USA BIll HR 2977 IH

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 6:22pm

HR 2977 IH 107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2977 To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 2, 2001 Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons. 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 `Space Preservation Act of 2001'. SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE. Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'. SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE. The President shall-- (1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and (2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components. SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS. The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons. SEC. 5. REPORT. The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on-- (1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and (2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4. SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES. Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for-- (1) space exploration; (2) space research and development; (3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or (4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems. SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space. (2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following: (i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by-- (I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object; (II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object; (III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or (IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means. (ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)-- (I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B); (II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or (III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person. (B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as-- (i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; (v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons. (C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space. More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

European Parliament A4-0005/1999

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 6:08pm

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". It is disappointing that nothing seems to have happened so far in response to this. Such weapons must surely include what the US military calls V2K weapons Environment, security and foreign affairs A4-0005/1999 Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy The European Parliament, - having regard to the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Rehn on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies (B4-0551/95), - having regard to the UN study 'Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the environment', UN (A46/364, 17 September 1991), - having regard to its resolution of 29 June 1995 on anti-personnel landmines: a murderous impediment to development(1), - having regard to its previous resolutions on non-proliferation and the testing of nuclear weapons and the Canberra Commission report of August 1996 on the abolition of nuclear weapons, - having regard to the International Court's unanimous ruling on the obligation of the nuclear weapon states to negotiate for a ban on nuclear weapons (Advisory Opinion No. 96/22 of 8 July 1996), - having regard to its opinion of 19 April 1996 on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (COM(95)0155 - C4-0221/95 - 95/0098(CNS))(2), - having regard to its earlier resolutions on chemical weapons, - having regard to the outcome of the UN Conferences in Kyoto in 1997 and Rio de Janeiro in 1992, - having regard to the hearing on HAARP and Non-lethal Weapons held by its Foreign Affairs Subcommitee on Security and Disarmament in Brussels on 5 February 1998, - having regard to Rule 148 of its Rules of Procedure, - having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0005/1999), A. whereas the end of the Cold War has radically changed the security situation in the world and whereas the relaxation of military tension has resulted in comprehensive disarmament in the military field in general and in nuclear weapons in particular, resulting in considerable cut-backs in defence budgets, B. whereas, despite this complete transformation of the geostrategic situation since the end of the Cold War, the risk of catastrophic damage to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment, notably its bio-diversity, has not significantly diminished, whether from the accidental or unauthorised firing of nuclear weapons or the authorised use of nuclear weapons based on a perceived but unfounded threat of impending attack, C. whereas this risk could be very considerably reduced within a very short timeframe by the rapid implementation by all nuclear weapons states of the six steps contained in the Canberra Commission"s report concerning, in particular, the removal of all nuclear weapons from the present " hair trigger alert" readiness and the progressive transfer of all weapons into strategic reserve, D. whereas Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commits all of its parties to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament" and whereas the Principles and Objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Conference reaffirmed that the Treaty"s ultimate goal was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, E. whereas threats to the environment, the flow of refugees, ethnic tension, terrorism and international crime are new and serious threats to security; whereas the ability to deal with various forms of conflict is increasing in importance as the security scene changes, F. whereas the world's resources are being exploited as if they were inexhaustible, which has led to increasingly frequent natural and environmental disasters; whereas such local and regional ecological problems may have considerable impact on international relations; regretting that this has not been more clearly reflected in national foreign, security and defence policies, G. whereas conflicts throughout the world are predominantly at an intra-state rather than inter-state level and, where inter-state conflicts do arise, they are increasingly concerned with access to or the availability of basic vital resources, especially water, food and fuel, H. whereas the access to and availability of such vital natural resources are inherently connected to environmental degradation and pollution, by both cause and effect, whereas it follows logically therefore that conflict prevention must increasingly focus on these issues, I. whereas all those factors, which affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations of the world most of all, are constantly increasing the incidence of so-called 'environmental refugees', resulting both in direct pressure on EU immigration and justice policies, on development assistance and spending on humanitarian aid and, indirectly, in increased security problems for the EU in the form of regional instability in other parts of the world, J. whereas, according to detailed international research collated and published by the Climate Institute in Washington, the number of 'environmental refugees' now exceeds the number of 'traditional refugees' (25 m compared with 22 m) and whereas this figure is expected to double by 2010 and could well rise by substantially more on a worst-case basis, K. whereas, since the end of the Cold War, although the management of global issues has been largely stripped of the previously dominant ideological context and is now much less determined by the question of military balance, this has yet to be reflected in the UN"s system of global governance by emphasising the coherence and effectiveness of both military and non-military components of security policy, L. whereas, nonetheless, the emphasis of a growing proportion of the UN"s work on global political and security issues is essentially non-military, and notably related to the relationship between trade, aid, the environment and sustainable development, M. whereas there is an urgent need to mobilise adequate resources to meet the environmental challenge and whereas very limited resources are available for environmental protection, for which reason a reappraisal of the use of existing resources is called for, N. whereas as military resources have been released the armed forces have had a unique opportunity and ample capacity to support the civilian efforts to cope with the increasing environmental problems, O. whereas military-related resources are by their nature national assets while the environmental challenge is global; whereas ways must therefore be found for international cooperation in the transfer and use of military resources for environmental protection, P. whereas the short-term costs of environmental protection have to be seen in the light of the long-term cost of doing nothing in this field, and whereas there is an increasing need for a cost benefit analysis of various environmental strategies, Q. whereas the common goal of restoring the world's damaged ecosystems cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of the fair exploitation of global resources and whereas there is a need to facilitate international technical cooperation and encourage the transfer of appropriate military-related technology, R. whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system, S. whereas the general disquiet over ecological decline and environmental crises requires the setting of priorities in the national decision-making process; whereas the individual countries must pool their efforts in response to environmental disasters, 1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and Parliament a common strategy, as foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty, which brings together the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade, aid, development and international environmental policies between 2000 and 2010 so as to tackle the following individual issues and the relationships between them: a) agricultural and food production and environmental degradation; b) water shortages and transfrontier water supply; c) deforestation and restoring carbon sinks; d) unemployment, underemployment and absolute poverty; e) sustainable development and climate change; f) deforestation, desertification and population growth; g) the link between all of the above and global warming and the humanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weather events; 2. Notes that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument of security policy; calls therefore on the Member States to define environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and security assessments, military research and action plans; 3. Recognises the important part played by the armed forces in a democratic society, their national defence role and the fact that peace-keeping and peace-making initiatives can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of environmental damage; 4. Points out that atmospheric and underground nuclear tests have as a result of nuclear radiation fall-out distributed large quantities of radioactive cesium 137, strontium 90 and other cancer inducing isotopes over the whole planet and have caused considerable environmental and health damage in the test areas; 5. Calls on the Commission and the Council, given the fact that several parts of the world are threatened by the uncontrolled, unsafe and unprofessional storage and dumping of nuclear submarines and surface-vessels, as well as their radioactive fuel and leaking nuclear reactors, to take action, considering the high possibility that as a result large regions might soon start to be polluted by the radiation; 6. Demands also that an appropriate solution be found to deal with the chemical and conventional weapons which have been dumped after both World Wars in many places in the seas around Europe as an ' easy" solution to get rid of these stocks and that up to today nobody knows what might be the ecological results in the long run, in particular for the fish and for beach-life; 7. Calls on the Commission and the Council to contribute towards finding a solution to the problem that, as result of ongoing warfare in whole regions of Africa, human and agricultural structures have been ruined and therefore the lands are now subject to environmental disaster in particular by deforestation and erosion leading to desertification; 8. Calls on the military to end all activities which contribute to damaging the environment and health and to undertake all steps necessary to clean up and decontaminate the polluted areas; Use of military resources for environmental purposes 9. Considers that the resources available to reverse or stem damage to the environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge; recommends therefore that the Member States seek to utilise military-related resources for environmental protection by: a) considering which military resources can be made available to the United Nations on a temporary, long-term or stand-by basis as an instrument for international cooperation in environmental disasters or crises; b) drawing up international and European protection programmes using military personnel, equipment and facilities made available under the Partnership for Peace for use in environmental emergencies; c) incorporating objectives for environmental protection and sustainable development in their security concepts; d) ensuring that their armed forces comply with specific environmental rules and that damage caused by them to the environment in the past is made good; e) including environmental considerations in their military research and development programmes; 10. Urges the Commission, since practical experience in the field is limited, to: a) establish the exchange of information on current national experience in environmental applications for military resources; b) take action within the UN to facilitate the global dissemination of environmental data including such data obtained by the use of military satellites and other information-gathering platforms; 11. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmental legislation to all military activities and to assume responsibility for, and pay for, the investigation, clean-up and decontamination of areas damaged by past military activity, so that such areas can be returned to civil use; this is especially important for the extensive chemical and conventional munition dumps along the coastlines of the EU; 12. Calls on all Member States to formulate environmental and health objectives and action plans so as to enhance the measures taken by their armed forces to protect the environment and health; 13. Calls on the governments of the Member States gradually to improve the protection of the environment by the armed forces by means of training and technical development and by giving all regular and conscript personnel basic training in environmental matters; 14. Considers that environmental strategies should be able to include monitoring the world environment, assessing the data thus collected, coordinating scientific work and disseminating information, exploiting relevant data from national observation and monitoring systems to give a continuous and comprehensive picture of the state of the environment; 15. Notes that the drastic fall in military expenditure could result in substantial problems in certain regions and calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to convert military production facilities and technologies to produce civil goods, and for civil applications, using national programmes and Community initiatives such as the KONVER programme; 16. Stresses the importance of stepping up preventive environmental work with a view to combating environmental and natural disasters; 17. Calls on the Council to do more to ensure that the USA, Russia, India and China sign the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning anti-personnel mines, without delay; 18. Believes that the EU should do more to help the victims of landmines and to support the development of mine clearance techniques, and that the development of mine clearance methods should be accelerated; 19. Calls on the Member States to develop environmentally-sound technology for the destruction of weapons; 20. Notes that one of the potentially most serious threats that exist on the EU's doorstep lies in the inadequate monitoring of waste from nuclear arms processing and of biological and chemical weapons stores and in the need for decontamination following military activity; stresses that it is important that the Member States actively promote increased international cooperation, for instance within the UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of destroying such weapons in as environment-friendly a way as possible; 21. Takes the view that all further negotiations on the reduction and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons must be based on the principles of mutual and balanced reduction commitments; 22. Takes the view that, given the particularly difficult circumstances afflicting the countries of the former Soviet Union, the threat to the global as well as local environment posed by the degradation of the condition of nuclear weapons and materials still held in those countries makes it an even more urgent priority to reach agreement on the further gradual elimination of nuclear weapons; Legal aspects of military activities 23. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new 'non-lethal' weapons technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions; 24. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the HAARP programme currently being funded in Alaska; 25. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally; 26. Calls on the Commission to examine if there are environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings; 27. Calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings; 28. Calls on the Commission and the Council to work for the conclusion of international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war; 29. Calls on the Commission and the Council to work towards the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities; 30. Calls on the Council to play an active part in the implementation of the proposals of the Canberra Commission and Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament; 31. Calls on the Council, and the British and French governments in particular, to take the lead within the framework of the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards full implementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions and elimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim, the global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment; 32. Calls on the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States to advocate the approach taken in this resolution in all further United Nations meetings held under the auspices of or in relation to the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament; 33. Calls on the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, to report to it on the Union"s position concerning the specific points contained in this resolution within the context of forthcoming meetings of the United Nations, its agencies and bodies, notably the 1999 Preparatory Committee of the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament and all other relevant international fora; 34. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States of the European Union and to the United Nations. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN#Contentd14937e476 More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

