All Posts (12225)
Sort by
00 - George.wav, 16.8 MBDARPA MIND CONTROL, HUMAN TRAFFICING, SUPER SOLDIER ENGINEERING PROGRAM- MASS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYInterview with Former US Soldier 00 - George.wav, 16.8 MBSuper Soldier Engineering ProgramFrom DARPAMITNano Technology Soldier Resource Center.Harvard Medical SystemsBoston GeneralBrain Machine Interface
AMERICA (WORLD)
(AUTHORIZED )BY CHRIS TO
MANHATTAN
BACK STEP PROJECT
HOSTED BY RON ANGELL
TO INTERVIEW MR EVANS OF RAMAYES.COM INTERVIEW INVOLVING SHIELDING FROM ELECTRONICS
MANHATTAN BACKSTEP
PROJECT
HOSTED BY RON ANGELL
INTERVIEW WITH
DR. MOSS DAVID POSNER
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-27564/TS-251054.mp3
TARGETED INDIVIDUAL
SERIES
RON ANGELL-7-3-09
HOST: INDEPENDENCE
(1) The European Union Parliament (1999)
The European Parliament A4-0005/1999 Paragraph 27 calls for a worldwide ban on weapons that might enable “any form” of the "manipulation of human beings".
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/european-parliament-a400051999
(2) H.R. 1160 (2001)
Introduced March 22, 2001: terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency band
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/house-bill-hr-1160-2001
(3) H.R. 2977 (2001)
Introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich: peaceful uses of space; prohibiting (the unlawful use) of electromagnetic weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/usa-bill-hr-2977-ih
(4) The Human Rights org (2002)
Media Guide to Disarmament: electromagmentic resonance weapons
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) formally listed a special category of psychotronic [psycho-"mind" & tronic="electronic"] mind control and other electromagmentic resonance weapons in their 2002 Media Guide to Disarmament.
http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/2002-media-guide-to-disarmament-in-geneva-95.pdf ;
(5) Berkeley, California (2002)
Ban the weaponization of space and mind control
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/berkeley-resolution-of-ban-the
(6) Michigan: House Bill 4513 (2003)
Classify harmful electronic or electromagnetic devices
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/house-bill-4513
(7) Michigan: House Bill 4514 (2003)
Add to statutes to define crimes
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/house-bill-4514
(8) Massachusetts: Chapter 170 of the Acts of (2004)
Possession of electronic weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/massachusetts-act
(9) Maine: Chapter 264 H.P. 868 - L.D. 1271 (2005)
Criminal uses of electronic weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/maine-act-hp-868
(10) Missouri House bill 550
introduced by Jim Guest to against illegal chip implants.
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/584-jim-guest-of-mo-usa-bill
(11) Electronic Surveillance Laws in USA
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/ElectronicSurveillanceLaws/tabid/13492/Default.aspx#OH
(12) Michigan House Bill 1026
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/usa-bill-hres1026-cointelpro
(13) H.R.5662 IH-- STALKERS Act of 2010 (Introduced in House - IH)https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/stalkers-act-of-2010-hr5662
(14) US Code: Chapter 32: 1520 and 1520a - Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/us-codechapter-32-1520-and
(15) Criminal Justice, New Technologies, and the Constitution , May 1988
http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8809.pdf
(16) 2010 California Code: Health and Safety Code: Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2010-california-code-human-experimentation
(17) European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection. State parties can also take cases against other state parties to the Court, although this power is rarely used. There are comparable protections issued in the Bill of Rights under the United States Constitution as well as the English Bill of Rights. I used the European Convention on Human Rights as it is an International Agreement.
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article.
2. Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"
1. Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
2. Article 13 - effective remedy
3. Article 13 provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the Convention.
(18) Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code
A victim may recover compensatory damages,
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/united-states-code-section-1983-of-title-42
(19) Russian Federation law
The addendum to the article 6 of the Russian Federation law On Weapons, "was approved on July 26, 2001. It states: within the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited the circulation of weapons and other objects the effects of the operation of which are based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or ultra-sonic radiations" (30).
(20) International criminal justice standards and Non Lethal Weapons
International criminal justice standards and Non Lethal Weapons NATO policy that express : ... “The research and development procurement and employment of Non-Lethal Weapons shall always remain consistent with applicable treaties, conventions and international law, particularly the Law of Armed conflict as well as national law and approved Rules of Engagement.”
