-Caveat Lector-

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.]

========


U.S. SUPREME COURT  DOCKET NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

 CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III
  and RANDY D. LANG,

     Petitioners

  vs.

  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,

    Respondents.

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

C.A. NO. 00-15-126

(D.CT. NO. CIV-98-1875-PHX-RCB)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI


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).

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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 The opinion of the Court of Appeals (Appendix No. 1) was ordered not for
publication.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.

<snip>

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.  (Id. § 30).
 Plaintiff Randy Lang's claims are based on the same factual allegation that
Defendants implanted "complex micro receiving and transmitting implants" into
Mr. Schlund's body.  Mr. Lang alleges that he associate

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
=========CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
=======================================================================Archives 
Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
=======================================================================To subscribe to 
Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to