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 alter egos); Hernandez v. O’Malley, 98 F.3d 293, 294 (7th Cir. 1996) [Injunction against public official also applies to successor in office and impliedly to others connected therewith.]. See Restatement, Torts Section 937 Comment (a): Injunctive relief is necessary and mandatory “even though the harm done or threatened consists of nothing more than injury to feelings, sensitivity, honor, and especially invasions of privacy.” Invasions of privacy cannot be remedied at law by way of damages which are deemed inadequate, justifying the restraining order.
f. Plaintiff has alleged Defendants’ physical and electronic intrusion, TORTURE which constitutes a type of molestation, including that of a type of sexual harassment and molestation of Plaintiff, as the surveillance has interfered with his sex life and his bathroom activities during defecation and urination and those of his family members. The nature and degree of the perpetual and unlimited surveillance of Plaintiff Schlund is clearly subject to injunctive relief, if anything, to prevent his personal hygiene, bathroom privacy, and sexual privacy. Defendants, as electronic “peeping toms” are no different than any other peeping tom, except they hope not to be caught through the use of the aforesaid use of the electronic wireless telemetry. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund. One’s right of privacy is the right to be left alone and to be free from unwarranted nuisance, harassment, persecution, and TORTURE, which must be protected by means of injunction. The list of citation is nearly endless, 42 M.Jur 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, see Injunctions. Trespasses, especially of an electronic nature, lack an adequate remedy at law and is the ultimate ground on which equitable intervention in cases of trespass rest. Not to mention electronic wireless telemetry trespass has injured Plaintiff in the past, present, and future, accelerating his damages beyond adequate compensation and justification for the injunctive relief to prevent multiplicity of suits, as each occurring trespass constitutes a new cause of action justifying the injunctive relief.
g. Rule 65(b)(1) requires Plaintiff to show by his Affidavit or his Verified Complaint (both of which are done here), that irreparable injury will occur if the Order is not granted and until the opposing parties are notified and have an opportunity to appear. American Can Co., v Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321-24 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has filed his Notice and Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief to stop TORTURE, invasion of privacy and harassment, persecution, and deprivation of freedom of speech on September 23, 2005, which has been served on Defendants the same date. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, Affidavit under penalty of perjury, supply the quality and detail required, sufficient for the Court to understand the nature of the risk of irreparable injury and the need for the Court to execute prompt action, to stop the irreparable harm to Plaintiff and his rights. Defendants have no right to use electronic surveillance to violate Plaintiff’s rights. Assuming arguendo, any issue attempting to justify same by the Defendants would warrant a trial on the merits, or at least an evidentiary hearing with experts on the issues of law and/or facts, to be determined by the Court. George W. Bush is presently arguing with the Senate and Congress that he has the right to torture and use cruel and unusual punishment against prisoners never convicted of any crime. The Presidents defense or authorization of torture is undisputable. Plaintiff is not necessary after the loss of money Defendants have caused him, or any law capable of recoupment in an action at law, but to stop Defendants’ perpetual and unlimited trespass and violation of his Constitutional Rights. In Re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1145 (3rd Cir. 1982) [An Ex-Party Temporary Restraining Order should be issued where the irreparable loss and the nature of the damages will be such as are difficult to calculate, and the injury may be perpetual in nature due to Defendants acts and conduct.].
7. Plaintiff has asserted great personal and public interests related to Defendants’ violations of his and others’ rights.
a. Plaintiff has requested the Court to enter a temporary restraining order based on Defendants’ acts and conduct of using illegal surveillance, trespassing, intruding, violating, and depriving him of his Constitutional Rights to privacy, speech, voting, and to stop the harassment, persecution, and TORTURE of Plaintiff Schlund in the cover up of treason and other crimes. Id. supra. Each and all of these issues are supported by recent Supreme Court precedent authorizing the use of prejudgment injunction for equitable purposes, such as here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has set forth that when there are personal and collective individual interests involved, the equity court “has enhanced authority when public interests are involved.” See, United States Ex Rel. Rahman v. Oncology Associates, 198 F.3d 489, 495-97 (4th Cir. 1999) [“Has enhanced authority when public interest is involved.”]; De Beers Consolidated Mines, LTD v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 219, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1133-34, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945); and Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (1940). It is also appropriate for the Court to enter a restraining order so that the Court can conduct “a thorough inquiry” on injunction, Hospital Resource Personnel, Inc. v United States, 860 F.Supp. 1554, 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
