And sovereign or limited immunity is absolutely not a defense against deference
against the tort claims, Supra. as set forth in those cases. Also, see Clinton
vs. Joan, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (“No one is above the law.”). Defendant Bush’s
allege acts and conduct as an individual and/or in his capacity as appointed by
the U.S. Supreme Court to the title of President of the United States and other
Federal Statutes prohibits the volition of individual or the tortuous
deprivation of individual civil rights under Federal Law, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680 (a)
and United States vs. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991). The test is whether the
government employee or agent (or independent contractor) charged with the
negligent or wrongful conduct was engaged in “planning level” or “operational”
activities. Id. Planning is considered inherently discretionary, but
operational activities are not. Said statute is not designed insulate the
government or its agents or other employees or independent contractors or even
select employees for conduct or intently or grossly negligent acts and conduct
violating public policy laws against discrimination, retaliation, fraud, deceit,
intentional trespass, intentional defamation, violation of civil rights or
invasion of privacy or trespass through wireless electric means for
surveillance and the individuals are subjected to liability for injury and
damages connected therewith. Brown vs. U.S., 193 F. Supp. 692 (1961); United
States vs. Newstadt, 281 F.2d 596, 602; Fitch vs. United States, 513, F.2d 103
Cert. denied (1975) for intentional tortuous or grossly neglect acts. Plaintiff
Schlund has alleged that the individual Defendants acts and conduct stack-up to
the high degree that they are discretionary acts nature, form, manner, and
content to selectively target, discriminate, harass, persecute invade his
privacy and are intentional violations of his rights protected under the United
States Constitution and Federal Law, the discretionary choice of Defendant Bush
to act in that manner exposes him to personal liability at the exact point in
time such acts began and “no one is above the law”. United States v. Gaubert,
499 U.S.C. 315 (1991); Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) Clinton
v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997); Bevins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38, (1971); and the Circuit Courts follow Black v.
Sheraton Corp. of America, 564 F.2d 531 (1977); Black v. United States, 389 F.
Supp. 529, Remanded and disagreed with Metz v. United States, 788 F.2d, 1528,
Cert. denied 479 U.S. 930 (1975); Black v. United States, 389 F. Supp 529
(1977); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, (1980) [involved the representative of a
deceased inmate, the court that he had remedies under the Bevins v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Supra. diverged from the Bush v.
Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, Case motion granted 462 U.S. 1114 (1980). Plaintiff
Schlund has alleged in his Complaint Defendant Bush whose joint activities with
the government, its employees, agents and independent contractors have violated
his rights to privacy engaged in harassment, persecution, trespass and
deprivation of his rights causing him injury and damages (Complaint pages 1-69)
in gross and expensive detail. Under FRCP it is sufficient that Plaintiff
Schlund has sued Defendant Bush for the intentional trespasses invasion of his
privacy which are actionable claims against him and any other individual whether
known or unknown (Id. Bevens) for injunctive relief. Birnbaum v. United
States, 588 F.2d 319 (1978) also cited in 47 A.L.R. Fed. 259 (1970).
Intentional and other electronic surveillance act and conduct by Defendant Bush
or any other individual are not barred by sovereign immunity, and those
individuals as well Defendant Bush will be held liable and subject to injunctive
relief. Black v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 529 (1977) directly on point.
Plaintiff Black was a Washington lobbyist with Robert (Bobby) G. Baker,
secretary to the majority to the Senate. The FBI decided to violate Blacks
rights to privacy by installing a microphone through the common wall of a room
adjoining Black’s suite at a hotel at Washington D.C. By means of this
electronic device, the FBI agents illegally and secretly listened (such as
Plaintiff Schlund has alleged here) invading his privacy and trespassing to his
room for an unknown period of time. This illegal surveillance also involved
conversations with his attorney which untimely lead to Defendants Black’s
acquittal and he sued the individual FBI agent for illegal eavesdropping
operations. His four theories of recovery: (1) trespass (2) invasion of privacy
by electronic intrusion (3) invasion of privacy by publication related to the
invasion of privacy by electronic intrusion (4) violation of his constitutional
rights which containing tribal issues of facts (exactly on point as to Plaintiff
Schlund). Black specially alleged that the information obtained by (means) of
electronic eavesdropping (Plaintiff Schlund has alleged this in his Complaint)
has been disseminated to (1) A Grand Jury and inducted him for tax invasion (2)
the antagonist in the Capital Vending suit (3) the Senate Committee which
investigated Black and Baker (4) various agencies of the federal government,
which then allegedly ‘black balled” or ‘black listed” or otherwise conducted
additional investigations with him and former employee which were pretectual in
nature as an attempt to be used to coerce Black into becoming an informant for
the FBI relating to organized crime in Los Angeles CA. This is exactly same
activity which is ongoing and continuous and in perpetuity relating to political
witness Plaintiff Schlund and others connected to him as alleged in his
Complaint. Even when Plaintiff Schlund writes a letter, confidential memorandum
to himself or otherwise makes notes relative to his litigation, legal research
or conversations with an attorney subjected to individuals to personal
liability. In Birnbaum v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 967 (1977) the Plaintiff
was allowed to sue the government
Dated: September _______, 2005
By: _____________________________
Charles August Schlund, III
In Pro Per
Original filed and a copy of the foregoing
mailed this _____ day of September, 2005 to:
Richard G. Patrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square, Suite 1200
40 North Central Avenue
Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408
(602) 514-7500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The comparable analogy is placing a dog in an electronic cage and then
torture it every day until it becomes emotionally unstable documenting it. Then
when it bites somebody justify killing the dog due to it’s unstableness from the
torture claiming it necessary in order to protect the dog and members of the
Public. Use of the wireless technology and wireless technology associated
products allows the government to harass and torture and murder common people
who lack the sophistication of knowledge and more importantly the direct
evidence against the Defendant’s to prove the modus operandi in these regards.
