
15
Activity
16
By fabricating out of whole cloth
17
18
charges contradicted by the clear
19
language in the book, Drugging
20
America, the South Carolina lawsuit
21
and judgment is clearly focused on
22
23
halting the exposure of these
24
criminal activities for which Stich
25
has the evidence. This tactic is surely
26
the first ever seeking to accomplish
27
criminal acts by a SLAPP lawsuit.
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
22
1
Other critical issues in rejecting
2
the South Carolina lawsuit for entry
3
as a local judgment is that the
4
lawsuit and judgment brazenly
5
6
attacks the exercise of
7
constitutionally protected activity,
8
attacks the reporting of documented
9
information on major national issues,
10
and seeks to financially destroy the
11
writer exercising these rights.
12
13
In Richard A. Chavez v.
14
Enriqueta Mendoza ((No. D037586),
15
the California Supreme Court held
16
17
that “plaintiffs’ malicious
18
prosecution cause of action was
19
subject to a special motion to strike
20
under California’s anti-SLAPP
21
statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)”
22
23
A cause of action arising from a
24
defendant’s alleged improper filing
25
of a lawsuit may appropriately be the
26
subject of a section 425.16 motion to
27
strike. (See Shekhter v. Financial
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
23
1
Indemnity Co. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
2
141,151.)
3
//
4
“The purpose of section 425.16 is
5
6
… to deter frivolous and improperly
7
motivated lawsuits arising from
8
[having exercised constitutional]
9
rights.” Section 425.16 applies when
10
the claims arise from an exercise of a
11
12
constitutionally protected right (Paul
13
for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85
14
Cal.App.4th 1356, 11363-1367). (See
15
McDonald v. Smith (1985) 472 U.S.
16
17
479, 485.) … [A]s this court has
18
recognized, the potential for a
19
malicious prosecution claim does
20
have a “chilling effect on the
21
willingness of persons to report
22
23
crimes or pursue legal rights and
24
remedies in court….” (Ferreira v.
25
Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich
26
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 409, 413.) …
27
The critical point is whether the
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
24
1
cause of action itself as based on an
2
act in furtherance of the right of
3
petition or free speech. (See
4
ComputerXpress, 93 Cal.App.4th at
5
6
pp. 1002-1003.) Claims that arise
7
from a defendant’s prior free speech
8
or petition activities are subject to an
9
anti-SLAPP motion regardless of
10
whether the protected activities have
11
12
concluded before the lawsuit was
13
filed.
14
Stich’s efforts to focus attention
15
on matters of major and grave
16
17
national interests is a protected right
18
under the constitutional right to free
19
speech and does not invoke personal
20
jurisdiction to anyone anywhere to
21
silence the person through expensive
22
23
litigation in a distant location with
24
local prejudices.
25
(e) Federal Case Law Relating
26
To SLAPP Lawsuits
27
An early federal decision relating
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
25
1
to SLAPP lawsuit stated the
2
importance of the courts
3
safeguarding freedom of speech and
4
the requirement that a public official
5
6
prove actual malice by the
7
defendants. New York Times v.
8
Sullivan, 1974, 376 U.S. 254, 84
9
S.Ct. 710. The Times published a
10
paid advertisement supporting civil
11
12
rights activities in the South, which
13
an elected official in Montgomery,
14
Alabama felt defamed him. He
15
brought an action for libel against the
16
17
newspaper and various clergymen
18
who had signed the ad.
19
National issues, and certainly
20
those relating to the corrupt activities
21
that encouraged and insured the
22
23