8. Any form of harassment, persecution, and/or TORTURE justifies injunctive relief.
a. As set forth in the Complaint, Injunction Motion filed September 23, 2005, and Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund incorporated by this reference, supra, the said actions of Defendant and/or his agents constitute outrageous conduct and serious torture, cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment and punishment which violate
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and the international laws of the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) as clarified under federal law and the interpretative case law, supra. Plaintiff has established a “well-founded fear of persecution” based upon a “preponderance of the evidence,” and that it is “more likely than not” that he is being harassed, persecute,
and/or TORTURED in the manner set forth in his Complaint, provable by him. Such conduct is always entitled to injunctive relief.
In the immigration context, when a “political witness” is subjected to similar or identical conduct that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff Schlund to, resulting in electronic harassment, other harassment, persecution, blacklisting, illegal profiling, discrimination, sexual harassment, a form of discrimination, status discrimination, violations of his privacy, electronic physical assault and battery on Plaintiff, witness tampering, theft of his personal property and information and activities through agents and/or their electronic wireless telemetry and associated electronic product(s), used specifically for that purpose and tracking of Plaintiff, would allow such immigrant to assert an “asylum” defense to deportation. To deny this motion in any way will force Plaintiff under the use of TORTURE to seek political asylum in other countries. See, Vagil v. Gonzales, INS No. A75-259-237 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2005); INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Cary Simms v Sidney M. Wolfe, 471 U.S. 159 (1965); and in the criminal context, such illegal electronic invasion of privacy and electronic trespass by the government results in the evidence obtained being suppressed and thrown out as illegal confiscation of information, data, and communications, prohibited by the United States Constitution.
Siderman DeBlake v. R epublic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, all governments use their highest levels of available technology for surveillance intrusion, in violation of Constitutional Rights to privacy, in violation of the law, as well as TORTURE of the targeted individual (here, Plaintiff Schlund), and always that it used it for those purposes or otherwise. U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991) [Koyomejian was an alleged drug dealer, whereas the government utilized illegal wireless telemetry aural surveillance to steal Koyomejian’s activities in his home through his television and recorded his conversations and used other optical extraction of his personal activities, which was found by the Court to be illegal and in violation of his rights.). Tel-Oren v. Leban Arab Republic, 765 F.2d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985) [Interference, intrusion, trespass, harassment, and torture.]. Invasion, trespass, and intrusion through electronic means, violating Plaintiff Schlund’s rights to privacy, in and of itself, constitutes the Court granting injunctive relief under F.R.C.P. Rule 65, which remains undisputable. See, Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America, 564 F.2d 531 (1977); Black v. United States, 389 F.Supp. 529, remanded 184 App. D.C. 46, 564 F.2d 531, 23 F.R. Serv. 2d 1490. Also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980); Bevins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38 (1971); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319 (1978).
Therefore, “Testimony, by itself, is sufficient to meet the burden, if credible.” Lukwago v. INS, 329 F.3d 157, 177 (3rd Cir. 2003). Plaintiff Schlund’s Affidavit and Verified Complaint, which constitutes an affidavit, is sufficient for the Court to rely on in granting this Ex-Party Application for a Temporary Restraining order against Defendants’ illegal surveillance. Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (1965).
CONCLUSION
8. Based on the above said, Plaintiff Schlund respectfully requests the Court to grant his Ex-Party Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and preliminarily enjoin Defendants from electronically harassing, by invasion of his privacy and tracking Plaintiff, otherwise harassing, persecuting, and TORTURING him, which is illegal under the United States Constitution, CAT, and federal and state law, as stated herein. Plaintiff further requests the Court enjoin Defendants from depriving Plaintiff of his freedom of speech, privacy to his body, physiologically and psychologically, stop the interference with his privacy and association with others, guaranteed under the Constitution, interference with his voting rights, and to stop the cover-up of the fixing up the presidential elections of the United States of America, and Plaintiff’s whistle blowing activities concerning the aforesaid and other things causing him irreparable harm by the unlimited and perpetual violation of his rights, which renders any action for damages inadequate, justifying the equitable relief requested herein.
9. Plaintiff Schlund specifically requests the Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in each and all of the issues raised related to the granting of the denial of the Ex-Party Restraining Order requested by Plaintiff as required under F.R.C.P. 52 and 65(d). Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) [“Without adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellate review is in general not possible.”].
