-Caveat Lector- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Charles August Schlund, III Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (F.O.I.A.) AND PRIVACY ACT. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY HEREWITH. Charles A. Schlund, III (“Plaintiff”) alleges, on information and belief and on those grounds, as follows: 1. This action is brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. - 552, referred to as “F.O.I.A.” to require public disclosure of all records, documents, and other tangible things, either in part or whole, contained in the Department of Justice (“D.O.J.”), and specifically Drug Enforcement Administration (“D.E.A.”) files involving Plaintiff. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“F.O.I.A.), as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. - 552(a)(4)(B) and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.; the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 et seq.; and all Writs and Statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 and Articles 4, 5, 6, and 14 of the United States Constitution. 3. Plaintiff is an individual and not a corporation. Plaintiff has also done business as C.A.S. Electric and previously as H&S Electric from 1980 through 1991, as a sole proprietor. 4. Defendant(s) Department of Justice (“D.O.J.”) and its subdivision Drug Enforcement Administration (“D.E.A.”) is an administrative agency of the United States Government, with its principle offices located at United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington D.C., 20537. Defendant D.O.J. and its agents constitute an “agency” within the meaning of the F.O.I.A., 5 U.S.C.A. §? 552(e) and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. Defendant also maintains a regional office located at 3010 N. 2nd Street, Phoenix, Arizona and is conducting business within the Central Judicial District, State of Arizona. 5. Plaintiff on or about 1978, after being illegally framed and prosecuted as a drug manufacturer by the D.E.A. and the Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, requested under the F.O.I.A., any and all files, records, and other tangible items and things relative to Plaintiff. The D.E.A. completely denied possession, custody, or control or maintaining records, documents, or other evidence in a tangible medium of any kind or nature or that any existed relating to Plaintiff, other than those released of the arrest of Plaintiff. It was factually determined by the Honorable Judge Lacey of the United States District Court in Arizona during the trial of Plaintiff that the D.O.J., D.E.A. and their agents totally fabricated all evidence against Plaintiff as a drug manufacturer and then blatantly lied under oath committing perjury in attempting to use the sham evidence in a desperate hope of convicting him. The weak attempt by the corrupt governmental agents utterly failed, and Plaintiff was acquitted on all charges. The Honorable Judge Lacey established from the bench that the abovesaid acts and conduct by the aforesaid constituted “outrageous conduct of the Unites States government” and “obstruction of justice and gave Plaintiff’s attorney a specific case citation supporting the judge’s aforesaid determination.” The judge was further outraged due to his determination that the D.E.A. and the Sheriff’s Department directly threatened to murder the wife and children of Plaintiff’s first key witness, Robert Snow. Then the D.E.A. and the said Sheriff’s Department went to Plaintiff’s second key witness and threatened to prosecute him if he testified to any knowledge of prior crimes of Carl Altz or anyone else and never asked this witness any questions, and only threatened him. Plaintiff was then fully “acquitted” on all charges. The government appealed the acquittal judgment and lost. The D.E.A. and Sheriff’s department was adjudicated as committing fabrication of evidence, perjury, and obstruction of justice. The next day after the Honorable Judge Lacey acquitted Plaintiff of all charges, the D.E.A., Sheriff’s department, and others continued to selectively investigate Plaintiff and targeted him as a political witness due to his personal knowledge of their murders, drug dealing, and the fixing of state and federal elections including, however not limited to the aforesaid. Plaintiff’s knowledge included facts relating to the state and federal court judges being appointed to cover-up murder, drug shipments, protect drug dealers, and to user their judicial powers to target political dissidents and witnesses. Robert C. Broomfield (Judge Broomfield) at that time was a state judge in Arizona. Plaintiff had read his [Judge Broomfield’s] C.I.A. file which contained his records confirming he was a high ranking member of the terrorist organization known as the Aryan Brotherhood. Later, Broomfield was appointed as a United States federal judge in the District of Arizona. In or about 1990, the D.E.A. ordered Kathy Schlund to hire a private investigator who was a member of the Dirty Dozen under the D.E.A.’s influence and control to investigate Plaintiff. The said investigator was also under the influence and control of the D.E.A. It was the private investigator’s task as ordered by the D.E.A. to submit fabricated reports of information purportedly related to Plaintiff’s activities. The D.E.A.’s activities relating to the illusory and pretexual investigation relating to Plaintiff was only to serve the purpose of attempting to give the appearance of legitimacy to an otherwise illegal and illegitimate criminal investigation of Plaintiff at the taxpayer’s expense to discredit him as a political witness. This has been done in an attempt to deter or stop Plaintiff from exposing the gross and despicable violations of the law by the D.E.A. and others under their influence and/or control and direction under color of authority and law. These collective activities targeting Plaintiff to discredit him were also perpetrated by the judges of the state and federal judicial system. Judge Robert C. Broomfield, Sandra Day-O’Conner, Judges Rheinquist, Bork, Copple, Kennedy, Lee, and others were some of the judges Plaintiff was supplying information on to