International criminal justice standards The following criminal justice standards were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations:
• 1979 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the • 1990 Basic Principles on the Use of Force. (Page 36)
http://www.adh-geneve.ch/docs/projets/Non-Kinetic-EnergyOctober2010.pdf
(21) UNIDIR has listed non lethal weapons( mind control ) weapons as weapons of mass destruction.
“NON-LETHAL” WEAPONS It is difficult to oppose the development of new means and methods of warfare, which would lead to fewer deaths, injuries, disabilities or deprivation to civilians. However, the term “non-lethal weapons” is applied to a range of old and new weapons the use of which is, purportedly, associated with low lethality. Such weapons can be classified according to how they damage or incapacitate the human body. The following categories of weapon have been cited as having “non-lethal” capabilities: kinetic energy (rubber bullets, sponge bullets, etc.); entangling technologies (nets, sticky foam); chemical weapons; biological weapons; acoustic beams; electric shock technologies; infrasound; and electromagnetic waves of a variety of wavelengths.10
http://unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2359.pdf
http://www.unidir.org/html/en/search.html?q=non+lethal+weapons&sa=
Some lawsuits filed by Soleilmavis
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/some-lawsuits-filed-by
Kidnapped by Mind Control Weapons, and Sent to US Embassy in Hong Kong
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/kidnapped-by-mind-control
42 U.S.C. 1983
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides, in part:
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress,… “
Under this federal statute, a person who is deprived of their rights under the Constitution by someone acting under “color of law” (federal, state, or local) can bring a federal cause of action for damages and other relief. The statute provides a right of redress for parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities by an official's abuse of his or her governmental position.
Elements of a Cause of Action
Generally speaking, there are three elements required to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff must prove the following:
1) He or she was deprived of a specific right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States;
2) The alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law; and
3) The deprivation was the proximate cause of injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
There must be a causal connection between the defendant’s action and the alleged injury. This means that harm experienced by the plaintiff must be the result of an action on the part of the governmental entity or its agent.
Who can be sued?
Anyone acting under “color of law” can be sued under this statute. Local governments, municipal corporations, and school boards can all be subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but only if their policies or procedures were the
proximate cause of the Constitutional deprivation and the injury alleged.
Generally, in the absence of a “policy claim”, individuals employed by federal, state or local government are the parties named as defendants. They are sued individually for actions they took in their official capacity. In some cases, private citizens can become liable in a “1983 action”, if they acted in concert with public officials to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights.
Qualified Immunity
An affirmative defense of qualified immunity is available to defendants who acted under circumstances where a reasonable official may not have understood that the conduct alleged was illegal. It is not necessary to show
that the defendant officer was acting in bad faith and, indeed, the officer’s subjective intentions, such as a good faith belief that what he was doing was lawful, are irrelevant. To defeat qualified immunity, it is necessary for the
plaintiff to show that, given the facts and circumstances alleged, any reasonable officer would have known that the conduct complained of violated well-established law at the time of the incident.
Damages
A victim may recover compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and (except in the case of municipal defendants) punitive damages. The prevailing plaintiff can also recover the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys fees.
Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons
2010 California Code
Health and Safety Code
Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
Health and Safety Code
Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 24170-24179.5
SECTION 24170-24179.5
24174. As used in this chapter, "medical experiment" means:
(a) The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, as defined in Section 109920 or 109925, electromagnetic radiation, heat or cold, or a biological substance or organism, in or upon a human subject in the practice or research of medicine in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject.
(b) The investigational use of a drug or device as provided in Sections 111590 and 111595.
(c) Withholding medical treatment from a human subject for any purpose other than maintenance or improvement of the health of the subject.
(a) The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, as defined in Section 109920 or 109925, electromagnetic radiation, heat or cold, or a biological substance or organism, in or upon a human subject in the practice or research of medicine in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject.
(b) The investigational use of a drug or device as provided in Sections 111590 and 111595.
(c) Withholding medical treatment from a human subject for any purpose other than maintenance or improvement of the health of the subject.
24175. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall be subjected to any medical experiment unless the informed consent of such person is obtained.
24176. (a) Any person who is primarily responsible for conduct of a medical experiment and who negligently allows the experiment to be conducted without a subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), as determined by the court. The minimum amount of damages awarded shall be five hundred dollars ($500).
