The DEA On Trial : Injectable Torture Devices



When was the last time you heard anything about this court case on ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, Fox or Court TV ? Have you sen any stories about this case in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Washington Post, USA Today, or Wall Street Journal [or in your local paper] ? It is never mentioned by Time or Newsweek either. I wonder *why* …….

[For the record, while this case has worked its way through the courts over the last few years, the DEA has *never* denied that these injectable torture devices exist.] ========

On Petition For A Writ of Certiorari To The United States Supreme Court On Appeal from the Judgment on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Charles August Schlund, III Randy D. Lang, Attorney Petitioners In Pro Per XXXX N. 54th Drive Glendale, AZ 853XX (602) XXX-XXXX (M) QUESTIONS PRESENTED #1.

Whether the joint failure and refusal of the Central District Court and 9th Circuit Appellate Court to issue, per Petitioner’s continuous written requests, findings of fact and conclusions of law is a gross departure from the normal and customary course of procedure and substantial violation of Petitioners’ due process rights, thwarting Supreme Court review and eliminating a record for review by violating mandatory procedure, justifying the Supreme Court’s supervisory review. (See, Appendix 3). PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The parties to this proceeding are Petitioners Charles August Schlund, III and Randy D. Lang, Attorney, and Respondent, the United States Government, Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Appellant Charles August Schlund, III and Randy D. Lang, Attorney (“Petitioners”) in Pro Per, respectfully petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to review the Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the Court of Appeals (Appendix No. 1) was ordered not for publication. The opinions of the District Court (Appendix No. 2) are unreported. JURISDICTION The Court of Appeals entered its decision on December 14, 2000 (Appendix No. 1). No Petition for Rehearing was filed. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Because the text of the citations are too voluminous, Petitioner hereby complies with Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (“Rule”) Rule 14(f). References are to U.S. Constitutional Provisions, Federal Statutes, Executive Issuances and include: the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. �� 2671 through 2680; 28 U.S.C. �1346(b); 18 U.S.C. �1964; 42 U.S.C. �� 1983 and 1988; Protection of Human Rights Act; The Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of June 26, 1987; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 43, 52, 56, 65 and Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b); and the conflicting decisions of (1) Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) [ Summary Judgment]; Doran v. McGinness, 158 F.R.D. 383 (1994) [“mental telepathy mind control”]; and Siderman De Blak v. Republic of Argentina, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991) [Torture by Government officials]. Factual Background Appellant Schlund, an ex-United States Marine, was solicited by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) to participate in various activities of an illegal nature under color of authority. After receiving information about the activities, he refused. He was then set up by the DEA with fabricated evidence and arrested and charged as being an alleged drug manufacturer in Cave Creek, Arizona. The conspiracy by the DEA to fabricate the evidence was a planned scheme designed to enable them to create a”pretext” for reasonable suspicion and probable cause for creating a joint investigation task force to place Appellant Schlund under surveillance, to violate his privacy and due process, remove Schlund as a witness to corruption in the DEA, and to violate other constitutional protection and those of whom he comes in contact with. Also, to discredit him as a political witness and utilize electronic surveillance for information gathering concerning all those with whom he comes in contact, violating other historical and constitutional rights of such person(s) including, but not limited to, the attorney- client privilege, physician-patient privilege, spousal privilege, clergyman-penitent privilege, privacy of voting privilege, privacy of association, privacy of speech, etc. The gross “electronic force” intrusions were also made of his body, personal residence, papers, affects and things. He asserts in his verified Complaint (“Complaint”) and in many affidavits and documents filed in the case that during one or more of the episodes of electronic force torture, subcutaneous body implants of a CIA design were used by the DEA (“Electronic Implants”) and separately various forms of electronic force vibration, sounds, magnetic fields, radio waves, and other known forms of torture have been imposed upon him through excessive “electronic force” commonly referred to as (excessive force) resulting in psychological and physical torture of Schlund as a form of retaliation and violation of his civil rights, causing him extensive losses and damages personally and in his commercial activities as pled in detail in his verified Complaint and corroborated in this case (See Appendix 3). Petitioner Lang, an attorney, asserted a single declaratory relief cause of action, asserting the Government does not have the right to use sophisticated surveillance telecommunications activities and other integrated devices and methodologies to violate his rights to privacy due to his association with Schlund or other members of the public or to harass, torture, or otherwise violate his or other third parties’ rights of privacy with whom he associates, or violate protective privileges also set forth above based on Schlund’s personal knowledge. Lang asserted the course of intervention for a declaratory judgment is necessary to prevent such violations under color of authority or retaliate against him for his association with Petitioner Schlund (See, Appendix 3), as well as the judicial necessity to clarify or modify existing law on this unique “electronic force” privacy intrusion issue of first impression due to it being recently exposed and rapidly burgeoning in exposure as to the government’s use of such integrated computer etc. electronic technologies whose existence and use have been intentionally covered up and repeatedly denied by the Government but was, as always, later exposed then admitted to by it. Although tedious and continuous efforts over a rather lengthy period of time, heavily cloaked in a convoluted myriad of distorted secrecy and public lies, the Government’s illegal continuous violations of human rights and rights to privacy are being forced to the surface of truth by the courts (i.e., Koyomejian, Siderman De Blak, etc.). This includes its “scorched earth” policy of committing perjury, witness tampering, judicial coercion, and fabrication of evidence all classified as contemptible “outrageous Government conduct” by the Hon. Judge Lacey (Id., infra). Petitioner Schlund’s Criminal Acquittal. Despite the fact the DEA violated their oath of office and federal and U.S. Constitutional laws while acting under the pretext of color of law for the purpose of fabricating evidence, perjured testimony, and other illegal acts outside the course and scope of their authority, and in violation of Petitioner