the F.B.I. and others. Plaintiff was and continues to remain a direct witness with personal knowledge of the details of the corrupt activities of each judge. Such activities, included but were not limited to, taking bribes, fixing of cases and trials, murder, drug dealing, solicitation of prostitution, engaging in sexual acts while in office, intentional destruction of court files, etc. Due to Plaintiff’s direct personal knowledge of the corrupt judges and their criminal activities. He was further targeted by the D.E.A. and others and the said judges to attempt to prevent, deter, or discredit him as a political witness against them. The D.E.A., along with Joe Arpaio, Rick Romley, and other members of this drug cartel, engaged in a concerted action to discredit, torture, harass, and fabricate false files on Plaintiff to further the cover-up of his exposure to and reading of the “Don Bolles Papers.” To discredit Plaintiff as a political witness, the D.E.A. individually or/and jointly with others obtained warrants and gassed Plaintiff during his sleep to induce him into a deep comatose state to inject him with drugs and remove him from his existing location to another location determined by the D.E.A. or others. While at this location, the D.E.A. would interrogate and place Plaintiff in a staged setting to take pictures and videos of him for the purpose of establishing the false impression in the mind of any observer he was committing criminal activity, which in reality he was not. This was again to further the discrediting of Plaintiff as a political witness against Defendants. All of the above-denoted criminal activities were done under the guise and pretext by said individuals under color of office, authority, and law. But such acts and conduct could not be carried out by the DEA and/or others without the direct involvement of judge(s) and officer(s) of the court for the wrongful utilization of [a] judges’ authority and jurisdiction. The purpose of the abovesaid acts was in part to authorize the continued investigation of Plaintiff by the D.E.A. or/and other person(s) supplying information to various government organizations who profit from such activities by covering up their corruption and criminal conduct. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the individuals and especially the D.E.A. and individuals working with or influenced by their conduct represents that activity and state of mind comparable to a Nazi regime. Plaintiff further alleges that no American competent and legitimate judge would allow such acts and conduct by the D.E.A. or others under color of authority, office, or law. On or about 1991, Plaintiff began working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“F.B.I.”), supplying it with information on corrupt state and federal judges, murders, drug activities by the D.E.A., C.I.A., and the C.I.A. detailed plans for fixing the presidential elections of the United States. Plaintiff alleges the F.B.I. asked him for the information of what were contained in the “Don Bolles Papers,” which were in part C.I.A., D.E.A., National Security Agency (“N.S.A”), Federal Bureau of Investigation (“F.B.I.”), Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“A.T.F.”), Secret Service (“S.S.”), and other agency documents removed by George Bush, Sr. in the cover-up of Watergate, and other high crimes by corrupt governmental officials. Plaintiff’s work with the F.B.I. resulted in the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars of drugs that were under the protection of the D.E.A. and C.I.A. Plaintiff, working with the F.B.I. resulted in the exposure of the radiation experiments and the “ESP Experiments” and many other research products conducted by the C.I.A and others, including the exposure of activities of stopping the illegal funneling of billions of dollars of public money into the possession of corporations under the control of the C.I.A. and others. In 1993, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s abovesaid activities and exposing the corruption of said activities within the government, Plaintiff was set up and framed by the D.E.A. and others as being an alleged drug dealer, murderer, gun runner, and for other numerous crimes. All of the aforesaid was done for the purpose of Defendants authorizing a fabricated investigation which was also used for purposes of authorizing the injecting of implants, which were then used for torturing and sleep deprivation of Plaintiff to punish him for his whistle-blowing activities against George Bush, Sr., the D.E.A., and the others. After Plaintiff was injected with said implants, he was continuously tortured to near death and deprived of sleep for 5-6 days at a time in order to obtain conversations from Plaintiff under torture and under the threat of death. Agent Adam S., with the F.B.I. in the Phoenix office, telephoned the Plaintiff and left a message to Plaintiff that the implants were C.I.A. designed implants which was forecasted—years in advance, accurately by Plaintiff. The D.E.A., using a warrant, had gassed and injected Plaintiff. The D.E.A. left Plaintiff bleeding at the said injection sites on his neck in his bed. The Agent In Charge of the F.B.I. in Arizona told Plaintiff that in order to remove the implants he would have to file a civil lawsuit concerning same. Plaintiff alleges that when the Nazi regime also injected the Jewish people while under their control in the neck, resulting in making them sick and torturing them with the injections under the color of law, that during the Nuremberg Trials, this activity was deemed a crime against humanity. Plaintiff alleges there is no difference in the injection and torture of him under the color of the law in America. No technology is required for the torture of Plaintiff. Only the court’s authorization for the use of secret and Nazi-like medical procedures is required to cause torture to a person. On or about 1985 through 1991, Plaintiff alleges that during those time frames he would travel to and from Mexico to go deep-sea fishing. During these fishing trips, the D.E.A. and other agents escorted Plaintiff on each of these excursions. The escorting of Plaintiff on