II. Legal Discussion.
A. Any Form of Torture Justifies Injunctive Relief.
Plaintiff Schlund has specifically detailed the acts by Defendant Bush done
individually and later in his capacity as President of the United States after
he was elected through the efforts of election fraud involving his family and
others ultimately the presidency being decided by specific appointments his
father Bush Sr. made to the United States Supreme Court. It is beyond debate
Defendant Bush as an individual engaged in election fraud and conspiracy to
commit election fraud to obtain the office of President of the United States of
America. Immediately upon obtaining the high office he shuffled the most
corrupt departments of the United States government ( i.e., DEA) under an
umbrella of “Homeland Security” to attempt to give creditability to an agency
which lacks total creditability due to it’s continuous illegal and corrupt
activities violating individuals civil rights to date. It has been repeatedly
substantiated that the DEA and other agencies engages in drug manufacturing,
sales of drugs, gun running, black mail, extortion, fraud and other types of
racketeering activities in attempts to continually place itself and members
above the law. One of the activities engaged in by Defendant Bush is
electronic harassment and torture. This activity justifies this court issuing a
restraining order even without consideration of the invasion of privacy,
electronic trespass and deprivation of freedom of speech of Plaintiff Schlund
which also violates his rights guaranteed and protected under the United States
Constitution. In fact, it remains beyond dispute that Plaintiff Schlund is a
“Political Witness” and as plead in his Verified Complaint has been subjected to
pass, present and will be subjected to future persecution because of his
political views. This fact alone justifies the issues of Injunctive Relief by
this court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. Appellant Schlund
has set forth in his Verified Complaint and Verified Affidavits herewith of
Defendant Bush’s pattern and/or practice of violation of his Constitutional
Rights guaranteed to him under the United States Constitution 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 Amendments to the Constitution which guarantee his rights as a United
States citizen. His affidavit unquestionably substantiates he has a reasonable
fear from his constant and perpetual harassment by Defendant Bush and others in
the government based on his personal knowledge of their corrupt activities and
his personal involvement with those individuals just after exiting the United
States Marine Corp where he was honorable discharged under honorable conditions.
Moreover, the activities of Defendant Bush as an individual and/or in his
capacity as President or as his individual capacity transition into his position
as President of the United States raise above the level of mere harassment and
constitute a form of “persecution” and “torture” as set forth in the Circuit
Court decisions of every Circuit Court in the United States of America and the
United States Supreme Court opinions as further explained herein. Further,
Appellant Schlund has set forth specific facts concerning these severe and
continuous economic hardship which also is a form of persecution and torture and
an independent ground like those set forth above for “asylum” asserted by others
attempting to seek the protections of their rights under the United States
Constitution by remaining in this country under that defense to deportation, as
further explained below.
PLAINTIFF SCHLUND HAS ALLEGED
VARIOUS FORMS OF TORTURE
The aforegoing various forms of torture asserted in depth by Plaintiff Schlund
are all fully acknowledged in well known federal law and also as violations
under the United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment the (“CAT”) as clarified under 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3) or under the United Nation Convention against torture and other
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, 8 C.F.R § 208.13(c)(1) and
the interpretative case law set forth herein. Essentially, under all of the
interpretative case law provides an Appellant Schlund must demonstrate a
‘well-founded fear of persecution” based on a “preponderance of the evidence”
and that it is “more likely than not” he is being persecuted. The well-founded
fear of persecution “standard” is allowed to be proven by creditable evidence of
Appellant Schlund to substantiate his civil rights claim against Defendant Bush
and those acting in a joint effort with him to carry out the same common scheme,
plan and design which lead to the persecution of Appellant Schlund. See, Vagil
vs. Gonzales, INS No. A75-259-237(7th Cir., August 16, 2005) [Dealing with black
listing and persecution against Mr. and Mrs. Vagil on grounds of their religious
and political affiliations with the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints;
the “Mormon Church” who then became victims of harassment, threats, and
“crushing economic pressure” by the (“Soviet Intelligent Service”) “KGB”
claiming that they were “American spies simply because Vagil was educated in the
field of Physics. The KGB individual agents involved wrongfully assigned to
Vagil a political opinion as justification for their harassment and torture of
her to justify their stupid act of violating her Civil Rights. The exact same
types of acts done by Defendant Bush and the agents in departments working under
his chain of command as asserted by Plaintiff Schlund]. This court is mandated
to uphold the justification to issue a restraining order under Federal Rules
Civil Procedures Rule 65 for the violation of any Plaintiff Schlund’s
Constitutional Rights or the harassment or torture of him which consuetude’s
irreparable harm. All Plaintiff Schlund needs to substantiate is that his
claims as set forth in his Verified Complaint and Affidavit are “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole”. See INS vs. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), sighted id. It
is also beyond dispute that the law acknowledges that the government
interferes, harasses and tortures (political witness) such as Plaintiff Schlund
causing irreparable harm by tortuously violating his civil rights justifying
injunctive relief. See, Central Intelligence Agency vs. John Cary Simms and
Sidney M. Wolfe, 471 U.S. 159, 85 L.Ed. 2d 185 S. Ct. 1881(1965); Siderman
DeBlake vs. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992)].