Schlund’s constitutional rights (See Appendix 3), Petitioner set the matter for a jury trial. It was established at the trial that the Government used an alleged “informant” who lied to induce Schlund by means of illegal entrapment to come to the location of a laboratory under false pretenses. The laboratory was set up by the Government to suck Schlund into the entrapment posture to remove Schlund as a political witness against the DEA to conceal massive corruption in the DEA. Petitioner Schlund did go to the location, where he was recorded by electronic surveillance cameras and other integrated telecommunications related devices and methodology, showing Schlund performing various legal activities at the Government’s (DEA) directions at the property located in Arizona (See Appendix 3). Petitioner Schlund then left the residence where the so-called laboratory was located and was followed by the joint task force of Government surveillance agents who then arrested him without a warrant and alleged on probable cause they believed he was operating an illicit methamphetamine laboratory (See Appendix 3). Later, on January 3, 1979, Petitioner Schlund, after a jury trial, was “acquitted” in the United States Central District Court, Phoenix, Arizona of all charges of conspiracy, etc. related to the trumped up drug charges that were created to remove Petitioner Schlund as a political witness against the DEA. The Dept. of Justice (“DOJ”) appealed that decision, and the decision was sustained in favor of Schlund by the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals (See Appendix 3). NOTE BENE: Judge Lacey of the United States District Court aggressively and severely reprimanded the government officials that they were “in contempt” and demanded they be “arrested” for committing “perjury” and “obstructing justice in his court” and for fabricating evidence against Petitioner Schlund. The acquittal was upheld on appeal; and on March 3, 1980, the DOJ and the DEA were advised by the United States Attorney General, Daniel R. Dray, there would be no further prosecution on the grounds of lack of evidence, and presumably because Judge Lacey noted there was “outrageous prosecutorial misconduct” which included withholding crucial evidence critical to Petitioner Schlund’s defense (See Appendix 3). Despite the acquittal, the conspiracy, illegal sur- veillance, illegal invasion of privacy, and the electronic force torture of Petitioner Schlund was and is continuous and ongoing to present (See Appendix 13). Petitioner Schlund has asserted in his verified Complaint and other corroborating documents that the DEA tortures him and continues to invade his privacy, based on personal knowledge he possesses relating to documentation he personally analyzed and reviewed with others, contained in files they collectively agreed would be called the “Don Boles Papers.” Petitioner asserts he is a political witness and the electronic torture etc. is done to discredit him to protect the corrupt governmental officials who are involved in the corrupt activity of the Government’s covert operations, which include influencing certain federal and state judges in the honorary judicial system. Proceedings in the Central District and 9th Circuit Appellate Courts. Petitioner Schlund filed a Motion to Recuse United States District Judge, the Honorable Robert C. Broomfield, based on his personal knowledge as set forth in Petitioner Schlund’s Motion for Recusal and Affidavit in Support of the Motion. The judge was assigned to his case after the Honorable Rosalyn Silver recused herself on the grounds she was an ex-United States Assistant Attorney in the DEA’s office for over ten years (See Appendix 3), although this was not disclosed by her to Petitioners and later discovered by Petitioners. CONCLUSION The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted. Petitioners request the Court to vacate the Central District and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions and order it to make findings of fact and conclusions of law for an adequate record for the Supreme Court’s review if it becomes necessary in the interests and appearance of justice and to protect the integrity of justice. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Schlund, III Petitioner In Pro Per XXXX N. 54th Drive Glendale, AZ 853XX (602) XXX-XXXX (M) Randy D. Lang, Attorney Petitioners In Pro Per XXXXX N. 28th Drive, Suite XXX Phoenix, AZ 850XX (623) XXX-XXXX Appendix 1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, ) No. 00-15126 III; RANDY D. LANG, ) ) D.C. No. CV-98- Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 1875-RCB v. ) ) MEMORANDUM THE UNITED STATES OF ) AMERICA, ) ) Defendant-Appellee. ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 4, 2000 Before: TROTT, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges Charles August Schlund, III and Randy D. Lang appeal pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant and the denial of their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to amend or alter the district court’s summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, see Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 88 (9th Cir. 1994), and for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of civil Procedure 59(e), see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact, the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). Because appellants’ motion failed to demonstrate that they were entitled to relief from the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion to amend or alter judgment, see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d at 1262-63. Appellants’ pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, ) III, et al, ) Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 98-1875 vs. ) PHX RCB ) THE UNITED STATES OF ) AMERICA; et al. ) ORDER ) (Dated 8/31/99) Defendants. ) ) Pending before the court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Defendants’ Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. Having carefully considered the arguments raised, the court is now prepared to rule on the motions. I. BACKGROUND On October 16, 1998, Plaintiffs filed Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claims against the United States of America and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Plaintiff Charles Schlund’s claims are based on the factual allegation that: Complex micro receiving and transmitting implants were placed into Schlund’s body for purposes of harassing and monitoring [his] speech, movements, and activities and for purposes of torturing and controlling [him] by torturing or otherwise punishing him through physical torture or/and mental torture of sleep deprivation and pain and suffering throughout his body, through use of highly sophisticated technologies, which included, but was not limited to, laser and electromagnetic technologies.
(Comp. # 28.) Mr. Schlund alleges that Defendants implanted these devices to discredit him as a witness to the following: (1) the government’s covert operations that have caused millions of Americans to suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Epstein Barr Virus, Agent Orange Illness, and Persian Gulf Illness; and (2) the government’s assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopeche, Martin Luther King, and thousands of others.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Join 1,905 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 273,025 hits
%d bloggers like this: