Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs
If you get any responses and replies when you write to the government or public, please post here by "reply to this discussion"
Mailteam works during the past few years
Mailteam Mass Petitions
Lawsuits filed by victims https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/lawsuits-of-mind-control
Mind Control technologies
Please go to LAST PAGE OF "Replies to this Discussion" to read NEWEST Information
For those states that are on the leading edge of exotic weapons development, opposition will be high to any attempt to formulate a convention that bans whole categories of weapons, let alone have a verification regime that would necessitate intrusive inspections into the very heart of secret facilities and technologies. Since it is not clear at this writing which states are the leading competitors in specific types of weapons systems, more transparency will be needed to contemplate arms control treaties. The best short-term possibilities to address the implications of the upcoming generation of weaponry are non-proliferation control regimes that are national and possibly international in nature. Concerned officials and ex-officials in the United States have recently recommended using national controls such as the “Critical List.” The motivation for making this prescription has more to do with preventing the diffusion of affordable technologies as part of weapons that are a threat to national infrastructure. Careful application of the Geneva Protocol (1949), specifically Article 36 of Additional Protocol I by national governments, would allow policy makers to ask critical questions as to the stated purpose or intent of the weapon.67 Many states that are not yet party to Additional Protocol I have adopted procedures to ensure their weapons are subjected to this type of review.68
The current international situation is ripe for a discussion about the paths that several governments are taking with new generation weapons, including those classed as so called “non-lethal weapons. Conducting this dialogue is a complex issue. Development of exotic weapons that have the capacity to be both lethal and non-lethal raise questions as to the actual intent of the weapon and their effects. Setting an agenda internationally on these new technologies is not simplified because of the proliferation argument or the notion that the misuse of such weapons will likely be caused by rogue states. Due to its large investments in DEW, the Russian Federation may also be a critical link to future dialogue. The issue is more sensitive because the states where dialogue should begin are friends and allies of Canada. The United States, United Kingdom and France are states that are leaders in exotic technologies. Attempts to establish some controls or regimes may also be complicated by our commitments to NATO and possibly our own future technical involvements through research and bilateral projects.
There have been enough warning signals that should propel NGO’s and concerned governments to action. Why should there be concern? What weapons systems should be the subject of prompt action? The Moscow theatre gassing in October 2002, is a significant cause for alarm. Reassessing the prohibitions in the CWC regarding calmative agents should be a start. What is even more of a concern is that the use of Fentanyl by security forces illustrates the specious nature of the argument that advocates of non-lethal weapons are making with regards to notions of reduced casualties and minimal effects to human beings. This incident should be a critical example of what necessitates Article 36 reviews and international attention. According to one U.S. military study, “Directed energy (EMP and HPM) and acoustic technologies offer the greatest near term promise for a credible war fighting capability.”69 The Swedish designed High Energy Whirls device utilizing vortex technology is also a cause for concern regarding trauma injuries. The use of microwave technology for “area denial” applications is an operational reality in the U.S. military. If this capability is enhanced without proper reviews and transparency, the issue of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering will be a missed opportunity. Careful scrutiny of these areas is essential and urgent. In many areas however, there is not enough information on new systems and their full capabilities, particularly when programs are taken over by national militaries.
Numerous analysts studying these issues have stated that discussion is long overdue and should begin immediately, particularly with more transparency, accountability and information available to the public in several countries. The domestic and international implications of the use and misuse of several exotic weapons and nonlethal variants are serious and require a higher priority by the Canadian government and international fora.
First response to the House of Commons of Canada after our petition was refused with significant conflicts.
Bioeffectso f SelectedN onlethal Weapons(fn1 )
From Freedom of Infomation/ PrivacyO ffice
To Donald Friedman
Confidential Legal Correspondence
ll25 Thid Steet
Napa, Califomia 94559-3015
De: FARAGE Nigel email@example.com
Data: 9 de abril de 2012 07:35
Dear Mr Finch,
Thank you for your further e-mail. From the information provided, it is not clear what are exactly your allegation(s) and claim(s) and against which institutions you wish to complaint against.
I would like to reiterate in this regards that complaint concerning ECHR is outside the Ombudsman's remit. Please note, in this regard, that the European Court of Human Rights was established by the European Convention on Human Rights, signed by the Member States of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights was not created by or under the EU Treaties and, consequently, it is not a European Union institution, body, office or agency. The European Ombudsman is therefore not entitled to deal with complaints against the European Court of Human Rights.
Should you nevertheless wish to complain to the Ombudsman, you are free to do so. However, please note that the complaint shall be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the complaint and must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches to the institutions and bodies concerned (Art. 2 (4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman). Moreover, the facts of the complaint must not be, or have been, subject to judicial proceedings (Art. 1 (3) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman).
If these criteria are fulfilled and you wish to complain against an EU institution, you could consider using the form for complaints, available on the Ombudsman's website:
I hope you will find this information useful.
European Ombudsman Zuzana Vaníčková
T. +33 (0)3 88 17 23 28
1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403, F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
T. + 33 (0)3 88 17 23 13
F. + 33 (0)3 88 17 90 62
Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about the civil liberties and detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
I agree that the provisions in last year's NDAA are a violation of our constitutional rights. Because of my deep concerns, I cosponsored the Due Process Guarantee Act, which would amend the Non-Detention Act so that the Post- 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) would not be construed as congressional authorization for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. It was the AUMF for the War on Terror that has been used by two administrations to claim authority to indefinitely detain citizens, denying them of due process rights embedded in our Constitution. These fundamental constitutional protections, which are the foundation of "innocent until proven guilty," guarantee an attorney, a public trial, a trial by jury, and the ability to contest evidence. To hear more of my thoughts on this topic, please click the video below.
I will continue to fight to protect our civil liberties and constitutional rights. Thank you, again, for your input.
All my best,
Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator
I was very sorry to read your letter and learn about the difficulties you have faced. Unfortunately, CCR is unable to offer you any legal assistance. We receive hundreds of inquiries each week and can no longer accept public requests for assistance. I apologize for the inconvenience this may cause.
If you are seeking legal help, the Legal Aid Society (or 212-577-3300 for the NYC office) may be able to assist you. If you visit LawHelp.org, you can click on your state and find resources in your area. You might also try the American Bar Association (312-988-5522 ), the National Lawyers Guild, or the American Civil Liberties Union.
I wish you the best of luck in your struggles.