All governments use their highest levels of available technology for
surveillance intrusion in violation of the law as well as torture of the
targeted individual and then always deny it used it for those proposes or
otherwise.]; U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991)] Koyomejian
was an alleged drug dealer whereupon the government utilized illegal wireless
telemetry electric aural surveillance using their system technology to
integrate with his television recording his conversations and use of other
optical extraction of his personal activities therewith. This same form of
wireless telemetry is somewhat similar to that used on Plaintiff Schlund and
others which can easily be proven. The court specifically found that this was
illegal and outside the scope of the reported legitimate warrants issued by the
surveillance court. The evidence extracted from Koyomejian by these illegal means
was suppressed.]; Tel-Oren vs. Leban Arab Republic, 765F.2d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir.
1984)(Opinion of Edwards, J.) Cert. denied, 470 U.S.1003, 105 S.Ct. 1354, 84 L.
Ed 2d 377 (1985) [Id. Interference, harassment and torture.].
In the underlying Siderman Case, the 9th Circuit Justice Kaufmen
noted, “Judge Kaufman’s surrey of the universal condemnations of torture
provides much support for the view that torture violates…[a]mong the rights
universally proclaimed by all nations (including U.S.A.), as we have noted is
the right to be free of harassment and physical torture (and interference with
our civil rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution) (630 F.2d at
890). The Restatement 702 comment recognizes the prohibition against official
torture (harassment and interference) as one of only a few jus cogens
norms.”(Words in parenthesis’s added for emphasis and underlined by undersign.)
Moreover, the Federal Rules Of Evidence Rule 803 and as acknowledged in the case
of Warfield vs. Shell Oil Co., 106 Ariz. 181,472, P.2d 50 (1970), specifically
referencing the prohibition against harassment, interference, genocide, slavery,
murder, causing the disappearance of individuals, or prolonged pain and
suffering though any [device] or [instrumentality] in violation of
Constitutional or other protected rights known though out the nations. It is
indisputable that Plaintiff Schlund has allege specific facts in his Verified
Complaint and Affidavit attached and incorporated by this reference, hereinafter
referred to as (“Schlund Affidavit”) states Defendant Bush’s acts and conduct
of interfering with his rights, harassing him and his family, murdering
witnesses, engaging in witness tamping, engaging in election fraud, causing the
disappearance of individuals, causing prolonged pain and suffering to Appellant
Schlund, invading his rights to privacy and other privileges with his attorneys,
doctor, etc. through use of wireless telemetry and aural surveillance couple
with bugging his home, vehicle and, most of importantly, penetrating his body
with known scientific medical procedures for propose of implanting electronic
implants into him for various purposes and then conducting observational
surveillance though a electronic wireless telemetry including optical and other
means according to proof. See Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (“Complaint”)
incorporated by this references and the court is requested to take judicial
notice of it and any amendments there to in it’s record and the Court file in
this matter. The above sighted case law is rashly based decision in conclusion
by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court which
distinctly state that all governments (through it’s workers and independent
contractors) including the USA, “then engage in torture deny it, in no state
claims a sauvignon right to torture it’s own citizens.” (See Filartiga, 630 F.2d
at 884 noting that no contemporary state has a right to torture its own citizens
or another nation citizenry Id. at (Footnote 15). Torture constitutes an
obvious interference in violation of individual protected rights under the
United States Constitution which fall within this reasoning. United States vs.
