Martin F. Abernathy
Lawsuit -- Part3
Wed Aug 27 19:31:20 2003
138.16.136.150

During these drugged programmings and interrogations by the government,

Plaintiff would be hypnotized and directed to make a statement when a

key word was later spoken. This allowed the government to record these

statements to attempt to prove he was guilty of things which in truth he

had no knowledge of or part in.



If the court claims such procedures are impossible, Plaintiff would be

happy to demonstrate these procedures and gas, drug and hypnotize

someone for the court and have them make a conversation for the Court.

The ruling of Doran v. McGuiness, supra, gives Plaintiff the right to do

such demonstrations. Plaintiff does not claim that such procedures are

safe or legal but they are possible especially when they are done by the

government with the power of the Justice Department behind them and the

cover of law to stop any lawsuits if the people die or are injured

during these Nazi like procedures. In the CIA files we had in the Don

Bolles Papers many people had died during these procedures and were

continuing to die under the protection of corrupt judges of the court.



The kidnapping of Plaintiff’s family and Plaintiff stopped in 1991 after

Plaintiff went to the FBI and asked them to monitor him. At the same

time, Plaintiff gave the FBI permission to monitor him without a

warrant. Plaintiff found this necessary after the Glendale Police

Department and Phoenix Police Department refused to accept murder

reports from Plaintiff after the government had people murdered in

Plaintiff home to threaten his wife if she continues to try to help

Plaintiff.



These murders were done under the surveillance and direction

of the government. The DEA and others still would gas Plaintiff and his

family and friends for implant injections but he would no longer be

removed from his home for photo sessions. In the 1990’s, the use of

torture replaced the programming and instead of programming Plaintiff to

make conversations for the DEA or police, they would torture him to

force him under torture to do similar conversations. All of Plaintiff

witnesses and family and friends were also injected and some were

threatened, stimulated, manipulated or tortured so the government could

cover-up it’s Nazi like crimes.



During the 1990’s, Plaintiff telephoned the DEA over one thousand

(1,000) times and wrote them many letters, complaining of the torture of

his witnesses and himself. During these telephone calls, the DEA agents

fully admitted injecting Plaintiff. Agent John Albano of the DEA even

gave Plaintiff permission to remove the implants to stop his torture but

his authorization was overruled by higher-ups in the chain of command in

the DEA and Plaintiff was not allowed to remove the implants.



During this same time, the FBI called Plaintiff Schlund and informed him

that the implants torturing him were CIA implants. The Court can

contact the Phoenix office of the FBI and demand to have Agent Adam S.

appear before the Court to testify that the implants are CIA designed

torture devices for the removal of political witnesses and political

prisoners of the United States.



Plaintiff Schlund began to file medical, electrical and engineering

patents and evidence into the Arizona District Court of scientific proof

and data confirming these high tech CIA designed and DEA used electronic

implants. The government fabricated evidence and moved for summary

judgment and increased the torture.



Plaintiff Schlund filed with the District Court undisputed evidence of

“implant” electronic technology now commonly used for medical and other

purposes. Also filed was electronic technology used for the purpose of

tracking almost every kind of animal life form roaming the globe.



Specifically, he submitted information as an example of wireless

technology devices embedded in the collar worn by a hunting dog which

roams freely while hunting mountain lions. When the dog’s owner wishes

the dog to return to base camp, he presses a button on his transmitter

which sends a shock signal to the dog, compelling it to immediately

return to the base camp. If the dog does not respond, a longer shock

signal is transmitted to the dog collar, resulting in a harsher and more

punishing shock stimulus to the physical body of the dog in the form of

physical punishment. The shock punishment is a form of operant

conditioning which the dog learns that in order to eliminate the shock,

he must immediately return to the base camp when commanded to do so by

the person who holds the shock transmitter and is inflicting the

punishment. Because the technology is wireless in nature, the dog owner

can be at any remote location and inflict the punishment on the dog.



If the collared receiver was embedded subcutaneously under the dog’s skin,

you would not see it. If you did not know the dog was embedded with the

“implant” and suddenly the implant received a transmitted shock signal

inflicting the punishment on the dog, you would see the outward

manifestations of the punishment in the dog’s eyes and his physical

reactions to it while not knowing what’s causing it. You would

erroneously conclude the dog is crazy or perhaps has some mental illness

when the reality is; the animal is being tortured through means of

wireless electronic force technology, in a covert manner from many miles

away. Plaintiff Schlund set forth the various types of wireless

integrated technologies which can be used for such purpose, all of which

are scientifically accepted in the electrical and biomedical engineering

community. He never mentioned the word of “mental telepathy,” which has

no scientific basis at all.



Plaintiff Schlund also pled, in great detail a specific itemization of

his injury and damages, supporting the irreparable harm to him

personally and economically. He pled the government’s conduct has

resulted in creating life-threatening injuries, including, however not

limited to, sleep deprivation, electric shocks, torture with unnatural

horrible, extremely loud sounds, loss of a thumb, extreme and crippling

pain in his head and on or about his body, types of caustic burn from

the heat or radiation generated from the electronic and other forces on

impact. And during the duration of time of exposure, loss of earning

capacity, Plaintiff became diabetic from being deprived of thousands of

nights of sleep year after year, loss of earning ability, destruction of

his peace of mind, harmony and the right to be left alone, a burgeoning

lack of trust in the government and the judicial system, loss of

consortium, injury to his children, incurred medical and other personal

and business expenses, and continues to experience pain and suffering

(TORTURE) and will continue to suffer physically, psychologically and

emotionally, resulting in irreparable permanent harm from the torture

which detrimentally affects his freedom of speech, privacy and other

civil rights. Injuries suffered from the torture of Plaintiff Schlund

are to date great enough that Plaintiff will die from these injuries.