these trips by the aforesaid is of Plaintiff’s personal knowledge and was witnessed by Plaintiff and others during such excursions. The D.E.A., working with Kathy Schlund who was Plaintiff’s wife, used these excursions to fabricate evidence that Plaintiff was a drug manufacturer and dealing in drugs. Plaintiff alleges the D.E.A. had direct knowledge that Plaintiff was innocent of any activity of drug manufacturing and dealing. Because Plaintiff was a direct witness against the D.E.A. for drug dealing, murder, and more evil and corrupt activities, it became necessary to continue the framing of Plaintiff as being allegedly involved in the drug trade. While perpetrating the D.E.A.’s activities, it used Mexican nationals for the purpose of speaking in Spanish to Plaintiff about the topic of illegal drugs. This was done to fabricate evidence in such a manner to give the illegitimate impression that Plaintiff was engaging in illicit drug activity with these D.E.A. influenced and controlled Mexican nationals. The D.E.A. and others under their influence and control attempted and did set up, design, and scheme to try to obtain conversations with Plaintiff to demonstrate under a false pretext that he spoke Spanish to support the D.E.A.’s false and illusionary picture that Plaintiff was engaged in purported said activities with said Mexican nationals. Plaintiff alleges that similar to almost all people who live specifically in the southwest United States and who travels to vacation or deep sea fish anywhere in Mexico, he knows enough fundamental Spanish to “get by on, you know what I mean, senior?” Plaintiff does not speak or understand Spanish. This is an important fact for the court to understand, that Plaintiff did not speak Spanish or understand it in order for it to understand how the D.E.A. was methodically carrying out its plan and scheme to fabricate scenarios to frame Plaintiff as a drug manufacturer or/and dealer while he was in Mexico and at other times. This was done as a pretext to frame Plaintiff as abovesaid, to attempt to justify a multi-jurisdictional investigation to gas, implant, and torture Plaintiff as he was a political witness against the D.E.A. and others. Also during this time, Plaintiff’s wife, Kathy Schlund, who was working with the D.E.A. to frame Plaintiff while the D.E.A. and others were taking select photographs and voice recordings of Plaintiff, asked Plaintiff to pick up some skin crème at a pharmacy in Rocky Point, Mexico while Plaintiff was in Mexico fishing. This skin crème was typically used for cosmetic reasons and purposes by women. The brand name was Retin A. When Plaintiff walked into the drug store with other members of the fishing party, the pharmacist behind the counter held up a bottle of cough syrup and directly addressed only Plaintiff and said pharmacists spoke only in his native Spanish language to Plaintiff. Plaintiff, speaking only in his native language – English – replied to the pharmacist, “Retin A.” The pharmacist then set down only the bottle of cough syrup on the counter next to the cash register and went to obtain the Retin A, obtained the Retin A, and returned with it to the cash register. Next, Plaintiff requested from the pharmacist a couple of packs of Amoxicillin, and the pharmacist obtained it and likewise set the items next to the cash register. The D.E.A., this entire time, was taking select photographs of the activities inside the drugstore for the purposes of setting up Plaintiff. The pharmacist then rang up said items and Plaintiff then paid the pharmacist for them. The pharmacist then placed the Retin A and Amoxicillin into a brown paper bag. He then picked up the box of cough syrup and placed it in the same brown paper bag. Plaintiff then confronted the pharmacist about the cough syrup, asking if he was charged for it and, further that he did not request the cough syrup and did not want it and to remove it from his other purchases. The pharmacist then removed the cough syrup from the said bag and pretended to not speak or understand English. All of the activities of Kathy Schlund, the D.E.A., and the pharmacist’s activities relative to the cough syrup abovesaid were to frame Plaintiff as purporting to be a drug manufacturer. Plaintiff made the pharmacist remove the cough syrup from the brown bag provided by the pharmacist. Plaintiff then left the drug store without the cough syrup. Plaintiff has never purchased any cough syrup in Mexico. Plaintiff has never manufactured any drugs and doesn’t possess knowledge to manufacture any drugs. After Plaintiff returned from Mexico, while preparing for work one morning, Plaintiff’s wife, Kathy Schlund, asked him to go upstairs to get some cough syrup from the medicine cabinet for the children because she said they were sick. Plaintiff told her to “go get it yourself,” as he was running late to work. Kathy said she had to get the kids ready for school and again requested Plaintiff to get the cough syrup from the medicine cabinet, which he did. He returned downstairs holding the box of cough syrup, unknowing he was being photographed by the D.E.A. while holding the cough syrup box. While Plaintiff was upstairs obtaining the cough syrup Kathy had requested, she quietly left without telling him, giving the appearance Plaintiff was alone in his house utilizing the cough syrup for some illegal purpose. Plaintiff then innocently placed the unopened box of cough syrup on the bar and left for work. At that time he was not aware the D.E.A. were photographing his activities, which were later used for the framing of him as abovesaid. The D.E.A. and others, during this same time frame, installed monitoring devices in or on Plaintiff’s employees, Harold Elston and Daniel Pomeroy, and others to disable them to the point of sickness, to cripple their performance as employees working on jobs for him. This allowed the D.E.A., working with Kathy Schlund, to provide a window of opportunity for the purpose of filtering new employees directly into Plaintiff’s employment, who were secretly influenced and controlled by the D.E.A. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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