Koyomejian;. The Affidavit of Schlund substantiates the factual bases for him
being targeted as a political witness constantly asserting his “political
opinion” and the truth about the corrupt activities of Defendant Bush both
individually and/or through the use of fraudulent election and fixing of the
Presidential election appointed by the United States Supreme Court to the title
of President Of The United States has placed him on a “list” maintained by the
Defendant and its agencies for purposes of harassment, discrimination, torture,
and other forms of persecution of him on that basis entitling him to Injunctive
Relief. For example, in the Summary Of The Facts (“SOF”) incorporated herein
here by this reference in the interest of judicial economy he states as an
example his requesting injunctive relief in his complaint to stop “torture,
deprivation of Civil Rights, interference with his freedom of speech,
interference with his rights to privacy, harassment, administrative profiling
and selective enforcement of the law, administrative punishment, selective
enforcement of the law, the exercise of administrative selective attempt
justification for (P)perpetual surveillance, trespass into his home and other
areas, trespass by electronic means, trespass to his rights of privacy and other
trespasses well recognized that shackle liability to the individuals involved
(including Defendant Bush in either capacity as sued) for the personal liability
and damages justify injunctive relief under FRCP Rule 65. Black vs. Sheraton
Corp. of America, 564, F.2d 531(1977); Black vs The United States, 389 F. Supp.
529 Remanded 184 App. D.C. 46. 564 F.2d 531, 23 F.R. Serv. 2d 1490 (Disagreed
with Metz vs. United States, 788 F.2d 1528, Cert. Den. 479 U.S. 930 (1975).
A. Any Form of Torture Justifies Injunctive Relief.
Plaintiff Schlund has specifically detailed the acts by Defendant Bush done
individually and later in his capacity as President of the United States after
he was elected through the efforts of election fraud involving his family and
others ultimately the presidency being decided by specific appointments his
father Bush Sr. made to the United States Supreme Court. It is beyond debate
Defendant Bush as an individual engaged in election fraud and conspiracy to
commit election fraud to obtain the office of President of the United States of
America. Immediately upon obtaining the high office he shuffled the most
corrupt departments of the United States government ( i.e., DEA) under an
umbrella of “Homeland Security” to attempt to give creditability to an agency
which lacks total creditability due to it’s continuous illegal and corrupt
activities violating individuals civil rights to date. It has been repeatedly
substantiated that the DEA and other agencies engages in drug manufacturing,
sales of drugs, gun running, black mail, extortion, fraud and other types of
racketeering activities in attempts to continually place itself and members
above the law. One of the activities engaged in by Defendant Bush is
electronic harassment and torture. This activity justifies this court issuing a
restraining order even without consideration of the invasion of privacy,
electronic trespass and deprivation of freedom of speech of Plaintiff Schlund
which also violates his rights guaranteed and protected under the United States
Constitution. In fact, it remains beyond dispute that Plaintiff Schlund is a
“Political Witness” and as plead in his Verified Complaint has been subjected to
pass, present and will be subjected to future persecution because of his
political views. This fact alone justifies the issues of Injunctive Relief by
this court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. Appellant Schlund
has set forth in his Verified Complaint and Verified Affidavits herewith of
Defendant Bush’s pattern and/or practice of violation of his Constitutional
Rights guaranteed to him under the United States Constitution 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 Amendments to the Constitution which guarantee his rights as a United
States citizen. His affidavit unquestionably substantiates he has a reasonable
fear from his constant and perpetual harassment by Defendant Bush and others in
the government based on his personal knowledge of their corrupt activities and
his personal involvement with those individuals just after exiting the United
States Marine Corp where he was honorable discharged under honorable conditions.