10. By the court denying this motion will result in the deaths of great numbers of men, woman and children from the government’s authorization to gas and inject people in investigations and will cause great numbers of Constitutional violations resulting in fixed trials and political imprisonments of innocent people. The government has never released any records on the gassing of people in any Freedom of Information Act Request and has side stepped the governments use of implants in every lawsuit and has only allowed cases to go to trial where the injected targeted person did not have the needed information to legally address the governments crimes. This is not a free and open society this is Nazism. The court should not be a party to mass murder and treason and should immediately grant this motion. These devices do not stop crime. The devices are used to generate crime and they are a weapon system designed into a bugging device which is used to fix elections and cover up corruption. By not granting this motion proves that we are no longer a free country and that the government has the right to the peoples bodies and can torture, rape, murder and control people as they wish as long as the government does such crimes under the protection of a corrupt judge’s warrant and protection. Such a country is not a free country and none of this is needed in any investigation. I have been under constant investigation for 29 years with implants and bugging devices in my clothing and I have been torture and denied all human and Constitutional right under the cover and color of law and after 29 years there is still no chance of my arrest for any crime. This in its self proves that I am not guilty of any crime. I am a eye witness to the President George W. Bush fixing the elections of the United States of America and I was injected with the present implants while I was working with the FBI supplying the FBI with every detail of how and where and why the elections would be fixed and I supplied the information with 100% accuracy eight years before the election. It is undeniable that anyone could do this without first reading the plans to do it. The government continues to deny Plaintiff all Constitutional rights under the cover and color of law. This kind of government can only be called Nazism. Plaintiff is like a Jew in Nazi Germany filing complaints against Hitler. America should stand up for Human Right not be a blatant violator of Human Rights using the cover of law.
Reservation of Rights.
10. Plaintiff is under electronic harassment, persecution, and torture by Defendant and his agents and reserves the right to change, add, supplement, and modify in part or whole this Application, Affidavit, and any other document filed or used in connection herewith at any time in his discretion.
Executed this 6th day of October, 2005.
_______________________________________
Charles August Schlund, III
8520 North 54 Drive
Glendale Arizona 85302
Plaintiff in Pro Per
ORIGINAL hand-delivered this
6th day of October, 2005 to:
Clerk of the Court
U.S. District Court of Arizona
401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
and
COPIES of the foregoing mailed to:
Mr. Richard G. Patrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408
Fax: (602) 514-7760
Office: (602) 514-7500
Richard.patrick@usdoj.gov
The Honorable
f. Plaintiff has alleged Defendants’ physical and electronic intrusion, TORTURE which constitutes a type of molestation, including that of a type of sexual harassment and molestation of Plaintiff, as the surveillance has interfered with his sex life and his bathroom activities during defecation and urination and those of his family members. The nature and degree of the perpetual and unlimited surveillance of Plaintiff Schlund is clearly subject to injunctive relief, if anything, to prevent his personal hygiene, bathroom privacy, and sexual privacy. Defendants, as electronic “peeping toms” are no different than any other peeping tom, except they hope not to be caught through the use of the aforesaid use of the electronic wireless telemetry. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund. One’s right of privacy is the right to be left alone and to be free from unwarranted nuisance, harassment, persecution, and TORTURE, which must be protected by means of injunction. The list of citation is nearly endless, 42 M.Jur 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, see Injunctions. Trespasses, especially of an electronic nature, lack an adequate remedy at law and is the ultimate ground on which equitable intervention in cases of trespass rest. Not to mention electronic wireless telemetry trespass has injured Plaintiff in the past, present, and future, accelerating his damages beyond adequate compensation and justification for the injunctive relief to prevent multiplicity of suits, as each occurring trespass constitutes a new cause of action justifying the injunctive relief.