(b) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) as determined by the court. The minimum amount of damages
awarded shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, and thereby exposes a subject to a known substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(d) Any representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company, who is directly responsible for contracting with another person for the conduct of a medical experiment, and who has knowledge of risks or hazards with respect to the experiment, and who willfully withholds information of the risks and hazards from the person contracting for the conduct of the medical experiment, and thereby exposes a subject to substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(e) Each and every medical experiment performed in violation of any provision of this chapter is a separate and actionable offense.
(f) Any attempted or purported waiver of the rights guaranteed, or requirements prescribed by this chapter, whether by a subject or by a subject's conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is void.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand the right of an injured subject to recover damages under any other applicable law.
(b) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) as determined by the court. The minimum amount of damages
awarded shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, and thereby exposes a subject to a known substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(d) Any representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company, who is directly responsible for contracting with another person for the conduct of a medical experiment, and who has knowledge of risks or hazards with respect to the experiment, and who willfully withholds information of the risks and hazards from the person contracting for the conduct of the medical experiment, and thereby exposes a subject to substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(e) Each and every medical experiment performed in violation of any provision of this chapter is a separate and actionable offense.
(f) Any attempted or purported waiver of the rights guaranteed, or requirements prescribed by this chapter, whether by a subject or by a subject's conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is void.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand the right of an injured subject to recover damages under any other applicable law.
24177.5. (a) This chapter shall not apply to any medical experimental treatment that benefits a patient subject to a life-threatening emergency if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) Care is provided in accordance with the procedures and the additional protections of the rights and welfare of the patient set forth in Part 50 of Title 21 of, and Part 46 of Title 45 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, in effect on December 31, 2010.
(2) The patient is in a life-threatening situation necessitating urgent intervention and available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory.
(3) The patient is unable to give informed consent as a result of the patient's medical condition.
(4) Obtaining informed consent from the patient's legally authorized representatives is not feasible before the treatment must be administered. The proposed investigational plan shall define the length of time of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator shall commit to attempting to contact a legally authorized representative for each subject within that length of time and, if feasible, to asking the legally authorized representative contacted for consent within that length of time rather than proceeding without consent.
(5) There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation.
(6) Valid scientific studies have been conducted that support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the patient. Risks associated with the investigation shall be reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard
therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.
(b) Nothing in this section is intended to relieve any party of any other legal duty, including, but not limited to, the duty to act in a nonnegligent manner.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.
(1) Care is provided in accordance with the procedures and the additional protections of the rights and welfare of the patient set forth in Part 50 of Title 21 of, and Part 46 of Title 45 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, in effect on December 31, 2010.
(2) The patient is in a life-threatening situation necessitating urgent intervention and available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory.
(3) The patient is unable to give informed consent as a result of the patient's medical condition.
(4) Obtaining informed consent from the patient's legally authorized representatives is not feasible before the treatment must be administered. The proposed investigational plan shall define the length of time of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator shall commit to attempting to contact a legally authorized representative for each subject within that length of time and, if feasible, to asking the legally authorized representative contacted for consent within that length of time rather than proceeding without consent.
(5) There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation.
(6) Valid scientific studies have been conducted that support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the patient. Risks associated with the investigation shall be reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard
therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.
(b) Nothing in this section is intended to relieve any party of any other legal duty, including, but not limited to, the duty to act in a nonnegligent manner.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.
Read more about Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of
US Code - Chapter 32: Chemical and biological warfare program
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32
US Code - Section 1520: Repealed.
related to use by the Department of Defense of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents, accounting to congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies, and notification of local civilian officials.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32/1520
50 U.S.C. § 1520a : US Code -Section 1520A: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or
biological agents
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32/1520a
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt
-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1520 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
-HEAD-
Sec. 1520. Repealed.
-MISC1-
Sec. 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, div.A, title X, Sec. 1078(g), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, and Pub. L. 105-277,div. I, title VI, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886. Section, Pub. L. 95-79, title VIII, Sec.808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334; Pub. L. 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1),Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1822, related to use by the Department of Defense ofhuman subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents, accounting to
congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies, and notification of local civilian officials.
-End-
……………………………………………………………………
-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1520a 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
-HEAD-
Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
-STATUTE-
(a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) –
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human objects.