Maine Act HP 868

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 6:01pm

Maine: Chapter 264 H.P. 868 - L.D. 1271 (2005) An Act Regarding Criminal Use of an Electronic Weapon PUBLIC LAWS, First Special Session of the 122nd, CHAPTER 264 H.P. 868 - L.D. 1271, Effective September 17, 2005. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: Sec. 1. 17-A MRSA §1004 is enacted to read: §1004. Criminal use of electronic weapon 1. Except as provided in subsection 4, a person is guilty of criminal use of an electronic weapon if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly uses an electronic weapon upon any other person. 2. As used in this section, "electronic weapon" means a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to have a disabling effect upon human beings. 3. Criminal use of an electronic weapon is a Class D crime. 4. This section does not apply to the use of an electronic weapon by: A. A law enforcement officer, corrections officer or corrections supervisor engaged in the performance of the law enforcement officer's, corrections officer's or corrections supervisor's public duty if the officer's or corrections supervisor's appointing authority has authorized such use of an electronic weapon; or B. A person using deadly force when that use is for the purpose of: (1) Defending that person or a 3rd person as authorized under section 108, subsection 2; or (2) Defending that person's dwelling place as authorized under section 104, subsections 3 and 4. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/ros/lom/lom122nd/7pub251%2D300/pub251%2D300%2D22.htm More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 5:30pm

(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 of the European Convention on Human Rights

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.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights

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

House Bill 4513

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 5:30pm

Michigan: House Bill 4513 (2004) Public Act No. 256 of 2003 (Effective: January 1, 2004). STATE OF MICHIGAN 92ND LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 2003 ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 4513 92nd Legislature Regular Session, Public Act 256 of 2003: AN ACT to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "An act to revise, consolidate, codify and add to the statutes relating to crimes; to define crimes and prescribe the penalties therefor; to provide for restitution under certain circumstances; to provide for the competency of evidence at the trial of persons accused of crime; to provide immunity from prosecution for certain witnesses appearing at such trials; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act," by amending section 200h (MCL 750.200h), as amended by 2001 PA 135. The People of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 200h. As used in this chapter: (a) "Chemical irritant" means solid, liquid, or gas that through its chemical or physical properties, alone or in combination with 1 or more other substances, can be used to produce an irritant effect in humans, animals, or plants. (b) "Chemical irritant device" means a device designed or intended to release a chemical irritant. (c) "Computer", "computer network", and "computer system" mean those terms as defined in section 145d. (d) "Deliver" means that actual or constructive transfer of a substance or device from 1 person to another regardless of any agency relationship. (e) "For an unlawful purpose" includes, but is not limited to, having the intent to do any of the following: (i) Frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person. (ii) Damage or destroy any real or personal property without the permission of the property owner or, if the property is public property, without the permission of the governmental agency having authority over the property. (f) "Harmful biological device" means a device designed or intended to release a harmful biological substance. (g) "Harmful biological substance" means a bacteria, virus, or other microorganism or a toxic substance derived from or produced by an organism that can be used to cause death, injury, or disease in humans, animals, or plants. (h) "Harmful chemical device" means a device that is designed or intended to release a harmful chemical substance. (i) "Harmful chemical substance" means a solid, liquid, or gas that through its chemical or physical properties, alone or in combination with 1 or more other chemical substances, can be used to cause death, injury, or disease in humans, animals, or plants. (j) "Harmful radioactive material" means material that is radioactive and that can be used to cause death, injury, or disease in humans, animals, or growing plants by its radioactivity. (k) "Harmful electronic or electromagnetic device" means a device designed to emit or radiate or that, as a result of its design, emits or radiates an electronic or electromagnetic pulse, current, beam, signal, or microwave that is intended to cause harm to others or cause damage to, destroy, or disrupt any electronic or telecommunications system or device, including, but not limited to, a computer, computer network, or computer system. (l) "Harmful radioactive device" means a device that is designed or intended to release a harmful radioactive material. (m) "Imitation harmful substance or device" means a substance or device that is designed or intended to represent 1 or more of the following or that is alleged to be 1 of the following but that is not any of the following: (i) A harmful biological device. (ii) A harmful biological substance. (iii) A harmful chemical device. (iv) A harmful chemical substance. (v) A harmful radioactive material. (vi) A radioactive device. (vii) A harmful electronic or electromagnetic device. (n) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c. (o) "Telecommunications system" means that term as defined in section 219a. Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect January 1, 2004. Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless House Bill No. 4514 of the 92nd Legislature is enacted into law. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate Approved by the Governor Sponsors: Mike Nofs - (primary). Edward J Gaffney, John P Stakoe, John Garfield, John Stahl, Lorence Wenke, William Van Regenmorter, David B Robertson, Ruth Johnson, Sal Rocca, Jim Howell, Shelley Taub, Bruce Caswell, Randy Richardville, David Palsrok, Sandra Caul, Joe Hune, Gary Newell, Craig M DeRoche, Clark Bisbee, Mary Ann Middaugh, Jack Brandenburg, Daniel J Acciavatti, Philip J LaJoy, John R Pastor, Tom Casperson, Susan Tabor, Leon Drolet, Matt Milosch, Steve Bieda, Alexander C Lipsey, Paul Gieleghem, Andy Meisner, John Moolenaar, Chris Ward. Categories: Crimes, definitions; Crimes, other; Crimes, weapons; Crimes, terrorism; Crimes, public safety Crimes; definitions; "harmful electronic or electromagnetic device"; define. Amends sec. 200h of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.200h). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4514'03 Last Action: 12/30/2003 - assigned PA 256'03 with immediate effect. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2003-2004/publicact/htm/2003-PA-0256.htm More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