g. Rule 65(b)(1) requires Plaintiff to show by his Affidavit or his Verified Complaint (both of which are done here), that irreparable injury will occur if the Order is not granted and until the opposing parties are notified and have an opportunity to appear. American Can Co., v Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321-24 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has filed his Notice and Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief to stop TORTURE, invasion of privacy and harassment, persecution, and deprivation of freedom of speech on September 23, 2005, which has been served on Defendants the same date. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, Affidavit under penalty of perjury, supply the quality and detail required, sufficient for the Court to understand the nature of the risk of irreparable injury and the need for the Court to execute prompt action, to stop the irreparable harm to Plaintiff and his rights. Defendants have no right to use electronic surveillance to violate Plaintiff’s rights. Assuming arguendo, any issue attempting to justify same by the Defendants would warrant a trial on the merits, or at least an evidentiary hearing with experts on the issues of law and/or facts, to be determined by the Court. George W. Bush is presently arguing with the Senate and Congress that he has the right to torture and use cruel and unusual punishment against prisoners never convicted of any crime. The Presidents defense or authorization of torture is undisputable. Plaintiff is not necessary after the loss of money Defendants have caused him, or any law capable of recoupment in an action at law, but to stop Defendants’ perpetual and unlimited trespass and violation of his Constitutional Rights. In Re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1145 (3rd Cir. 1982) [An Ex-Party Temporary Restraining Order should be issued where the irreparable loss and the nature of the damages will be such as are difficult to calculate, and the injury may be perpetual in nature due to Defendants acts and conduct.].
7. Plaintiff has asserted great personal and public interests related to Defendants’ violations of his and others’ rights.
a. Plaintiff has requested the Court to enter a temporary restraining order based on Defendants’ acts and conduct of using illegal surveillance, trespassing, intruding, violating, and depriving him of his Constitutional Rights to privacy, speech, voting, and to stop the harassment, persecution, and TORTURE of Plaintiff Schlund in the cover up of treason and other crimes. Id. supra. Each and all of these issues are supported by recent Supreme Court precedent authorizing the use of prejudgment injunction for equitable purposes, such as here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has set forth that when there are personal and collective individual interests involved, the equity court “has enhanced authority when public interests are involved.” See, United States Ex Rel. Rahman v. Oncology Associates, 198 F.3d 489, 495-97 (4th Cir. 1999) [“Has enhanced authority when public interest is involved.”]; De Beers Consolidated Mines, LTD v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 219, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1133-34, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945); and Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (1940). It is also appropriate for the Court to enter a restraining order so that the Court can conduct “a thorough inquiry” on injunction, Hospital Resource Personnel, Inc. v United States, 860 F.Supp. 1554, 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
8. Any form of harassment, persecution, and/or TORTURE justifies injunctive relief.
a. As set forth in the Complaint, Injunction Motion filed September 23, 2005, and Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund incorporated by this reference, supra, the said actions of Defendant and/or his agents constitute outrageous conduct and serious torture, cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment and punishment which violate
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and the international laws of the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) as clarified under federal law and the interpretative case law, supra. Plaintiff has established a “well-founded fear of persecution” based upon a “preponderance of the evidence,” and that it is “more likely than not” that he is being harassed, persecute,
and/or TORTURED in the manner set forth in his Complaint, provable by him. Such conduct is always entitled to injunctive relief.
In the immigration context, when a “political witness” is subjected to similar or identical conduct that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff Schlund to, resulting in electronic harassment, other harassment, persecution, blacklisting, illegal profiling, discrimination, sexual harassment, a form of discrimination, status discrimination, violations of his privacy, electronic physical assault and battery on Plaintiff, witness tampering, theft of his personal property and information and activities through agents and/or their electronic wireless telemetry and associated electronic product(s), used specifically for that purpose and tracking of Plaintiff, would allow such immigrant to assert an “asylum” defense to deportation. To deny this motion in any way will force Plaintiff under the use of TORTURE to seek political asylum in other countries. See, Vagil v. Gonzales, INS No. A75-259-237 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2005); INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Cary Simms v Sidney M. Wolfe, 471 U.S. 159 (1965); and in the criminal context, such illegal electronic invasion of privacy and electronic trespass by the government results in the evidence obtained being suppressed and thrown out as illegal confiscation of information, data, and communications, prohibited by the United States Constitution.
Siderman DeBlake v. R epublic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, all governments use their highest levels of available technology for surveillance intrusion, in violation of Constitutional Rights to privacy, in violation of the law, as well as TORTURE of the targeted individual (here, Plaintiff Schlund), and always that it used it for those purposes or otherwise. U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991) [Koyomejian was an alleged drug dealer, whereas the government utilized illegal wireless telemetry aural surveillance to steal Koyomejian’s activities in his home through his television and recorded his conversations and used other optical extraction of his personal activities, which was found by the Court to be illegal and in violation of his rights.). Tel-Oren v. Leban Arab Republic, 765 F.2d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985) [Interference, intrusion, trespass, harassment, and torture.]. Invasion, trespass, and intrusion through electronic means, violating Plaintiff Schlund’s rights to privacy, in and of itself, constitutes the Court granting injunctive relief under F.R.C.P. Rule 65, which remains undisputable. See, Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America, 564 F.2d 531 (1977); Black v. United States, 389 F.Supp. 529, remanded 184 App. D.C. 46, 564 F.2d 531, 23 F.R. Serv. 2d 1490. Also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980); Bevins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38 (1971); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319 (1978).