During one of Plaintiff Schlund’s doctor’s visits, his blood pressure

was 223 over 121. Let the court fully understand that Plaintiff

Schlund’s blood pressure was normal when he was injected with the

implants.



Plaintiff Schlund’s extraordinarily high blood pressure, while on

massive doses of blood pressure control medication, has damaged

Plaintiff’s internal organs. This degree of torture is an act of

terrorism. Any time Plaintiff Schlund says anything the government

doesn’t like, Plaintiff is tortured resulting in extreme pain and his

high blood pressure and further damage to his body.



Let the court fully understand that Plaintiff Schlund’s blood pressure

returns to normal during the time the government reduces its torture of

him. This type of terrorism is more than just outrageous conduct of the

United States; it is murder and cruel and unusual punishment.





III. LEGAL DISCUSSION





A. Injunctive Relief is required to terminate the government’s

torture, intrusion and violation of Plaintiff by the use of electronic

forces that violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.



1. Torture

No government activity justifies implants and torture to succeed. It

has been proven in Plaintiff Schlund’s case that such use of torture and

implants has stopped any chance of the government successfully

concluding their fabricated investigation.



The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as Plaintiff Schlund has reminded

it, issued harsh warnings and deeply rooted concerns that the present

status of sophisticated scientific and technologically advanced devices

used by the government under color of authority, such electronic force

excessively intrudes and trespasses to grossly violate rights to

privacy, especially as to other person(s) coming in contact with the

subject target of the surveillance/torture activity – U.S. v.

Koyomejian, 97 F 2d 536 (9th Cir. en banc), cert. denied, 946 F. 2d

1450 (1991) [Koyomejian prevailed in the criminal context as well.].



In Plaintiff Schlund’s case, privacy means nothing because torture has

overcome all other concerns despite federal law protects against both.

The United States Supreme Court itself acknowledges the fact that any

individual can be placed under 24-hour surveillance anywhere in this

country, without judicial knowledge, supervision, or consent (search

warrants); it does not necessarily suggest abuse by the government,

citing its decision in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 566

(1978).



The same Supreme Court issued its confirmation of the

sophisticated electronic abilities over 25 years ago (1978-2003). In

the same breath, the Supreme Court responsibly tells the government

through its decision that “If such dragnet-type law enforcement

practices has responded and visions should eventually occur, there will

be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional

principals may be applicable.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff Schlund was acquitted

because of just the exact type of “dragnet-type law enforcement

practices” referenced by this honorable Supreme Court as “being without

judicial knowledge of supervision” United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276

(1983). Moreover, this Court stated that such sophisticated signs and

technologically advanced devices used by the government under color of

authority for the purpose of intrusion/trespass have been dealt with on

a limited basis in the case United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927),

as cited in the Knotts case.



It also cited its Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 566 (1978) conclusion

as such enhanced surveillance succeeds fortuitously and unreasonably into the

private sphere protected by the Fourth Amendment without control, at 662 F 2d at

p. 518. Despite these Supreme Court decisions, and the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals’ own decisions, the advanced and sophisticated level of the technology,

which is wireless in nature, is used to systematically and covertly

retaliate and torture a person, especially when motivated by vengeance

or even pure delight of having the power to do so – believing that they

are protected by the courts under the law. And if caught, as

acknowledged by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Government

always denies it intentionally tortured its own citizenry.



See, Siderman DeBlake v. Republic of Argentina. 965 F 2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992)

[The court acknowledged, no doubt, with the onslaught of advances in

technology, new devices will be created which the government will use as

well for less than honorable purposes.] The old cliché, “Where there’s

a will there’s a way.” or whatever the government’s justification is for

the need and use of electronic force technology to torture a person, is

in existence today and is widely used to torture political witnesses,

such as Plaintiff Schlund. The Appellate Court also took notice that

devices of torture are already in existence for some beneficial purpose

and then converted to a torturing device (i.e., cattle prodder). The

same is true with these implants.



There is no dispute that electronic force is destructive, especially

when used in a manner to inflict serious physical and psychological

harm, as revealed in detail by Plaintiff Schlund. “Electronic force” is

a general means of power, strength, impetus, intense effort, an

artificially enhanced increase in strength, power, or influence, causing

a change in the motion, body, object, or substance of intensity of

energy in the make (a way) by force to penetrate, join, separate, or

integrate with, to add or extract something from the original source,

cause, produce, or obtain by effort, seek quick results from voluntarily

or involuntarily, accelerate (energy), etc. (Oxford Dictionary of

current English, 1998).



Plaintiff Schlund’s verified complaint is relevant, signed under oath

per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, that he has experienced

the extreme physical and emotional pain and suffering of the torture and

the violation of his Constitutional Rights. That the government’s

activities of using the sophisticated electronic technologies/devices

have hurt, injured and caused him “extreme” pain and suffering both

physically and psychologically (Verified Complaint) including loss of

trust in the United States government which is especially hurtful for

depriving him of serious constitutional rights.

He expresses in detail in his Complaint that the individual officers

have used “improper, excessive, and unjustified force”, violating his

United States and Arizona constitutional rights. He asserts that the

government’s “improper, excessive, and unjustified force” is the “direct

and proximate cause” of his “sustaining intermittent life-threatening

injuries”.

• Lawsuit -- Part4 — Martin F. Abernathy, Wed Aug 27 19:33
• Lawsuit -- Part5 — Martin F. Abernathy, Wed Aug 27 19:34
• Lawsuit -- Conclusion — Martin F. Abernathy, Wed Aug 27 19:35
• How Can Other Victims Get Involved? — Bush/CIA/MAfia Mind Control Victim, Thu Aug 28 14:21
• How To Get Involved... — Martin F. Abernathy, Thu Aug 28 15:22