8520 North 54th Drive
Glendale, Arizona 85302
Phone 602-670-2017
Plaintiff In Pro Per
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Charles August Schlund, III, an individual
Plaintiff,
v.
George W. Bush, President of The United States of America, a Sovereign Nation; et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: CV-03-1590 PHX VAM
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SCHLUND’S APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Schlund seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary relief to stop Defendants and their agents’ individual and/or collective efforts of using the said various techniques, including but not limited to Electronic Implants, Selectronic wireless telemetry, associated computers, computer system technology, codes, and associated wireless telemetry computer product(s) for the purpose of tracking Plaintiff and violating and interfering with his Constitutional Rights of privacy, privileges, association, and to stop Defendants and its agents from using surveillance, including but not limited to transmission of telecommunications to and used to extract from Plaintiff, including aural and other wireless telemetry surveillance to extract through the use of telecommunications private conversations and other information/data compilation processes used by Defendants concerning Plaintiff, his family, and his and the activities of others who associate with him. Defendants activities and conduct include the illegal and discriminatory “profiling” and “systems profiling” of Plaintiff Schlund and those he associates with and his/their activities directly connected to or casually related to Plaintiff in the status of a “political witness” or/and “whistle blower” of Defendant, deprivation and other interferences of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights in the manner aforesaid, constituting racketeering activities, including but not limited to those set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Id.). The Complaint and First Amended Complaint is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth verbatim, along with Plaintiff Schlund’s Affidavit supporting this motion. The Complaint sets forth adequate details of the harassment, persecution, and TORTURE of Plaintiff Schlund as a political witness / whistle blower, and the nature of the illegal physical and electronic trespasses into, on, and upon his body, home, and other areas of legally designated zones and orbits of privacy under the Constitution and federal law.
Plaintiff is not guilty of any crime and all physical evidence has been and will continue to be planted by the government to justify the use of torture by Defendants George W. Bush and his direction and control of the federal agencies and their agents. Plaintiff will never be arrested for the planted evidence and the investigations will continue for life and are designed to try to force Plaintiff under torture, attempted assassinations and death threats to commit some crime while bankrupting Plaintiff and TORTURING plaintiff and the use of constant sleep deprivation. These acts are State Sponsored acts of terrorism by the United States of America in the cover up of mass murder and treason. The courts of the United States have acted like Plaintiff is a Jew in Nazi Germany. Plaintiff will never be a drug dealer and will never intently or deliberately commit a crime. The zones and orbits of privacy have been and continue to be profiled, intruded into, and violated by Defendants, individually and collectively with their agents, in a manner which constitutes egregious deprivation of civil rights, sexual harassment and torture through illegal acts and conduct sanctioned by judges, constituting non-garden variety racketeering activities. See Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Amended Verified Complaint for deprivation of civil rights through racketeering activities, filed September 15, 2005, and his Notice of Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief to Stop Torture, Invasion of Privacy, Harassment, Persecution, and Deprivation of Freedom of Speech filed September 23, 2005, incorporated herein verbatim by this reference in the interests of judicial economy. The Court is requested to take mandatory judicial notice of the judicial records under F.R.E. 201 and 901(7) [Public Records].
2. Plaintiff can demonstrate the likelihood of prevailing in his causes of action and faces irreparable harm and his assassination of so called natural causes which are caused from being tortured unless Defendant and his agents are immediately restrained from continuing their infringing, targeting, profiling, systems profiling, and electronic telecommunication extractions, TORTURE and tracking of Plaintiff Schlund in a constitutionally prohibited, perpetual and nearly unlimited electronic wireless telemetry nature and degree through the methods of electronic intrusion, bugging, and tracking (as customarily referred to in the surveillance community) which involves Defendant Bush individually and Defendant Bush in his capacity and under color of authority/office as President of the United States, violating all of Plaintiff Schlund’s rights.