Moreover, the activities of Defendant Bush as an individual and/or in his
capacity as President or as his individual capacity transition into his position
as President of the United States raise above the level of mere harassment and
constitute a form of “persecution” and “torture” as set forth in the Circuit
Court decisions of every Circuit Court in the United States of America and the
United States Supreme Court opinions as further explained herein. Further,
Appellant Schlund has set forth specific facts concerning these severe and
continuous economic hardship which also is a form of persecution and torture and
an independent ground like those set forth above for “asylum” asserted by others
attempting to seek the protections of their rights under the United States
Constitution by remaining in this country under that defense to deportation, as
further explained below.
PLAINTIFF SCHLUND HAS ALLEGED
VARIOUS FORMS OF TORTURE
The aforegoing various forms of torture asserted in depth by Plaintiff Schlund
are all fully acknowledged in well known federal law and also as violations
under the United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment the (“CAT”) as clarified under 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3) or under the United Nation Convention against torture and other
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, 8 C.F.R § 208.13(c)(1) and
the interpretative case law set forth herein. Essentially, under all of the
interpretative case law provides an Appellant Schlund must demonstrate a
‘well-founded fear of persecution” based on a “preponderance of the evidence”
and that it is “more likely than not” he is being persecuted. The well-founded
fear of persecution “standard” is allowed to be proven by creditable evidence of
Appellant Schlund to substantiate his civil rights claim against Defendant Bush
and those acting in a joint effort with him to carry out the same common scheme,
plan and design which lead to the persecution of Appellant Schlund. See, Vagil
vs. Gonzales, INS No. A75-259-237(7th Cir., August 16, 2005) [Dealing with black
listing and persecution against Mr. and Mrs. Vagil on grounds of their religious
and political affiliations with the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints;
the “Mormon Church” who then became victims of harassment, threats, and
“crushing economic pressure” by the (“Soviet Intelligent Service”) “KGB”
claiming that they were “American spies simply because Vagil was educated in the
field of Physics. The KGB individual agents involved wrongfully assigned to
Vagil a political opinion as justification for their harassment and torture of
her to justify their stupid act of violating her Civil Rights. The exact same
types of acts done by Defendant Bush and the agents in departments working under
his chain of command as asserted by Plaintiff Schlund]. This court is mandated
to uphold the justification to issue a restraining order under Federal Rules
Civil Procedures Rule 65 for the violation of any Plaintiff Schlund’s
Constitutional Rights or the harassment or torture of him which consuetude’s
irreparable harm. All Plaintiff Schlund needs to substantiate is that his
claims as set forth in his Verified Complaint and Affidavit are “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole”. See INS vs. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), sighted id. It
is also beyond dispute that the law acknowledges that the government
interferes, harasses and tortures (political witness) such as Plaintiff Schlund
causing irreparable harm by tortuously violating his civil rights justifying
injunctive relief. See, Central Intelligence Agency vs. John Cary Simms and
Sidney M. Wolfe, 471 U.S. 159, 85 L.Ed. 2d 185 S. Ct. 1881(1965); Siderman
DeBlake vs. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992)].
All governments use their highest levels of available technology for
surveillance intrusion in violation of the law as well as torture of the
targeted individual and then always deny it used it for those proposes or
otherwise.]; U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991)] Koyomejian
was an alleged drug dealer whereupon the government utilized illegal wireless
telemetry electric aural surveillance using their system technology to
integrate with his television recording his conversations and use of other
optical extraction of his personal activities therewith. This same form of
wireless telemetry is somewhat similar to that used on Plaintiff Schlund and
others which can easily be proven. The court specifically found that this was
illegal and outside the scope of the reported legitimate warrants issued by the
surveillance court. The evidence extracted from Koyomejian by these illegal means
was suppressed.]; Tel-Oren vs. Leban Arab Republic, 765F.2d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir.
1984)(Opinion of Edwards, J.) Cert. denied, 470 U.S.1003, 105 S.Ct. 1354, 84 L.
Ed 2d 377 (1985) [Id. Interference, harassment and torture.].