(b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section,the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
(c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
(e) "Biological agent" defined In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing –
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 105-85, div. A, title X, Sec. 1078, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1915; Pub. L. 106-65, div. A, title X, Sec. 1067(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774.)
-COD-
CODIFICATION
Section is comprised of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105-85. Subsec. (f) of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105-85 amended section 1523(b) of this title. Subsec. (g) of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105-85 repealed section 1520 of this title.
Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and not as part of Pub. L. 91-121, title IV, Sec. 409, Nov. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 209, which comprises this chapter.
-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1999 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L.106-65 substituted "and the Committee on Armed Services" for"and the Committee on National Security".
-End-
HR 5662 IH
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.
July 1, 2010
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Simplifying The Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act of 2010' or the `STALKERS Act of 2010'.
SEC. 2. STALKING.
(a) In General- Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 2261A. Stalking
`(a) Whoever, with intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate a person, engages in any conduct in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States that--
`(1) causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious emotional distress to a person other than the person engaging in the conduct; or
`(2) occurs in circumstances where the conduct would be reasonably expected to cause the other person serious emotional distress;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is the same as that for an offense under section 2261, except that--
`(1) if the offense involves conduct in violation of a protection order, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is increased by 5 years, over the term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in section 2261; and
`(2) if the victim of the offense is under the age of 18 years, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is increased by 10 years, over the term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in section 2261.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 2261A in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`2261A. Stalking.'.
SEC. 3. BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING LAWS TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
In the annual report under section 529 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General shall--
(1) include an evaluation of Federal, tribal, State, and local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and
(2) identify and describe those elements of such efforts that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such laws.
109th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. RES. 1026
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 20, 2006
Ms. MCKINNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
Whereas the Congress affirms both constitutional and international law and all existing legislation and resolutions that protect, defend, and assert human and civil rights;
Whereas the Congress denounces the criminalization of political expression;
Whereas the Congress condemns any abuse of human, civil, and constitutional rights undertaken by Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies and agents;
Whereas the Congress acknowledges the violations of law perpetrated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted under the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), and other intelligence agency and law enforcement programs such as CHAOS, GARDEN PLOT, CABLE SPLICER, LANTERN SPIKE, and others, which targeted the leadership of progressive social movements and implemented extra-constitutional aggregations of executive power or martial law;
Whereas the Congress recognizes the findings of the Church Committee which identified COINTELPRO and related activities as an illegal, extra-judicial effort designed to disrupt and destroy opposition groups and movements, and anti-war protest, among others;
Whereas the Congress regrets that the government investigations stopped short of making recommendations for relief for the victims of COINTELPRO and, as a result, dozens still remain imprisoned, unjustly incarcerated as the result of FBI operations to `neutralize' the leadership of the civil rights movement; and
Whereas the Congress recognizes that such abuses have been renewed in the United States under special Executive branch orders and mandates following the attacks of 9/11, by existing and newly formed intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies including but not limited to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of nvestigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Agency (TSA), and Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and by certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT and related legislation: Now,
therefore, be it Resolved, That the U.S. Congress will release any related classified documents that do not involve compromise of an existing source, agent, or method, and renew and administer hearings by all appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress, or through the formation of a select oversight committee to investigate the past abuses and appropriate legal relief due to the victims of such abuses carried out under COINTELPRO and related programs by other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and to identify any renewal of similar abuses following the attacks of 9/11 by any Federal or local agencies or Executive branch orders, or under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT; and
Be it further resolved, That Congress intends to renew legislation that will end these abuses and fully protect the constitutional, civil, and human rights of all U.S. citizens and others who fall under the protection of our laws and international laws and treaties the United States is signatory to.
More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of
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:
a) statistics
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
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/usa-bill-hres1026-cointelpro
Instructions for preparing a COINTELPRO statement
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/instructions-for-preparing-a
About Greg’s lawsuit with Stein and Stein
https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/stein-and-stein-the-law-firm
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:
http://www.slate.com/id/2100460/
Is Torture Against the Law?
What Uncle Sam has to say about it.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 5:26 PM ETAccording 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 or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (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."
Advertisement
Another section of the U.S. Code (Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section 1350) also deals with the issue of torture. The so-called Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 allows victims of torture, or the families of those who were killed through extrajudicial means, to sue their tormentors in U.S. courts, regardless of their citizenship or where the crime occurred.