3. On the above basis, Plaintiff Schlund asks that his Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction be granted in order to maintain the status quo of his personal health and the digitally extracted, captured, transferred, compiled, and stored information concerning his personal life and his activities and associations with others be ordered preserved and maintained and placed under the custody of the Court, to be analyzed by Plaintiff’s experts, with the Court ordering a skilled, educated, and experienced Master Expert Commission composed of Plaintiff and three (3) experts retained by Plaintiff Schlund to ensure the accuracy and authentication of the computer compiled data and information concerning him, his activities towards said Defendants, his work with the FBI and others resulting in Defendants’ illegal profiling of him as a “political witness” and “whistle blower” and other categories for tracking and surveillance. If the preliminary injunction is not granted, irreparable harm will continue to result to Plaintiff, his family, and those that associate with him in that he and their privacy will be destroyed, interfered with, penetrated, and deprived through such electronic wireless telemetry intrusion and TORTURE prohibited under the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and other federal law. Plaintiff will continue to be subjected to physical and emotional harassment, sound harassment, electronic force harassment constituting electronic forms of persecution, harassment, sleep deprivation and TORTURE.
4. Plaintiff makes this motion in good faith and not for the purposes of harassment of any of the Defendants, but for the sole and exclusive protection of himself and others and the hopeful prevention of his being electronically harassed, persecuted, and tortured as a political witness against said Defendant and his agents.
/ / /
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. The facts relevant to this motion are fully set forth in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint and in his Notice and Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief filed September 23, 2005, including his extensive Affidavit filed with such motion, incorporated herein by this reference, supra. Since the Court has been requested to take mandatory judicial notice of the aforesaid filings and its records, in the interests of judicial economy Plaintiff will not detail out the specific facts again relating to Defendants’ intentional deprivation of his civil rights of the racketeering caliber used to harass, persecute, discriminate, sexually harass, trespass, TORTURE and violate the privacy of Plaintiff except as set forth herein. Plaintiff does here notify the court that Plaintiff was almost tortured to death the last two times Plaintiff filed papers with the court and did end up in the hospital close to death from retaliation for the filings. The court must fully understand that any conversations about drugs made by Plaintiff were first agreed to be made with the government in exchange for relief from TORTURE and that everyone of these conversations was made while Plaintiff was close to death under TORTURE by the government and that all phone calls were made in threes where the first phone call was the agreement to give the corrupt evil government agents the phone call in exchange for relief from torture so the agents could supply the conversation to one of their pedophile or evil, corrupt or dishonest judges under perjury. The second phone call would be the government’s evidence and the third phone call would be about how the government will now commit more perjury before their evil or satanic or corrupt or pedophile judge. The government then planted all supporting physical evidence in the protection of the Bush family and to cover up the fixing of the presidential elections of the United States and mass murder and treason involved. Plaintiff can prove all of this in trial with the government having no chance in trial. As of the date of filing this Ex-Parte Motion for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Defendants’ acts and conduct have continued and will continue to irreparably harm Plaintiff in the nature aforesaid, violating all his rights. Defendants have used the electronic wireless telemetry technology, related system(s) and associated wireless telemetry wireless product(s), engineering and designed for trespassing and stealing Plaintiff’s personal information through provable telecommunications or other methods and then used such information to plant all physical evidence against Plaintiff, well known and provable by experts who are past employees and other associates with Defendants and who have utilized these system(s) and advanced systems in the past for these unique and specific purposes at will in perpetuity to, in fact, selectively target (including selective administrative targeting) of individual(s) to invade their privacy, harass, persecute, TORTURE and deprive such individual of privacy in an unlimited and perpetual manner. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund incorporated by this reference.