Plausible denial of this and other conduct by the defendant has always been a
commodity to cover up its acts and conduct and to absolve itself from civil
liability and damages. Plaintiff knows these facts to be true because the
government repeatedly offered Plaintiff Schlund any position in the government
he desired if Plaintiff would work for the government torturing and murdering
political witnesses and dissidents and economic threats. The government
repeatedly offered Plaintiff money and total protection for any crimes Plaintiff
commits under the color and cover of law and the protection of a warrant if
Plaintiff would work for the government in the government’s illegal covert
operations.
[2] It is worth mentioning that this court had the Honorable United States
Marshal’s Office go to Plaintiff Schlund’s home and cross examine his children
while Plaintiff Schlund was not home. Asking them about their misperceived and
unfounded presumptuous level or threat of possible violence as the government
tortured and threatened Plaintiff. One of the two purposes of this tactic is to
tamper with the children witnesses and deter a threat of violence which doesn’t
exist. It fits the exact pattern of illegal activity under color of authority
previous experience in an attempt to set-up Plaintiff and those dealt with by
Federal Judge Lacey. Plaintiff Schlund does not claim that the Marshal’s are
corrupt or that they intimidated Plaintiff. They did scare Plaintiff Schlund
children and ex-wife.
[3] The Court has requested to take Judicial Notice under Federal Rules of
Evidence Rule 201 of Plaintiff Schlund’s Notice of Motion of Injunctive Relief
previously pending before it, specifically Exhibit “A” concerning the facts or
details of his personal knowledge of one these corrupt Federal District Court
Judges. These facts remain undisputed which were given to the FBI.
against the tort claims, Supra. as set forth in those cases. Also, see Clinton
vs. Joan, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (“No one is above the law.”). Defendant Bush’s
allege acts and conduct as an individual and/or in his capacity as appointed by
the U.S. Supreme Court to the title of President of the United States and other
Federal Statutes prohibits the volition of individual or the tortuous
deprivation of individual civil rights under Federal Law, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680 (a)
and United States vs. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991). The test is whether the
government employee or agent (or independent contractor) charged with the
negligent or wrongful conduct was engaged in “planning level” or “operational”
activities. Id. Planning is considered inherently discretionary, but
operational activities are not. Said statute is not designed insulate the
government or its agents or other employees or independent contractors or even
select employees for conduct or intently or grossly negligent acts and conduct
violating public policy laws against discrimination, retaliation, fraud, deceit,
intentional trespass, intentional defamation, violation of civil rights or
invasion of privacy or trespass through wireless electric means for
surveillance and the individuals are subjected to liability for injury and
damages connected therewith. Brown vs. U.S., 193 F. Supp. 692 (1961); United
States vs. Newstadt, 281 F.2d 596, 602; Fitch vs. United States, 513, F.2d 103
Cert. denied (1975) for intentional tortuous or grossly neglect acts. Plaintiff
Schlund has alleged that the individual Defendants acts and conduct stack-up to
the high degree that they are discretionary acts nature, form, manner, and
content to selectively target, discriminate, harass, persecute invade his
privacy and are intentional violations of his rights protected under the United
States Constitution and Federal Law, the discretionary choice of Defendant Bush
to act in that manner exposes him to personal liability at the exact point in
time such acts began and “no one is above the law”. United States v. Gaubert,
499 U.S.C. 315 (1991); Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) Clinton
v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997); Bevins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38, (1971); and the Circuit Courts follow Black v.
Sheraton Corp. of America, 564 F.2d 531 (1977); Black v. United States, 389 F.
Supp. 529, Remanded and disagreed with Metz v. United States, 788 F.2d, 1528,
Cert. denied 479 U.S. 930 (1975); Black v. United States, 389 F. Supp 529
(1977); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, (1980) [involved the representative of a
deceased inmate, the court that he had remedies under the Bevins v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Supra. diverged from the Bush v.
Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, Case motion granted 462 U.S. 1114 (1980). Plaintiff
Schlund has alleged in his Complaint Defendant Bush whose joint activities with
the government, its employees, agents and independent contractors have violated
his rights to privacy engaged in harassment, persecution, trespass and
deprivation of his rights causing him injury and damages (Complaint pages 1-69)
in gross and expensive detail. Under FRCP it is sufficient that Plaintiff
Schlund has sued Defendant Bush for the intentional trespasses invasion of his
privacy which are actionable claims against him and any other individual whether
known or unknown (Id. Bevens) for injunctive relief. Birnbaum v. United
States, 588 F.2d 319 (1978) also cited in 47 A.L.R. Fed. 259 (1970).
Intentional and other electronic surveillance act and conduct by Defendant Bush
or any other individual are not barred by sovereign immunity, and those
individuals as well Defendant Bush will be held liable and subject to injunctive
relief. Black v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 529 (1977) directly on point.
Plaintiff Black was a Washington lobbyist with Robert (Bobby) G. Baker,
secretary to the majority to the Senate. The FBI decided to violate Blacks
rights to privacy by installing a microphone through the common wall of a room
adjoining Black’s suite at a hotel at Washington D.C. By means of this
electronic device, the FBI agents illegally and secretly listened (such as
Plaintiff Schlund has alleged here) invading his privacy and trespassing to his
room for an unknown period of time. This illegal surveillance also involved
conversations with his attorney which untimely lead to Defendants Black’s
acquittal and he sued the individual FBI agent for illegal eavesdropping
operations. His four theories of recovery: (1) trespass (2) invasion of privacy
by electronic intrusion (3) invasion of privacy by publication related to the
invasion of privacy by electronic intrusion (4) violation of his constitutional
rights which containing tribal issues of facts (exactly on point as to Plaintiff
Schlund). Black specially alleged that the information obtained by (means) of
electronic eavesdropping (Plaintiff Schlund has alleged this in his Complaint)
has been disseminated to (1) A Grand Jury and inducted him for tax invasion (2)
the antagonist in the Capital Vending suit (3) the Senate Committee which
investigated Black and Baker (4) various agencies of the federal government,
which then allegedly ‘black balled” or ‘black listed” or otherwise conducted
additional investigations with him and former employee which were pretectual in
nature as an attempt to be used to coerce Black into becoming an informant for
the FBI relating to organized crime in Los Angeles CA. This is exactly same
activity which is ongoing and continuous and in perpetuity relating to political
witness Plaintiff Schlund and others connected to him as alleged in his
Complaint. Even when Plaintiff Schlund writes a letter, confidential memorandum
to himself or otherwise makes notes relative to his litigation, legal research
or conversations with an attorney subjected to individuals to personal
liability. In Birnbaum v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 967 (1977) the Plaintiff
was allowed to sue the government
Dated: September _______, 2005
By: _____________________________
Charles August Schlund, III
In Pro Per
Original filed and a copy of the foregoing
mailed this _____ day of September, 2005 to:
Richard G. Patrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square, Suite 1200
40 North Central Avenue
Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408
(602) 514-7500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The comparable analogy is placing a dog in an electronic cage and then
torture it every day until it becomes emotionally unstable documenting it. Then
when it bites somebody justify killing the dog due to it’s unstableness from the
torture claiming it necessary in order to protect the dog and members of the
Public. Use of the wireless technology and wireless technology associated
products allows the government to harass and torture and murder common people
who lack the sophistication of knowledge and more importantly the direct
evidence against the Defendant’s to prove the modus operandi in these regards.
Plausible denial of this and other conduct by the defendant has always been a
commodity to cover up its acts and conduct and to absolve itself from civil
liability and damages. Plaintiff knows these facts to be true because the
government repeatedly offered Plaintiff Schlund any position in the government
he desired if Plaintiff would work for the government torturing and murdering
political witnesses and dissidents and economic threats. The government
repeatedly offered Plaintiff money and total protection for any crimes Plaintiff
commits under the color and cover of law and the protection of a warrant if
Plaintiff would work for the government in the government’s illegal covert
operations.
[2] It is worth mentioning that this court had the Honorable United States
Marshal’s Office go to Plaintiff Schlund’s home and cross examine his children
while Plaintiff Schlund was not home. Asking them about their misperceived and
unfounded presumptuous level or threat of possible violence as the government
tortured and threatened Plaintiff. One of the two purposes of this tactic is to
tamper with the children witnesses and deter a threat of violence which doesn’t
exist. It fits the exact pattern of illegal activity under color of authority
previous experience in an attempt to set-up Plaintiff and those dealt with by
Federal Judge Lacey. Plaintiff Schlund does not claim that the Marshal’s are
corrupt or that they intimidated Plaintiff. They did scare Plaintiff Schlund
children and ex-wife.
[3] The Court has requested to take Judicial Notice under Federal Rules of
Evidence Rule 201 of Plaintiff Schlund’s Notice of Motion of Injunctive Relief
previously pending before it, specifically Exhibit “A” concerning the facts or
details of his personal knowledge of one these corrupt Federal District Court
Judges. These facts remain undisputed which were given to the FBI.
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