House Bill 4514

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 5:30pm

Michigan: House Bill 4514 (2004) Public Act No. 257 (EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2004) Public Acts of 2003. REGULAR SESSION OF 2003 STATE OF MICHIGAN 92ND LEGISLATURE ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 4514 AN ACT to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "An act to revise, consolidate, codify and add to the statutes relating to crimes; to define crimes and prescribe the penalties therefor; to provide for restitution under certain circumstances; to provide for the competency of evidence at the trial of persons accused of crime; to provide immunity from prosecution for certain witnesses appearing at such trials; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act," by amending sections 200i, 200k, 200l, 204, 207, 209, 210, 211a, and 212a (MCL 750.200i, 750.200k, 750.200l, 750.204, 750.207, 750.209, 750.210, 750.211a, and 750.212a), sections 200i and 200k as added by 1998 PA 207, section 200l as added by 2001 PA 135, sections 204 and 211a as amended by 1998 PA 206, sections 207, 209, and 210 as amended by 1998 PA 208, and section 212a as amended by 2002 PA 140, and by adding section 200m. The People of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 200i. (1) A person shall not manufacture, deliver, possess, transport, place, use, or release any of the following for an unlawful purpose: (a) A harmful biological substance or a harmful biological device. (b) A harmful chemical substance or a harmful chemical device. (c) A harmful radioactive material or a harmful radioactive device. (d) A harmful electronic or electromagnetic device. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation directly or indirectly results in property damage, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation directly or indirectly results in personal injury to another individual other than serious impairment of a body function or death, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (d) If the violation directly or indirectly results in serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (e) If the violation directly or indirectly results in the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both. Sec. 200k. (1) Sections 200h to 200j do not apply to any of the following: (a) A member of the military forces of the United States or of this state acting under a lawful order or while engaged in a lawful military activity. (b) A law enforcement officer enforcing the laws of the United States or of this state or while engaged in a lawful law enforcement activity. (c) A person engaged in self-defense or the lawful defense of another person. (d) Unless acting with an unlawful purpose, a person acting within the scope of his or her employment under a rule or a permit or license of the United States or of this state. (2) Unless acting with an unlawful purpose, a person who within the scope of his or her employment violates a rule or a provision of a permit or license issued by the United States or this state to manufacture, deliver, possess, transport, place, classify, label, use, or release a substance or device shall not be prosecuted under this chapter. (3) This chapter does not prohibit the possession and use of a device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology as permitted under section 224a. Sec. 200l. (1) A person shall not commit an act with the intent to cause an individual to falsely believe that the individual has been exposed to a harmful biological substance, harmful biological device, harmful chemical substance, harmful chemical device, harmful radioactive material, harmful radioactive device, or harmful electronic or electromagnetic device. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. Sec. 200m. A charge under or a conviction or punishment for a violation of this chapter does not prevent a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising from the same transaction. Sec. 204. (1) A person shall not send or deliver to another person or cause to be taken or received by any person any kind of explosive substance or any other dangerous thing with the intent to frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person, or with the intent to damage or destroy any real or personal property without the permission of the property owner or, if the property is public property, without the permission of the governmental agency having authority over that property. (2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation damages the property of another person, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation causes physical injury to another individual, other than serious impairment of a body function, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (d) If the violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (e) If the violation causes the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both. Sec. 207. (1) A person shall not place an explosive substance in or near any real or personal property with the intent to frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person, or with the intent to damage or destroy any real or personal property without the permission of the property owner or, if the property is public property, without the permission of the governmental agency having authority over that property. (2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation damages the property of another person, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation causes physical injury to another individual, other than serious impairment of a body function, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (d) If the violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (e) If the violation causes the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both. Sec. 209. (1) A person who places an offensive or injurious substance or compound in or near to any real or personal property with intent to wrongfully injure or coerce another person or to injure the property or business of another person, or to interfere with another person's use, management, conduct, or control of his or her business or property is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation damages the property of another person, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation causes physical injury to another individual, other than serious impairment of a body function, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (d) If the violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (e) If the violation causes the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both. (2) A person who places an offensive or injurious substance or compound in or near to any real or personal property with the intent to annoy or alarm any person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $3,000.00, or both. Sec. 210. (1) A person shall not carry or possess an explosive or combustible substance or a substance or compound that when combined with another substance or compound will become explosive or combustible or an article containing an explosive or combustible substance or a substance or compound that when combined with another substance or compound will become explosive or combustible, with the intent to frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person, or with the intent to damage or destroy any real or personal property without the permission of the property owner or, if the property is public property, without the permission of the governmental agency having authority over that property. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation damages the property of another person, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation causes physical injury to another individual, other than serious impairment of a body function, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (d) If the violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (e) If the violation causes the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both. Sec. 211a. (1) A person shall not manufacture, buy, sell, furnish, or have in his or her possession any device that is designed to explode or that will explode upon impact or with the application of heat or a flame, or that is highly incendiary, with the intent to frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person, or with the intent to damage or destroy any real or personal property without the permission of the property owner or, if the property is public property, without the permission of the governmental agency having authority over that property. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation damages the property of another person, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation causes physical injury to another individual, other than serious impairment of a body function, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (d) If the violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (e) If the violation causes the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both. Sec. 212a. (1) If a person violates this chapter and the violation is committed in or is directed at a vulnerable target, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years. The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed under this section to be served consecutively to the term of imprisonment for the underlying violation. (2) As used in this section, "vulnerable target" means any of the following: (a) A child care center or day care center as defined in section 1 of 1973 PA 116, MCL 722.111. (b) A health care facility or agency as defined in section 20106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20106. (c) A building or structure open to the general public. (d) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of religious worship. (e) A public, private, denominational, or parochial school offering developmental kindergarten, kindergarten, or any grade 1 through 12. (f) An institution of higher education. (g) A stadium. (h) A transportation structure or facility open to the public, including, but not limited to, a bridge, a tunnel, a public highway, or a railroad. (i) An airport. As used in this subdivision, "airport" means that term as defined in section 2 of the aeronautics code of the state of Michigan, 1945 PA 327, MCL 259.2. (j) Port facilities. As used in this subdivision, "port facilities" means that term as defined in section 2 of the Hertel-Law-T. Stopczynski port authority act, 1978 PA 639, MCL 120.102. (k) A public services facility. As used in this subdivision, "public services facility" means any of the following facilities whether publicly or privately owned: (i) A natural gas refinery, natural gas storage facility, or natural gas pipeline. (ii) An electric, steam, gas, telephone, power, water, or pipeline facility. (iii) A nuclear power plant, nuclear reactor facility, or nuclear waste storage facility. (l) A petroleum refinery, petroleum storage facility, or petroleum pipeline. (m) A vehicle, locomotive or railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft used to provide transportation services to the public or to provide for the movement of goods in commerce. (n) A building, structure, or other facility owned or operated by the federal government, by this state, or by a political subdivision or any other instrumentality of this state or of a local unit of government. Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect January 1, 2004. Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless House Bill No. 4513 of the 92nd Legislature is enacted into law. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate Approved by the Governor Michigan: House Bill 4514 (2004) Public Act No. 257 Introduced by Reps. Van Regenmorter, Nofs, Howell, Caswell, Richardville, Palsrok, Caul, Hune, Newell, DeRoche, Bisbee, Middaugh, Brandenburg, Acciavatti, LaJoy, Pastor, Casperson, Tabor, Drolet, Milosch, Bieda, Lipsey, Gieleghem, Meisner, Moolenaar and Ward. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2003-2004/publicact/htm/2003-PA-0257.htm More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