success of the September 11, 2001,
24
terrorist hijackers, should receive the
25
liberal interpretation so as to protect
26
a former federal agent and witness
27
whose David versus Goliath efforts
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
26
1
sought to prevent these and other
2
great offenses against national
3
interests.
4
(f) SLAPP Doctrine Further
5
Supported By Federal Statute
6
7
Federal statutes, Title 42 Section
8
14501-14505, also address the
9
importance of protecting persons, in
10
this case volunteers, against liability
11
12
in the performance of services for a
13
nonprofit organization or
14
governmental entity. Stich had been
15
volunteering his efforts in a non-
16
17
profit manner for the benefit of the
18
United States and its people. Diablo
19
is a non-profit operation formed to
20
provide information on matters of
21
major national interest and concern.
22
23
Again, broad and liberal
24
interpretation of this statute and
25
Supreme Court decisions is dictated
26
by the grievous harm inflicted upon
27
U.S. interests.
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
27
1
(g) Whistleblower Laws
2
Provide Additional Protection
3
Numerous state and federal
4
whistleblower laws act to protect
5
6
whistleblowers against retaliation.
7
Even though many apply to federal
8
employees, the same protection
9
should apply to a former federal
10
employee seeking to report
11
12
misconduct having grave national
13
consequences. Several U.S. Supreme
14
Court decisions address the matter of
15
anyone reporting criminal activities.
16
17
See e.g., Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
18
Corp.464 U.S. 238 (1984); Farmer
19
v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (1977);
20
Olguin v. Inspiration Consolidated
21
Copper Company, 740 F.2d 1468 (9th
22
23
Cir. 1984); Garibaldi v. Lucky Food
24
Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir.
25
1984); Stokes v. Bechtel North
26
American Power Corp., 614 F.Supp.
27
732 (N.D. Cal. 1985); “The exercise
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
28
1
of his right to speak on issues of
2
public importance may not furnish
3
the basis for his dismissal from
4
public employment.” Pickering v.
5
6
Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563,
7
574 (1968); Bartel v. Federal
8
Aviation Administration, 725 F.2d
9
1402, 1415 (D.C.Cir. 1984);
10
Stich resorted to authoring books
11
12
as part of his whistleblower
13
activities. See William Bush v.
14
William Lucas, 462 US 367, 76 L Ed
15
2d 648, 103 S Ct 2404, for the right
16
17
to free speech and public policy
18
requirement to report corrupt and
19
criminal activities in government.
20
Under the first and fourteenth
21
amendments to the U.S.
22
23
Constitution, state and federal
24
governments are prohibited from
25
retaliating against whistleblowers.
26
See Pickering v. Board of Education,
27
391 U.S. 563 (1968).
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
29
1
(h) SLAPP Lawsuit Halts
2
Exposure Of Crimes Against the
3
United States
4
The facts indicate that the South
5
6
Carolina SLAPP lawsuit and
7
collection effects are the latest tactics
8
seeking to halt Stich’s reporting of
9
these criminal activities. The lawsuit
10
and judgment had no other possible
11
12
goal; neither Stich nor Diablo had
13
any sizable assets or insurance; the
14
only goal was to halt Stich’s
15
exposure activities and halt the
16
17
distribution of the books—despite
18
the awesome consequences upon the
19
United States, its people, and global
20
consequences.
21
(i) Facts Showing Fraud
22
Nature Of SLAPP Lawsuit
23
24
Support for the premise that the
25
South Carolina lawsuit and default
26
judgment were thinly veiled attempts
27
to block the exposure of corrupt and
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
30
1
criminal activities include the
2
following:
3