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
7145 Blueberry
Lane, Derby, Kansas 67037
Ph: 316.788.0901
316.788.7990
www.assocforhonestattys.com
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...
From all indications, this commission is only to give the appearance that they are doing something about the illegal surveillance/ targeting of innocent people. Our research and substantial evidence shows that the targeting of innocent people (in any form, whether it's by microwave surveillance/microchips/steroid cocktail mix IVs in the hospital) is the result
of National Security Letters (NSLs) that were legalized under the Patriot Act in 2001. Anyone with connections to a Washington insider or your state governor/attorney general can have one issued against a person at any time for any reason. We have evidence to show that NSLs were delivered to hospitals three times in 2007 in the Wichita, Kansas area by CIA operatives/Blackwater contractors stationed at McConnell Air Force Base (read Case # 3 on our website under "Supporting Documents" - one woman was killed in the hospital using the steroid cocktail mix I.V.) NSLs are also delivered to banks if they want to get
into your bank account, and this also flags employers not to hire you. Our research shows that anyone who fights the system in any way has an NSL against them. When a 22-year old boy working out at McConnell was targeted with H1N1 in Oct. 2009, we pushed for a Congressional inquiry and a false lawsuit was brought against me (personally) by our state attorney general for practicing law without a license. They do not want us to keep showing people how to file their own lawsuits because they know that numerous pro se suits are the only thing that works - they overload the system. You can talk til you're blue in the face, but a lawsuit is a written record that forces them to respond (if they don't, you win by default judgment). A guide is on our website under "How to File a Federal Suit" with TI claims similar to Case # 3. You can take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by mail in three easy steps. Your best evidence is an affidavit from another TI who agrees with what happened to you, because it also happened to them. We have helped people with cases in the past and attached these as evidence, and this keeps the court from dismissing it as a frivolous suit. Don't let anyone tell you this is not good evidence - it is the BEST.
of National Security Letters (NSLs) that were legalized under the Patriot Act in 2001. Anyone with connections to a Washington insider or your state governor/attorney general can have one issued against a person at any time for any reason. We have evidence to show that NSLs were delivered to hospitals three times in 2007 in the Wichita, Kansas area by CIA operatives/Blackwater contractors stationed at McConnell Air Force Base (read Case # 3 on our website under "Supporting Documents" - one woman was killed in the hospital using the steroid cocktail mix I.V.) NSLs are also delivered to banks if they want to get
into your bank account, and this also flags employers not to hire you. Our research shows that anyone who fights the system in any way has an NSL against them. When a 22-year old boy working out at McConnell was targeted with H1N1 in Oct. 2009, we pushed for a Congressional inquiry and a false lawsuit was brought against me (personally) by our state attorney general for practicing law without a license. They do not want us to keep showing people how to file their own lawsuits because they know that numerous pro se suits are the only thing that works - they overload the system. You can talk til you're blue in the face, but a lawsuit is a written record that forces them to respond (if they don't, you win by default judgment). A guide is on our website under "How to File a Federal Suit" with TI claims similar to Case # 3. You can take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by mail in three easy steps. Your best evidence is an affidavit from another TI who agrees with what happened to you, because it also happened to them. We have helped people with cases in the past and attached these as evidence, and this keeps the court from dismissing it as a frivolous suit. Don't let anyone tell you this is not good evidence - it is the BEST.
If what we are telling you is wrong, they wouldn't be trying so hard to put us out of business. But a top priority right now is to pressure your Congressmen/Senators to let the Patriot Act (or relevant portions) expire on May 27. Then they can no longer issue National Security Letters against innocent people. We also need a law in place, and that is why a
Congressional inquiry is needed. If enough lawsuits are threatened, this can force them to address the issue so it is covered by mainstream media, as it should be...
"The answer to world peace is to eliminate arrogance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
Congressional inquiry is needed. If enough lawsuits are threatened, this can force them to address the issue so it is covered by mainstream media, as it should be...
"The answer to world peace is to eliminate arrogance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
USA PATRIOT Act
Main article: USA Patriot Act
Once passed in 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the use of the NSL, allowing their use in scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies, presumably to allow the department of Homeland Security the same ability to use NSLs. In January 2007 the New York Times reported that both the Pentagon and the CIA have been issuing National Security Letters.[6] The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added specific penalties for non-compliance or disclosure.
"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
https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/lawyers-who-know-mind-control