Therefore, “Testimony, by itself, is sufficient to meet the burden, if credible.” Lukwago v. INS, 329 F.3d 157, 177 (3rd Cir. 2003). Plaintiff Schlund’s Affidavit and Verified Complaint, which constitutes an affidavit, is sufficient for the Court to rely on in granting this Ex-Party Application for a Temporary Restraining order against Defendants’ illegal surveillance. Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (1965).
CONCLUSION
8. Based on the above said, Plaintiff Schlund respectfully requests the Court to grant his Ex-Party Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and preliminarily enjoin Defendants from electronically harassing, by invasion of his privacy and tracking Plaintiff, otherwise harassing, persecuting, and TORTURING him, which is illegal under the United States Constitution, CAT, and federal and state law, as stated herein. Plaintiff further requests the Court enjoin Defendants from depriving Plaintiff of his freedom of speech, privacy to his body, physiologically and psychologically, stop the interference with his privacy and association with others, guaranteed under the Constitution, interference with his voting rights, and to stop the cover-up of the fixing up the presidential elections of the United States of America, and Plaintiff’s whistle blowing activities concerning the aforesaid and other things causing him irreparable harm by the unlimited and perpetual violation of his rights, which renders any action for damages inadequate, justifying the equitable relief requested herein.
9. Plaintiff Schlund specifically requests the Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in each and all of the issues raised related to the granting of the denial of the Ex-Party Restraining Order requested by Plaintiff as required under F.R.C.P. 52 and 65(d). Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) [“Without adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellate review is in general not possible.”].
10. By the court denying this motion will result in the deaths of great numbers of men, woman and children from the government’s authorization to gas and inject people in investigations and will cause great numbers of Constitutional violations resulting in fixed trials and political imprisonments of innocent people. The government has never released any records on the gassing of people in any Freedom of Information Act Request and has side stepped the governments use of implants in every lawsuit and has only allowed cases to go to trial where the injected targeted person did not have the needed information to legally address the governments crimes. This is not a free and open society this is Nazism. The court should not be a party to mass murder and treason and should immediately grant this motion. These devices do not stop crime. The devices are used to generate crime and they are a weapon system designed into a bugging device which is used to fix elections and cover up corruption. By not granting this motion proves that we are no longer a free country and that the government has the right to the peoples bodies and can torture, rape, murder and control people as they wish as long as the government does such crimes under the protection of a corrupt judge’s warrant and protection. Such a country is not a free country and none of this is needed in any investigation. I have been under constant investigation for 29 years with implants and bugging devices in my clothing and I have been torture and denied all human and Constitutional right under the cover and color of law and after 29 years there is still no chance of my arrest for any crime. This in its self proves that I am not guilty of any crime. I am a eye witness to the President George W. Bush fixing the elections of the United States of America and I was injected with the present implants while I was working with the FBI supplying the FBI with every detail of how and where and why the elections would be fixed and I supplied the information with 100% accuracy eight years before the election. It is undeniable that anyone could do this without first reading the plans to do it. The government continues to deny Plaintiff all Constitutional rights under the cover and color of law. This kind of government can only be called Nazism. Plaintiff is like a Jew in Nazi Germany filing complaints against Hitler. America should stand up for Human Right not be a blatant violator of Human Rights using the cover of law.
Reservation of Rights.
10. Plaintiff is under electronic harassment, persecution, and torture by Defendant and his agents and reserves the right to change, add, supplement, and modify in part or whole this Application, Affidavit, and any other document filed or used in connection herewith at any time in his discretion.
Executed this 6th day of October, 2005.
_______________________________________
Charles August Schlund, III
8520 North 54 Drive
Glendale Arizona 85302
Plaintiff in Pro Per
ORIGINAL hand-delivered this
6th day of October, 2005 to:
Clerk of the Court
U.S. District Court of Arizona
401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
and
COPIES of the foregoing mailed to:
Mr. Richard G. Patrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408
Fax: (602) 514-7760
Office: (602) 514-7500
Richard.patrick@usdoj.gov
The Honorable
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