Gratzer, his lawyers, and the South Carolina judge, knew that blatant false charges were
4
made in the lawsuit that were contradicted by the clear wording in the book. The South
5
6
Carolina complaint stated that the section of the book, Drugging America, defamed the
7
South Carolina resident by stating he was accused of murdering his wife. No such
8
statement or insinuation was made and no reasonable person could reach such a
9
convoluted conclusion.
10
11

Gratzer and his lawyers knew that no money could be obtained through the lawsuit.
12

Gratzer and his lawyers knew that neither Stich nor Diablo could fund the defense of a
13
14
legal lawsuit in South Carolina.

Gratzer, his lawyers, and the South Carolina judge, knew that major crimes against the
15
16
United States were being exposed in Stich’s books, including the book Drugging
17
America, and that the lawsuit would hinder or halt the exposure of these deadly criminal
18
activities..
19
(j) False Statements In the
20
South Carolina Judgment
21
The wording of the default
22
23
judgment of July 5, 2000, shows
24
fabrication and misstatement of facts
25
by the South Carolina judge. The
26
South Carolina order falsely stated
27
that the book:
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
31

1
2
Accused Steve Gratzer of murdering his wife. [The wording clearly contradicts that
statement.]
3

Made several defamatory references to Gratzer. [The wording clearly contradicts that
4
statement.]
5

6
7
8
Advanced the theory that Steve Gratzer murdered his wife. [The wording clearly
contradicts that statement.]

Stating as fact matters that were never entered into the record and were not stated in the
9
10
alleged defamatory wording in Drugging America. For instance (a) That Doris Gratzer
11
committed suicide; that an investigation was made and that Steve Gratzer was not charged
12
[no support for those statements]; “Defendants” never contacted Steve Gratzer in South
13
14
Carolina. [There was no reason to contact the Steve Gratzer to determine if the letter written
to Stich by Dr. Cserna really stated what Stich wrote, and Stich had no knowledge of a Steve
15
16
Gratzer residing in South Carolina.]Stich’s writings never referred to anyone by the name of
17
Steve Gratzer residing in South Carolina. Stich would not know how to contact him or any of
18
the hundreds of other Steve Gratzers residing in the United States.]
19

Accused the South Carolina resident, “Steve Gratzer, of a serious crime. [The wording
20
clearly shows that to be a false statement.]
21
22

That Steve Gratzer ordered the book from an Internet site and that “based upon that site
23
the court had personal jurisdiction.” [No evidence of the site from which the book was
24
ordered. It could have been amazon.com or many others.]
25

That the Plaintiff, Gratzer, presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
26
27
28
acted with constitutional malice. [The wording in the book clearly shows that no evidence
existed, and the wording in the book in which hospital staff questioned the credibility of
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
32
what the woman told the physician contradicts any sign of malice.]
1
2

3
Default judgment made reference made to police and autopsy reports, when no such
reports were entered into the record in South Carolina and had nothing to do with
4
inserting into the book the exact wording stated by a physician.
5
6

7
The South Carolina order stated that the court received into evidence correspondence
from Stich showing a lack of respect for the legal system and that court. [The only
8
correspondence was the special appearance papers, none of which showed lack of respect
9
for the legal system, and this would have nothing to do with the charges made by
10
Gratzer.]
11
12
13
14

Failure of the South Carolina court to provide Stich notice of the default judgment
prevented him from filing notice of appeal. Stich did not receive a copy of the
order/default judgment until December 12, 2001, after he sent a letter to the South
15
16
Carolina court notifying it by certified mail dated December 5, 2001, that no such order
17
had ever been received. The subsequent receipt of the order from the court showed that it
18
was filed five months earlier, and that it had a December 10, 2001, certification date on it.
19
This long-delayed notification prevented filing any notice of appeal.
20
(k) The SLAPP Lawsuit and
21
Judgment Knowingly Obstructs
22
Justice
23
24
25
Gratzer, his lawyers, and the South Carolina judge, all knew that the SLAPP lawsuit and
default judgment would obstruct or block the reporting of the criminal activities that Stich and
26
27
28
his group of former and present government agents sought to report and to force people in
responsible government positions to exercise their responsibilities. Obstructing the reporting of
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
33
1
these criminal activities constitute a federal crime.17
2
3
A lawsuit against a former federal agent and witness that acts to block the reporting of known
criminal activities constitutes other federal crimes.18
4
(l) Book’s Entry In Judicial
5
6
Proceedings Make the Contents
7
Privileged
8
Reference was made to the book,
9
Drugging America, and included as
10
part of prior federal judicial
11
12
proceedings, providing an additional
13
level of protection against libel and
14
slander charges.
15
(m) Absence Of Personal
16
17
Jurisdiction By South Carolina
18
Judge
19
20
The South Carolina judge sought to exercise personal jurisdiction over Stich and Diablo on
his holding that they carried on “a part of its general business” in South Carolina and had an
21
22
Internet presence. The facts show otherwise:
23
 Neither had engaged in any “general business” conduct in South Carolina.
24
 Neither had sought or availed themselves of any benefits of the state of South Carolina.
25
26
27
28
17
Title 18 USC § 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.
18
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, 35, 111, 153, 241, 242, 245(b)(1)(B), 246, 371, 1341, 1343, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513(b),
1515(a).
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
34
1

