Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs
The followings are some suggestions from lawyers, We welcome more good suggestions, please leave your comments to this post.
Some suggestions from France lawyers
Summary report of Mr. Rudy (France) meeting with the lawyers in Paris
Only 3 lawyers turned up, the other 3 were held up at their offices at the last moment and briefly chatted with us on the phone.
1. They all know about the existence of various tecnological means which violate the fundamental human rights of innocent people , they know the existence of non lethal weapons and of highly sophisticated psychological pressures.
2. They do not have the slightest doubt about some governments' participation in influencing or even destroying the free will of some people.
3. They know that the exposure of such practices usually provokes sniggering and those who dare to complain are either made fun of or accused of paranoia.
Paranoia , of course, does exist and as it is characterized by an excessive mistrust of other people's acts or an excessive mistrust of power, it affects every social relationship and makes it possible to justify exclusion .
4. Utmost rigour and precision are therefore required when exposing the attacks on the victims' integrity, privacy and freedom of thought by invisible means. .
It is only by building up impeccable fact-files supported by official reports and scientific studies that public opinion worldwide can be sensitized and made aware of the problem.
It is only under these conditions of rigour and precision that the 3 lawyers present will agree to put the case for the defence.
The 3 lawyers all agreed on the following points:
Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence of the attacks, so we have to make do with:
b) similarities in symptoms and experiences
c) similarities of torture cases
d) existence of weapons'patents
e) existence of the technology patents for the use of V2K
f) complicity of a number of psychiatrists worldwide
G) the highly probable involvement of many governments ( two lawyers referred to the example of helicopters and said that not many people can afford to maintain aircrafts. Flights are logged and the airspace they are in is recorded).
September 13, 2008
add 1 point: the 3 lawyers think that our first help should come from the parliamentarians, because they are the ones who make the laws.
Suggestions from Mr. Bob who have good knowledge on COINTELPRO
(1) the necessary evidence for bringing a lawsuit with Universal Jurisdiction is to pursue a winning legal strategy that begins with the reopening of a COINTELPRO investigation and
(2) the appointment of an independent special counsel with subpoena powers for obtaining classified government documents that show a specific harm to a specific person by a specific federal agent.
USA Bill 1026 COINTELPRO
Instructions for preparing a COINTELPRO statement
About Greg’s lawsuit with Stein and Stein
From Bob S, JD, Retired Attorney
First, a Canadian law firm cannot represent in a Canadian court US citizens who have suffered harm in the US from a US federal agency. The Canadian court does not have jurisdiction over such a case, and Canadian lawyers are not authorized to undertake such representation in a US court.
Second, if the lawyers had agreed to take such a case, they would have written to greg explaining what they would try to do and for whom. Greg would send a copy of this letter instead of his own vague email.
Third, the MKULTRA evidence can't be used to prove CIA responsibility for new forms of experiments using entirely different technology today. We have no way of accessing new evidence of responsibility by ourselves or through an attorney or a private investigator. It can only be accessed by a congressional investigation or by an
appointed Independent Prosecutor. No legitimate attorney would make the false claim that a detective can get such classified evidence. If the detective could actually do this by some illegal means, he would be subject to severe criminal penalties.
Fourth, the claims of TI's are far too diversified to be lumped together in a class action law suit. Any attempt to do this would be dismissed by the court. No legitimate attorney would claim that a class action lawsuit would be an appropriate form of legal action for the TI situation.
Bob S, JD, Retired Attorney
In a message dated 5/17/2011 6:40:15 A.
I just received another lawyers suggection on 24 May 2011,
Practices in US are not familiar to me. But basically location of court should follow the country of the victim. It is correct that US citizen can not go to court in Canada but must claim first all the processes in his home country. After that international courts are available based on international agreements or laws.
Basically evidences in court are here in Europe under various laws but itself court case here makes evidences and even non public materials more public for the case parties. It is universal law to have a right to know what concerns person's own matters. Others it makes quite impossible to audience parties in the court.
Related to possible illegal medical-type experiments, these materials should be public for the person they concern, also because of the court case. But in practice i see it quite demanding to go and ask these materials for public view. Also I can not say about evidence's hand out practical protocols in different countries, I am sure those vary country to country too much. Class action, I am not familiar. I know somehow group's right to make a group suit.
Here in Europe group suit must be based on law that qualifies the case. All cases can not be group cases.
The route to court or solution in mind control cases seems to me out of the court exercise, but of course it would be ideal to take people behind to the crimes to the court. Lets see how this kind of cases can come to public knowledge for masses.
Law says non-US citizens can still sue in US cvourts for torture:
According to an article in today's New York Times, the CIA is using "coercive interrogation methods" against some al-Qaida suspects. The piece notes that "defenders of the operation said the methods … did not violate American anti-torture statutes." What U.S. laws are they referring to?
The federal anti-torture statute is formally known as Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code. The law consists of three sections (2340, 2340A, and 2340B), which define the crime of torture and prescribe harsh punishments for anyone—an American citizen or otherwise—who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. (Domestic incidents of torture are covered by state criminal statutes.) A person found guilty of committing torture faces up to 20 years in prison or even execution, if the torture in question resulted in a victim's death.
The law was added to the books in 1994, as part of the United States' efforts to ratify and comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman ... (more simply known as the CAT). The treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1984, but not ratified by the U.S. Congress until a decade later. The CAT mandates that all parties to the treaty "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."
Both of these anti-torture statutes include identical, albeit imprecise, definitions of what constitutes torture. Among the proscribed actions are "the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering"; the use of "mind-altering substances"; and threats against other people, presumably family members.
Despite its efforts to adhere to the directives of the CAT, the United States has recently grumbled over the United Nations' efforts to add an inspection regime to the treaty. In 2002, the United Nations added an "optional protocol" to the CAT, requiring signatories to permit surprise inspections of their prisons. The United States has so far refused to sign, contending that the inspections would infringe on states' rights.
Suggestions from Joan Farr Heffington, C.E.O.
Association for Honest Attorneys
Lane, Derby, Kansas 67037
We have read some of the dialog going on between TIs and legal counsel concerning the Bioethics Commission and wanted to offer our opinion. If this email does not reach all the TIs on your list, please forward...
"How to File a Federal Suit" at www.assocforhonestattys.com.
Case # 3 under "Supporting Documents" can be used as a template.
Lawyers who know mind control abuses and tortures