-Caveat Lector- This case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, but on Friday, June 29, 2001 the Supreme Court *dismissed* the case. You won't hear a word about this very important case in the controlled media [where REAL news is forbidden]. You can read the lawsuit at the following URL : http://groups.google.com/groups?q=xfiles%40pop.phnx.uswest.net&start=100&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=106&ic=1&selm=3AB50FF4.A54E9120%40pop.phnx.uswest.net ======= This case is much too important to allow the media to ignore it. Please spread the word!!!!! ======== 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 [snip] 2. 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. 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 reasonable suspicion and probable cause for creating an investigation task force to place Appellant Schlund under surveillance, to invade his privacy, due process, remoe Schlund as a witness to corruption in the DEA, and 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 of whom he comes in contact with, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege, physician-patient privilege, clergyman-penitent privilege, privacy of voting privilege, privacy of association, privacy of speech, etc. The gross intrusions were also made of his body, personal residence, papers, affects and things. He asserts in his verified Complaint (“Complaint”) and many affidavits filed in the case that during one or more of the episodes of intrusion, subcutaneous body implants of a CIA design were used by the DEA (“Electronic Implants”) and separately various forms of electronic vibration, sounds, magnetic fields, radio waves, and other unknown forms of torture have been imposed upon him through electronic force resulting in torturing of him as a form of retaliation and violation of his civil rights, causing him extensive losses and damages, personally and in his commercial activities. 3. Petitioner Lang 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 and association with Schlund or other members of the public. Or to harass, torture, or otherwise violate his or other third parties of whom he associates, or violate protective privileges also set forth above. Lang asserted the course of intervention for a declaratory judgment is necessary to prevent violations under color of authority or retaliate against him for his association with Petitioner Schlund (Appendix Nos. 3-5). 4. Petitioner Schlund's Criminal Acquittal. Despite the fact the DEA violated their oath of office while acting under 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 rights (Appendix No. 5), 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 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 telecommunications related devices and methodology, showing Schlund performing various activities at the Government's (DEA) directions at the property located in Arizona (Appendix No. 5). Petitioner Schlund then left the residence where the so-called laboratory was located and was followed by the Government surveillance agents who then arrested him without a warrant and alleged on probable cause they believed he was operating an illicit methamphetamine laboratory (Appendix Nos. 3 and 5). 5. Later, on January 3, 1979, Petitioner Schlund after a jury trial, was “acquitted” in the United States District Court, Phoenix, Arizona of all charges of conspiracy, etc. related to the trumped up drug charges that were created to remove Petitioner Schlund sa a witness against the DEA. The Dept. of Justice (“DOJ”) appealed that decision, and the decision was sustained in favor of Schlund (Appendix No. 5). 6. NOTE BENE: Judge Lacey of the United States District Court aggressively and severely reprimanded and told the governmental officials and the prosecutor 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 (Appendix No. 5). 7. Despite the acquittal, the conspiracy, illegal surveillance, illegal invasion of privacy, and the electronic torture of Petitioner Schlund was and is continuous and ongoing to present. Petitioner Schlund has asserted in his verified Complaint 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 contained in files known as the “Don Boles Papers.” That he is a political witness, and the 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 controlling federal and state judges in the judicial system. In fact, 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 Refusal 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 (Appendix Nos. 3, 4, and 5), although this was not disclosed by her and later discovered by Petitioners. 8. On December 18, 1998, the Government filed its two page pleading entitled “Motion to Dismiss” or, alternatively, “Motion for Summary Judgment,” asserting only (1) no basis in reality existed as set forth in the verified Complaint and (2) that Petitioner Schlund could not prove the existence of the nature of the electronic technology used by the Government with any tangible or scientific evidence (Appendix No. 6). Further, that because Lang's declaratory relief action was based on Schlund's facts alleged in the Complaint, it was not a viable cause of action (Appendix Nos. 5 & 6). The Motion to Dismiss was denied. The Motion for Summary Judgment, oddly enough, was only supported by a ipse dixit statement asserted in a footnote to the motion (Appendix 6) that the Government relied exclusively and solely on Plaintiff's detailed verified Complaint which asserts extensive specific facts supporting each of the causes of action (Appendix No. 5). The Government did [not] submit a single foundational piece of evidence supporting any personal or other factual knowledge supporting the U.S. attorneys bias, prejudicial, and self-serving interest “opinion” contrary to the Verified Complaint - Affidavit. There literally is and was no factual basis for the attorney's opinion which is not evidence in any event sufficient to support a Motion for Summary Judgment (Appendix No. 6). The Court entered judgment on the motion, despite Petitioners' objections and requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law (Appendix No. 7). ========== MARtin F. ABErnathy ----- [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ---- NYC <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