Neither had any residence in South Carolina.
2

Neither had any business outlet in South Carolina.

Neither had any representatives in South Carolina.
5

Neither had any distributor in South Carolina.
6

Neither had any employees in South Carolina (or anywhere else).
7

Neither had ever sought any business from anyone in South Carolina.

Neither had made reference to any South Carolina resident named Steve Gratzer.
3
4
8
9
10
In Thomas E. Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Limited (2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12597),
11
the court held that personal jurisdiction does not exist when foreign company does not solicit
12
business or has sufficient contacts in California.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Personal jurisdiction is of two types: general jurisdiction exists when the activities of a
nonresident in the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic, or extensive and
wide-ranging. (Boaz v. Boyle & Co., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 717.) In such circumstances,
it is not necessary that the cause of action be related to the defendant’s forum activities.
(Ibid.) In contrast, under “specific jurisdiction,” the lawsuit must arise out of, or be related to,
the defendant’s contacts with the forum. (Id. At pp.716-717.) In the present case, plaintiffs do
not contend that California had general jurisdiction over defendants.
As the United States Supreme Court explained in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)
471 U.S. 462: “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being
subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful
‘contacts, ties, or relations.’ … By requiring that individuals have ‘fair warning that a
particular activity may subject [them] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign,’ … the Due
Process Clause ‘gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential
defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that
conduct will and will not render them liable to suit,’ …
The constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established
‘minimum contacts’ in the forum state. … In defining when it is that a potential defendant
should ‘reasonably anticipate’ out-of-state litigation, the Court frequently has drawn from the
reasoning of Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958): ‘The unilateral activity of those
who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of
contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the quality and
nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by
which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within
the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law.’
The ‘purposeful availment’ requirement ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into a
jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts, … or of the
‘unilateral activity of another party or a third person,’ … Jurisdiction is proper, however,
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a
‘substantial connection’ with the forum State. … Thus where the defendant ‘deliberately’ has
engaged in significant activities within a State, … or has created ‘’continuing obligations’
between himself and residents of the forum, … he manifestly has availed himself of the
privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by ‘the benefits
and protections’ of the forum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to
submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
supra, 471 U.S. at pp.471-475, citations, fns. And original italics omitted.)
Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts
within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to
determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and
substantial justice.’ … Thus courts in appropriate cases may evaluate the burden on the
defendant, the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in
obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining
the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in
furthering fundamental substantive social policies
(n) An Internet Presence Does Not Provide Worldwide Personal Jurisdiction
12
As a matter of common sense, and of constitutional due process, having an Internet site on
13
14
the World Wide Web as a constitutionally protected attempt to make known information on
15
major national interests; to influence conduct by officials in the three branches of government,
16
obviously does not subject that party to worldwide personal jurisdiction.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A person, to be subject to the jurisdiction of a particular state, must be engaged in
“systematic and continuous” activities with the forum state for personal jurisdiction to be
acquired. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414-416.
A presence on the World Wide Web does not constitute “systematic and continuous activities
within the forum state. The exercise of personal jurisdiction must be reasonable. Obviously,
exercising personal jurisdiction over a California or Nevada resident by a judge in a remote
24
25
26
27
28
distant location, even on the other side of the world, does not constitutional “reasonable” either
under common sense or the law.
The South Carolina judge held that the ability to order a book on the World Wide Web
invokes his personal jurisdiction over Stich and Diablo. The book, Drugging America, can be
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
36
1