Massachusetts Act

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 5:30pm

Massachusetts: Chapter 170 of the Acts of 2004 An Act Relative to the Possession of Electronic Weapons Whereas , The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to authorize forthwith certain possession and use of electronic weapons, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out section 131J, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, and inserting in place thereof the following section:- Section 131J. No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer, or member of a special reaction team in a state prison or designated special operations or tactical team in a county correctional facility, acting in the discharge of his official duties who has completed a training course approved by the secretary of public safety in the use of such a device or weapon designed to incapacitate temporarily; or (2) a supplier of such devices or weapons designed to incapacitate temporarily, if possession of the device or weapon is necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon within the scope of such sale or supply enterprise. No person shall sell or offer for sale such device or weapon, except to federal, state or municipal law enforcement agencies. A device or weapon sold under this section shall include a mechanism for tracking the number of times the device or weapon has been fired. The secretary of public safety shall adopt regulations governing who may sell or offer to sell such devices or weapons in the commonwealth and governing law enforcement training on the appropriate use of portable electrical weapons. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 1/2 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A law enforcement officer may arrest without a warrant any person whom he has probable cause to believe has violated this section. SECTION 2. The secretary of public safety shall develop a uniform protocol directing state police and municipal police officers to collect data pursuant to this act. Such data shall include the number of times the device or weapon has been fired and the identifying characteristics, including the race and gender, of the individuals who have been fired upon. Not later than 1 year after the effective date of this act, the secretary of public safety shall transmit the necessary data to a university in the commonwealth with experience in the analysis of such data, for annual preparation of an analysis and report of its findings. The secretary shall forthwith transmit the university's annual report to the department of the attorney general, the department of state police, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, the executive office of public safety and the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate. Approved July 15, 2004. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw04/sl040170.htm More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

House bill H.R. 1160 (2001)

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 5:00pm

H.R. 1160 [107th]: To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System of the Navy Mar 22, 2001 - Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack. HR 1160 IH 107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1160 To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System of the Navy. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 22, 2001 Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. BARRETT, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. KIND, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LUTHER, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OBEY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. STARK, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System of the Navy. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. (a) TERMINATION REQUIRED- The Secretary of the Navy shall terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System of the Navy. (b) MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE- The Secretary shall maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System. Continue on to the bill... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-1160 More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

Berkeley resolution of "ban the weaponization of Space"

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 5:00pm

Commentary: 2002 Berkeley Resolution Sweeps Through Canada By LEUREN MORET Special to the Planet Staff Friday June 03, 2005 http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=06-03-05&storyID=21550 Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin survived a razor-thin vote of confidence on May 17 when the House of Commons voted 152-152, putting his minority government in peril. It survived by a single vote when the Parliament speaker gave the minority government its one-vote victory. A few months earlier, Canadian citizens opposed to a secret National Missile Defense (NMD) agreement between Martin and President George Bush, forced Martin to reverse the agreement contributing to the crisis in his government. After the Berkeley City Council passed a resolution in 2002, “Endorsing the Space Preservation Act and Companion Space Preservation Treaty to Permanently Ban the Weaponization of Space,” the resolution swept through cities in Canada and helped gather thousands of signatures opposing Canada joining NMD. When citizens appeared in the Canadian Parliament with piles of paper covered with thousands of signatures, Martin was forced to reverse his secret agreement with Bush and the Canadian government rejected NMD. For several years I had wanted to thank the mayor of Bowen Island, the first municipality in the world to adopt the Berkeley resolution. In the summer of 2002, with the help of Vancouver lawyer Alfred Webre Jr., we created the space preservation resolution, which was introduced by Berkeley City Councilmember Dona Spring, and passed by the Berkeley City Council on Sept. 10, 2002. The resolution was in part a response to the bill and the “definitions” of weapons intended for space as described in HR 2977, the “Space Preservation Act of 2001,” introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, which included the following: • Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person). • Directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object [individual or targeted populations]. • Through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations. I suggested at the time that it seemed impossible that these weapons were even possible, but Kucinich, a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, assured me that these weapons exist and “those people who control them are deadly serious and intend to use them if we don’t stop the weaponization of space.” In early April I was traveling to Vancouver to meet with Lisa Barrett, mayor of Bowen Island. Martin’s Liberal Party government was embroiled in a corruption scandal. The opposition insisted he no longer had enough support to govern, which threatened a government crisis. I was unaware of the impact the Berkeley resolution had on the Canadian decision to reject NMD, and how it tied into the minority government crisis. But a few days later during my visit to Bowen Island, I discovered just what role the Berkeley resolution had played in Canadian Foreign Policy. On April 10, Webre Jr., his wife Geri, and I traveled from Vancouver to meet Barrett. Bowen Island is a town much like Berkeley, with an interesting mixture of writers, artists, musicians, lots of bicycles, and a progressive flavor to the political landscape. We met in an art gallery where a local artist was having an exhibit, and together we nibbled on the artist’s homemade gingerbread cookies while mingling with citizens and artists. I even talked physics with another city councilmember. Barrett was very pleased to hear that Berkeley had adopted the Kyoto Protocol. She pointed out that even though the Canadian government had already signed on, it was still necessary that locally, towns like Bowan Island, must also make efforts to meet the standards. She said it was important for cities like Berkeley to act when the United States government refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol. It was energizing to realize that citizens of Canada and the United States can work together. We can learn from each other by implementing and sharing our ideas on issues such as energy choices, divesting pension funds from weapons manufacturers, stopping the U.S. Navy from shooting depleted uranium weaponry in United States and Canadian coastal waters, and sharing information about the spider web relationships between United States and Canadian corporations. Barrett told us that the U.S. Navy is shooting depleted uranium weapons into the waters around Nanaimo, poisoning their fisheries just as they did around Seattle and in California. Lockheed Martin Marietta has bought a controlling interest in the ferry systems of British Columbia, privatizing an essential public transportation system—and raising the cost of the services. The next day, Afred and I were interviewed on CO-OP radio CFRO 102.7 FM in Vancouver with Gail Davidson, co-founder of Lawyers Against War. We discussed the extent of Canadian government pension fund investments in United States weapons manufacturers and the Carlyle Group. Gail explained the extent of pension fund investments in United States corporations and weapons manufacturers by the British Columbia pension fund, called the British Columbia Investment Management Corp. (BCIMC), and Vancouver City pension funds. As of March 2004, investments were estimated to be $4.6 billion in 251 companies that provide goods and services to the US Department of Defense or are otherwise involved in military production. Missiles (17 kinds), bombs (16 types), and bullets (300-500 million per year by SNC-Lavalin alone) are produced for the U.S. armed forces by Canadian corporations. Vancouver antiwar activists wrote in an April 26 letter to New Democratic Party leader Carole James, “What this means is that every nurse, physiotherapist, floor cleaner, and pharmacist in every hospital in the B.C. health care system, every kindergarten teacher, college instructor and university professor, every city worker, garbage collector, computer programmer, firefighter, ferry worker, B.C. transit driver, ICBC employee, B.C. Hydro worker—in fact, virtually every municipal and provincial public sector employee—is involuntarily supporting the U.S. invasion and occupation, because of decisions taken behind closed doors by the BCIMC.” U.S. war crimes and the use of illegal weapons such as depleted uranium was also a top concern. Gail described how she had filed a lawsuit against Bush in a Vancouver court. This action discouraged and impacted his visit to Canada, and he did not visit the Canadian Parliament nor make any public appearances except in a small town in eastern Canada—for a photo op with the media. She was a party to a second lawsuit filed in Germany charging Rumsfeld with war crimes, preventing Rumsfeld from visiting Europe in February 2005 with Bush and Rice. This trip to Canada made me realize that the need for citizen oversight and participation in local government is greater than ever before. Many things that we see happening locally such as election fraud are actually broader trends, the result of global corporatization and militarization. The vast looting of pension funds began about eight years ago and will continue until we stop it. Enron was just the beginning and CalPERS, the California state government workers pension fund, is in the crosshairs now for privatization and looting. The extent of pension fund investment in the U.S. military industrial complex is shocking. We are actually unknowingly supporting and benefiting from wars we oppose. Divesting from weapons of death takes the profit out of war. Subtle implementation of police state policies—such as RFID tags in the Berkeley library—must be stopped. There are many things that can be done locally and through “cross fertilization” of ideas across borders. We are the only ones who can make this happen. And it can start with something as simple as a Berkeley resolution, Canadian paper ballots, and a determined citizen lawyer. Leuren Moret is a member of Berkeley’s Community Environmental Advisory Commission.› More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

United States Code: Section 1983 of Title 42

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 4:00pm

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

https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

2010 California Code: Human Experimentation

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 3:30pm

2010 California Code
Health and Safety Code
Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 24170-24179.5

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/hsc/24170-24179.5.html

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.

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.

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.

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) 1520 and 1520a: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 12:30pm

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-

USA Bill H.RES.1026 (COINTELPRO)

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 10:00am

First presented by Elizabeth Adams, John Conyers, a Democratic representative from Michigan, is scheduled to head the Judiciary Committee in January and a vote on the resolution would be made at that time. We will need to fully support this measure when it comes up for a vote as it seeks to re-open hearings on COINTELPRO and other abuses of the FBI and all the other intelligence agencies.

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

STALKERS Act of 2010 (H.R.5662 -- IH)

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 16, 2010 at 10:00am

H.R.5662 -- STALKERS Act of 2010 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 5662 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5662

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 1, 2010

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

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.

Some suggestions on how to file a court case.

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 15, 2010 at 9:30pm

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.

By Brendan I. KoernerPosted Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 5:26 PM ET

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 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."

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.