Plaintiff Schlund reserves the right to further prove the systems technology through witnesses, experts and will demonstrate the torture and if the courts wishes the murder of the courts selected targets at time of hearing and the acts and conduct of Defendants’ agents used for this particular type of surveillance which results in sound harassment, persecution, Physical TORTURE, sleep deprivation and deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. No secret technology is required to torture and murder political witnesses. All that is required is to legally authorize the placing of the devices on or in the targeted person under the cover and color of law by corrupt and dishonest agents. To torture only requires the legal access to the targeted person in a created investigation. The cover of law is used for that access and Plaintiff can supply the court with an almost unlimited number of witnesses to the torture and the resulting murders. The problem is not being able to prove the case but to force the court to allow the proving of the case.
6. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
III.
ARGUMENT
6. Plaintiff meets the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and accordingly, his motion should be granted.
a. In cases involving the profiling and systems profiling of an individual as a political witness, whistle blower, or other category defined pursuant to Defendants’ self-serving criteria to violate Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief on the grounds he clearly meets the well settled standard which requests a showing of:
“Either a combination of probability of success and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.” Ingles & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975); Accord Kapau v. Yamamota, 622 F.2d 449, 457 (9th Cir. 1980); Miss. Universe Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1979).
b. The alternative test above clearly exists under the facts that exist here. To date, Defendant, whether in his individual capacity or in his official capacity as President of the United States, and his attorneys of record, absolutely cannot disprove the fact they are violating Plaintiff Schlund’s constitutionally protected rights, as aforesaid. In fact, Plaintiff has submitted overwhelming evidence, under penalty of perjury, and can continue to build a mountain of relevant, material, and quality evidence substantiating the facts of Defendants’ illegal and racketeering activities. Plaintiff can further substantiate with his experts the nature, degree, and methods of electronic wireless telemetry and associated product(s) to intrude in and upon Plaintiff and his home and other established orbits and zones of privacy which have been and continue to be violated by Defendant(s) and his agents.
c. Under present law, interference and violation of Plaintiff’s freedom of speech and voting are prima faciae violations of rights, justifying the restraining of Defendants’ acts and conduct, as aforesaid. Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 2000) [Prohibitation on “retaliation” against Plaintiffs who are suing for alleged violation of freedom of speech rights and the granting of the injunction is proper], in violation of voting rights, so historically protected it does not even deserve a citation, and the Court can take judicial notice of it.
d. Plaintiff has also alleged sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination and testifies Defendant electronically invaded his toilet privacy, shower privacy, and sexual privacy and harasses him through their methods. Defendant also discriminates against Plaintiff by illegal profiling and assigning computerized code identifiers to Plaintiff, resulting in the electronic and other classification methods used for such intrusions of his privacy, which also justify the Court granting the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff. Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) [Court enjoined the City to abstain from racial and other forms of discrimination in annexation “policies” does “no more than instruct the city to obey the law, requiring the court to specifically identify the specific conduct to be enjoined.”]. Plaintiff is only asking the court to abide by the law and the government is trying to authorize the use of TORTURE and murder of political witnesses that they know are not guilty of any crime.
e. Plaintiff’s experts can convey to the Court the exact nature and type of system(s) technology, associated electronic product(s), and the type, nature, and degree of the Defendants’ acts which are prohibited, to justify the restraining order against Defendants. F.R.C.P. Rule 65(d) describes the categories of persons subject to an injunction or order, which can easily include Defendant individually and/or in his official capacity as President of the United States, which include all associated agents, officers, employees and others “in act of concert or participation with Defendant and others associated with or to him which can be easily substantiated by Plaintiff.” Additive Control and Measurement Systems, Inc. v. Flow Data, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1395 (Fed. Circ. 1996); and a person(s) or agency(ies) in a closer connected relationship, whether casual or otherwise, with Defendants, may be bound, including alter egos and public officials and employees who may be the successor in office or interest to the use of said electronic systems and methods used for surveillance as alleged by Plaintiff. United States v. Vitek Supply Co., 151 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1998) (Rule 65(d) extends scope of injunction to bind
- Reasons For Restraining -- Pt. 2 —Martin F. Abernathy, Tue Oct 18 22:26
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]