ordered from anywhere in the world including for instance, Kabul, Afghanistan. Common sense
2
dictates that this does not constitute personal jurisdiction over a California or Nevada resident or
3
corporation.
4
5
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a passive website was insufficient to establish
6
jurisdiction. An alleged injury related to the operation of the Web site is insufficient to create
7
jurisdiction where the Web site operation is not directed at the forum state and no other contacts
8
with the forum state are found. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).
9
In Cybersell, the Arizona plaintiff that advertised for commercial services over the Internet
10
11
sued a Florida corporation that offered Web site construction services over the Internet under the
12
name “Cybersell.” The court found that no part of the defendant’s business in Florida was sought
13
or achieved in Arizona. The only contact with Arizona was the fact that the defendant’s Web site
14
15
16
was accessible over the Internet by Arizona residents. The court held that this contact was
insufficient to provide a basis for jurisdiction. Cybersell held that “no court has ever held that an
17
Internet advertisement alone is sufficient to subject the advertiser to jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s
18
home state.”
19
In Weber v. Jolly Hotels, 977 F. Supp. 327 (D.N.J. 1997), the New Jersey district court held
20
that maintaining a web site as an advertisement is comparable to advertising in a national
21
magazine and is insufficient to allow the forum court to establish personal jurisdiction over the
22
defendant. Because the defendant’s sole contact with New Jersey was its Web site, and because
23
the injury was not related to the Web site, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the
24
Italian defendant.
25
In IDS Life Insurance Company v. SunAmerica, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1258 (N.D. Ill. 1997), the
26
court held that advertising in nationally circulated newspapers and magazines and on national
27
television, and maintaining an Internet site, did not involve the required systematic and
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
37
1
continuous contact with the form state, Illinois, and therefore there could not exist personal
2
jurisdiction.
3
In Gaingolo v. Walt Disney World Co, 753 F.Supp. 148 (D.N.J. 1990), the court held that
4
allowing national advertising to make a defendant subject to suit wherever the advertisement
5
appeared would “substantially undermine the law of personal jurisdiction.” Where a web site
6
passively provides information or an advertisement on a Web site, without other contacts
7
existing with the forum state, the forum state cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the
8
defendant.
9
In Rannoch, Inc. v. Rannoch Corporation, 52 F.Supp. 2d 6811 (E.D. Va. 1999), the court
10
held that an interactive Web site accessible in Virginia was an insufficient basis upon which to
11
base personal jurisdiction where there was no evidence that the Internet activities were directed
12
at Virginia.
13
Before the Internet became a viable entity, the Supreme Court held in Calder v. Jones, 465
14
U.S. 783, 788 (1984), that the alleged harm must be focused on a resident of that state. No one in
15
South Carolina was quoted in any way by defendants.
16
17
Jurisdiction cannot be obtained by Internet presence. Rubbercraft Corp. of California v.
18
Rubbercraft, Inc., CV 97-4070-WDK, 1997 WL 835442 (C.D. Ca. 1997) (not reported in F.
19
Supp.)
20
21
The passive websites, www.unfriendlyskies.com, www.druggingamerica.com, and
www.defraudingamerica.com, are to provide information on important national issues to the
22
23
public and to influence government conduct and legislation. There is no reference to Nevada
24
resident Steve Gratzer or any of the other Steve Gratzer located throughout the 50 United States.
25
An information web site on the World Wide Web does not confer personal jurisdiction to every
26
judge in every state and every country.
27
28
The websites are not directed to South Carolina residents; the World Wide Web is available
to people throughout the world, and on that basis could not provide personal jurisdiction over
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
38
1
California or Nevada residents to every jurisdiction in the world, making a presence on the
2
WWW an invitation to be sued at a distant place and for that default judgment to be entered as a
3
local judgment thousands of miles away.
4
5
(o) Truth Is Defense To Libel Or Slander
6
The book, Drugging America, made no direct reference to an Ely, Nevada resident named
7
Steve Gratzer. The book quoted word-for-word what was written by a Nevada physician and Lt.
8
Colonel in the Idaho Air National Guard to Stich concerning what one of his patient’s stated to
9
him, and this short reference was included in statements made showing federal retaliation against
10
11
the National Guard physician for the air wing’s refusal to provide a helicopter to attack the
12
Weaver family at Ruby Ridge. No opinion or facts were stated concerning the woman’s husband.
13
Reporting what was stated to a writer is obviously a constitutionally protected right of any media
14
publication.
15
16
17
18
19
20
(p) Serious National Consequences Of Recognizing South Carolina SLAPP Judgment
If this court were to recognize and allow the entry of that South Carolina default judgment as
a local judgment, serious national ramifications would arise:

Make meaningless California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Invalidate constitutional due process rights.

Expose anyone anywhere in the world to sham lawsuits filed in distant courts, knowing
21
22
that funds would not be available to obtain legal counsel.
23
24

25
Halt the actions by Stich and his group of government agents seeking to make known
corrupt and criminal activities that they discovered as part of their official duties.
26
27
28

Discourage other federal agents or witnesses, or writers, from writing about national
issues.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
39
1

2
3
Aid and abet corrupt and criminal activities, including the type that encouraged and
insured the success of the four groups of hijackers on September 11, 2001.

Block the reporting of corrupt and criminal acts and block discussion of matters of
4
national concern and interest.
5
6

7
8
Aid and abet others to corruptly misuse the legal process to silence whistleblowers
exercising their duties as citizens.
III. SUMMARY
9
10
The South Carolina lawsuit and default judgment appears to be the latest and “modern” way
11
to silence a whistleblower and protect those engaging in criminal activities, using judges to
12
become part of the tragedy-related scheme.
13
14
The issues raised by this motion obviously have far reaching consequences. Any cover-up of
these matters will continue the tragic consequences that Stich has documented for the past 40
15
16
17
years. The key points supporting vacating the South Carolina judgments include:

18
Violation of Anti-SLAPP statute, doctrine and laws. The South Carolina lawsuit is a
thinly veiled effort to halt Stich’s attempts to expose patterns of corrupt and criminal
19
activities involving powerful people and interests and the tragic consequences upon
20
national interests.
21
22

Prevent the public from learning about the continuing misconduct that encouraged and
23
insured the success of the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackers, insuring the
24
continuation of other tragedies arising from the documented misconduct.
25

Absence of personal jurisdiction over Stich and Diablo by the South Carolina court.

Internet presence does not invoke personal jurisdiction in every jurisdiction in every
26
27
28
nation that has access to the World Wide Web.
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
40
1

2
3
Fraud by the plaintiff and legal counsel, as shown by the allegations in the South Carolina
complaint and the clear wording in the book Drugging America.

Fraud by the South Carolina judge, as statements in the South Carolina judgment are
4
blatantly false and also unsupported by the record.
5
6
7
8

Denial of due process, arising from failure to notify Stich of the judgment until many
months later, after the time for appeal had passed.
Since Gratzer and his lawyers have caused an effect to occur in California, upon a resident of
9
10
the state of California, and have sought to use the facilities of the state of California in carrying
11
out their fraudulent acts, arguably the California courts have the personal jurisdiction to alter that
12
South Carolina judgment in favor of Stich. Also, by invoking the facilities of the State of
13
California, and under the anti-SLAPP statute, they should be required to pay attorney fees, costs,
14
and damages.
15
16
17
I, Rodney F. Stich, declare that the statements in this motion are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
18
19
Date: ______________________, 2002.
20
21
22
______________________________
Rodney F. Stich
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion To Vacate Entry Of Foreign Judgment --
41