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

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.

how_to_submit_to_ICC.DOC

Lawyers who know mind control abuses and tortures

https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/lawyers-who-know-mind-control

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A COINTELPRO STATEMENT

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 15, 2010 at 9:00am

Letter from Bob
Below is an accurate statement of my personal COINTELPRO experiences except that “Maria” is a fictional name. The original letter was sent separately to all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We received no answers from any of them.

From 1989 onward, we sent similar letters to our California senators and representatives. Some did not reply. Others sent non-responsive replies. No one offered any sincere help. Recently, there has been talk in the House of a new COINTELPRO investigation. We can write letters to encourage this proposed investigation. However, it is very unlikely that we can persuade elected representatives to meet their responsibility to us. Only public pressure can force a new COINTELPRO investigation.

We need an organized effort to bring our story to the public in an attempt to arouse public pressure, which can force congressional investigation. This will require the work of many people. I can tell you what to do, but I cannot do all the work for you. We need volunteers with writing and editing skills to work on this major project. Let me know if you can contribute.

I do not recommend that you write letters and send them to anyone at this point. I do recommend that you prepare letters following the guidelines below. They should be reviewed and edited by people who understand what is needed and who can edit them to conform them to the standards that I have set. Good editing is of crucial importance. It is counterproductive to send letters that sound confused and unbelievable.

THINGS TO AVOID:

 Avoid repeating my words. Restate your experiences in your own words. Your words may be similar to mine, but we don't want it to appear that you are copying a form.

 Avoid going into detailed descriptions of complex experiences. Describe your experiences in the kind of general terms that I have used.

 Avoid speculating about the reasons why you were targeted unless you have good reason to believe that you were targeted for political reasons. I will prepare a general explanation of what is behind these operations. I don't want conflicting personal theories in the statements.

I cannot do the editing of statements by myself, but I can lead a team of editors if there are volunteers who will do the basic work.

Bob S bobsdewtell@gmail.com

SAMPLE STATEMENT

The Hon. John Smith
House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Rep. Smith:

I am writing to ask for your help in seeking a new investigation of present-day COINTELPRO operations. These illegal and unconstitutional forms of government agency harassment and crime are rampant today.

Contrary to popular belief, the Church Committee investigations of 1976-78 did not end these covert forms of government persecution of citizens. No legislation was enacted to provide effective oversight or to provide future COINTELPRO victims with any effective remedies. None of the proven government criminals was prosecuted or fired. So the same COINTELPRO operations have continued to the present day.

Our personal experiences are proof that the evil of COINTELPRO lives on today in forms even more vile and destructive than what the Church committee uncovered. We are in touch with other victims who have similar COINTELPRO experiences.

Many of our COINTELPRO experience demonstrate capabilities that could only belong to a government intelligence agency. Other COINTELPRO experiences demonstrate the typical COINTELPRO modus operandi.

These COINTELPRO experiences began for me in 1954 as the result of my activism against McCarthyism while in college. The same experiences began for Maria in 1971. Here is a summary of our personal experiences with COINTELPRO forms of harassment and crime:

Access to our mail: Interception of our most important letters coming and going; long delays in delivery; and tampering with the contents of our mail. We have written dozens of letters of complaint and made dozens of oral complaints about 14 years of mail interference. Neither the postal inspectors nor any postal officials will deal honestly or realistically with the facts. Their evasive, unrealistic responses have caused us to believe that they must know the truth about continuous postal crimes committed against us with the consent of postal officials.

Ability to access the contents of shipments via UPS, Federal Express, Airborne Express, etc., without leaving any evidence of opening the packages. We find clear and unmistakable evidence of tampering and sabotage to the contents of packages delivered by these carriers but no sign of the packages having been opened. The FBI has the capability to open and reseal letters and packages so perfectly that the opening cannot be detected.

Ability to access the contents of safe deposit boxes that we rented at four different locations. They did this repeatedly at each location, taking things from the boxes and putting things in the boxes to let us know that they had been there and that we could not have safety for our personal belongings anywhere. Employees denied that our boxes had been entered.

Ability to enter our apartment and cars at any time without breaking in. We continually see evidence of illegal entries for harassment purposes, not investigative purposes. To let us know that someone has been in our apartment, things are moved from one place to another; cigarette butts and chewing gum are dropped on the floor; human excrement was once left in a waste paper basket. Items having great personal value to us and no value to anyone else are stolen. Evidence and documentation of harassment activities are stolen. We recently discovered the theft of approximately 40 VHS cassettes taping from C-SPAN of House and Senate Judiciary hearings relating to the FBI. Our medications have been openly tampered with and sometimes undetectably altered to produce very noticeable effects. Maria was taking a medication just before going to bed. Sometimes she couldn't sleep all night. Other times she slept so soundly that she had difficulty awaking on time to get to work and felt drowsy all day. The same thing was happening to her dog. Sometimes the dog stayed awake all night walking around the bedroom. Other nights the dog was so unconscious that Maria could not awaken it, and it continued to sleep through the morning. I was sometimes drugged unconscious just after drinking from an open beverage in the refrigerator. Twice I was taken to the emergency room because of apparent poisoning. The FBI budged $23 million in 1993 for r&d to enable it "to defeat modern electronics-based locking systems and the largest multi-laser technologies." (See 1993 FBI Budget request to the White House Office of Management and ``Budget, pp 4-5.) Now you know what they have been using the money for. Any lock that we can put on an apartment door is useless. Our tax dollars are used to pay for the development of state-of-the-art government burglary technology to be used in committing crimes against us.

Ability to know things that we say or do within the "privacy of our home" by means of electronic surveillance devices. This has been proven to us by harassment operations possible only through a knowledge of things that we say in our apartment and an ability to find things of personal value which we have hidden in places that would normally take hours to find. They have entered the living room during the day while we were in other rooms. They steal and are gone in an instant. We know that they have been there when we return to the living room and find something missing that was there minutes earlier. They could only do this by having surveillance equipment to tell them when we are away from the living room. They show us that they are able to watch us in every room at any hour of the day or night.