In the underlying Siderman Case, the 9th Circuit Justice Kaufmen
noted, “Judge Kaufman’s surrey of the universal condemnations of torture
provides much support for the view that torture violates…[a]mong the rights
universally proclaimed by all nations (including U.S.A.), as we have noted is
the right to be free of harassment and physical torture (and interference with
our civil rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution) (630 F.2d at
890). The Restatement 702 comment recognizes the prohibition against official
torture (harassment and interference) as one of only a few jus cogens
norms.”(Words in parenthesis’s added for emphasis and underlined by undersign.)
Moreover, the Federal Rules Of Evidence Rule 803 and as acknowledged in the case
of Warfield vs. Shell Oil Co., 106 Ariz. 181,472, P.2d 50 (1970), specifically
referencing the prohibition against harassment, interference, genocide, slavery,
murder, causing the disappearance of individuals, or prolonged pain and
suffering though any [device] or [instrumentality] in violation of
Constitutional or other protected rights known though out the nations. It is
indisputable that Plaintiff Schlund has allege specific facts in his Verified
Complaint and Affidavit attached and incorporated by this reference, hereinafter
referred to as (“Schlund Affidavit”) states Defendant Bush’s acts and conduct
of interfering with his rights, harassing him and his family, murdering
witnesses, engaging in witness tamping, engaging in election fraud, causing the
disappearance of individuals, causing prolonged pain and suffering to Appellant
Schlund, invading his rights to privacy and other privileges with his attorneys,
doctor, etc. through use of wireless telemetry and aural surveillance couple
with bugging his home, vehicle and, most of importantly, penetrating his body
with known scientific medical procedures for propose of implanting electronic
implants into him for various purposes and then conducting observational
surveillance though a electronic wireless telemetry including optical and other
means according to proof. See Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (“Complaint”)
incorporated by this references and the court is requested to take judicial
notice of it and any amendments there to in it’s record and the Court file in
this matter. The above sighted case law is rashly based decision in conclusion
by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court which
distinctly state that all governments (through it’s workers and independent
contractors) including the USA, “then engage in torture deny it, in no state
claims a sauvignon right to torture it’s own citizens.” (See Filartiga, 630 F.2d
at 884 noting that no contemporary state has a right to torture its own citizens
or another nation citizenry Id. at (Footnote 15). Torture constitutes an
obvious interference in violation of individual protected rights under the
United States Constitution which fall within this reasoning. United States vs.
Koyomejian;. The Affidavit of Schlund substantiates the factual bases for him
being targeted as a political witness constantly asserting his “political
opinion” and the truth about the corrupt activities of Defendant Bush both
individually and/or through the use of fraudulent election and fixing of the
Presidential election appointed by the United States Supreme Court to the title
of President Of The United States has placed him on a “list” maintained by the
Defendant and its agencies for purposes of harassment, discrimination, torture,
and other forms of persecution of him on that basis entitling him to Injunctive
Relief. For example, in the Summary Of The Facts (“SOF”) incorporated herein
here by this reference in the interest of judicial economy he states as an
example his requesting injunctive relief in his complaint to stop “torture,
deprivation of Civil Rights, interference with his freedom of speech,
interference with his rights to privacy, harassment, administrative profiling
and selective enforcement of the law, administrative punishment, selective
enforcement of the law, the exercise of administrative selective attempt
justification for (P)perpetual surveillance, trespass into his home and other
areas, trespass by electronic means, trespass to his rights of privacy and other
trespasses well recognized that shackle liability to the individuals involved
(including Defendant Bush in either capacity as sued) for the personal liability
and damages justify injunctive relief under FRCP Rule 65. Black vs. Sheraton
Corp. of America, 564, F.2d 531(1977); Black vs The United States, 389 F. Supp.
529 Remanded 184 App. D.C. 46. 564 F.2d 531, 23 F.R. Serv. 2d 1490 (Disagreed
with Metz vs. United States, 788 F.2d 1528, Cert. Den. 479 U.S. 930 (1975).
- High-Tech Torture: Part 4 of 4 —M. F. Abernathy, Fri Sep 16 15:18
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