Ability to keep our phones tapped and to hear our conversations on calls from pay phones. They have demonstrated this capability by arranging harassment requiring use of information that could only be obtained by hearing our phone calls. It makes no difference if we go to a pay phone. The FBI has the capability to tap pay phones instantly. No court order is needed for this or for any other illegal act. The FBI does whatever it has the technological capability to do. It has never been concerned about the illegality of its acts because there has never been anyone to investigate or prosecute its crimes. We get frequent harassing phone calls. Changing numbers doesn't help. Having Pacific Bell put on a three week phone trap stops the harassing calls for those three weeks. As soon as the trap is taken off, the harassing calls resume. The harassers know when the trap is put on and taken off.

Availability of unlimited numbers of people to harass us in various ways. For years they openly followed us and approached us to start strange conversations. When we went to a deserted park area to have a picnic, one person after another came to settle at a point near us until they had us surrounded in a circle. No one else was in sight, but we were surrounded. Every time we went to a coffee shop, someone with a book would come to sit at a table within earshot, order coffee, and pretend to read. This routine was repeated continuously for months to make it appear that we were always under surveillance. If we went to a pay phone, someone would come to stand close enough to hear what we were saying. This was a blatant show of false surveillance purely for harassment. We never saw the same person twice. They showed us that they had an unlimited number of people available to keep repeating the same harassment operations.

Police participation. Local police have traditionally done whatever the FBI has asked them to do. They have become a part of the COINTELPRO machine. They cover up COINTELPRO crimes and sometimes participate in COINTELPRO harassment. For years, we saw police cars always present wherever we went. When Maria was living alone, police cars followed her openly and obtrusively on the streets. She took some Polaroid photos of the cars and took a photo showing a police car license number to the police station to complain about police harassment. The next time that she went to the park where she often walked her dog, approximately 10 police cars showed up and parked just outside the park. Soon afterward, the Polaroid camera and the photos of police cars were stolen from Maria's apartment. West Hollywood police gave me a ticket for parking on a hill without my wheels curbed. I saw several other cars parked without their wheels curbed but with no tickets. I kept the ticket and later started to write a letter complaining about discriminatory ticketing as police harassment. I intended to enclose a copy of the ticket, but before I could finish the letter, the ticket was stolen from the apartment. On one occassion, four police officers awoke Maria in the middle of the night by pounding loudly on her apartment door. They claimed to be looking for someone at her apartment number but at a different street address which did not exist. Police refused to investigate our reports of continuous burglaries.

Ability to obtain cooperation by employees of private business organizations in harassment operations. This might be accomplished by using FBI clout to request cooperation from business managers in harassment operations disguised as legitimate FBI investigative operations. It might be accomplished by bribing employees to participate in harassment without the knowledge of management. The FBI has unlimited funds to pay anyone to do anything. They can get people in any business organization to cooperate.

Ability to alienate friends and relatives through false accusations or false evidence used to create false negative beliefs about us. Friends and relatives suddenly broke off long relationships for no apparent reason or for reasons that made no sense. They tried to destroy my relationship with Maria by planting legal documents harmful to me with our signatures forged on them.

We have no direct proof of responsibility of a specific federal intelligence agency for the COINTELPRO forms of crime and harassment that we experience. It is impossible for the victims of covert government operations to prove responsibility. This is why investigation of COINTELPRO operations by congress is essential in order to determine responsibility and to provide remedies to citizens who have no legal means available to protect themselves against COINTELPRO forms of secret persecution.

Although we cannot prove responsibility of a specific federal agency or of specific government officials, we know that our experiences are typical of the COINTELPRO forms of crime and harassment which were originally developed and carried out by the FBI developed under J. Edgar Hoover and which this agency has been using for more than 50 years against thousands of innocent citizens.

The motive for the covert war against us is consistent with the motive for the covert wars waged by the FBI against innocent citizens throughout its history. Asserting constitutional rights or opposing activities and policies have been reasons for secret government retaliation against thousands of innocent American citizens.

A vast amount of information on this subject is available on the Internet. A Google search for "COINTELPRO" will produce hundreds of thousands of links with documentation of experiences similar to ours. Much of it is historical, but there is substantial evidence of the continuation of COINTELPRO operations to the present day.

The situation since 9-11 has produced extreme infringement on personal liberty. COINTELPRO operations such as we describe are the worst form of government abuse. These illegal and unconstitutional, covert government operations deserve your immediate attention and your serious investigation. We can provide you with much more detailed information about our personal experiences with COINTELPRO harassment and crime.

We are asking you and your colleagues to study information and documentation which we can provide to prove the truth about our long experience with these secret wars by government against innocent citizens. We are asking you to investigate responsibility for these wars and to take the necessary action to bring the wars to an end. We are asking you to restore to us and to all citizens the freedom and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Please tell us that you intend to meet this responsibility.
Sincerely yours,

Information of USA State Secrets Protection Act

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 14, 2010 at 11:00pm

KENNEDY INTRODUCES STATE SECRETS PROTECTION ACT
(As entered into the record)
January 22, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Today, Senator Specter and I are introducing the “State Secrets Protection Act.” I’ve been working on this bill with Senator Specter for several months, and I thank him for his commitment and leadership on this very important issue. I hope that our collaboration on this legislation will demonstrate that even the most sensitive problems can be addressed through bipartisan cooperation if we keep the interests of the nation front-and-center and roll up our sleeves to do the work of seeking a realistic and workable solution. The State Secrets Protection Act is an essential response to a pressing need.

For years, there has been growing concern about the state secrets privilege. It’s a common law privilege that lets the government protect sensitive national security information from being disclosed as evidence in litigation. The problem is that sometimes plaintiffs may need that information to show that their rights were violated. If the privilege is not applied carefully, the government can use it as a tool for cover-up, by withholding evidence that is not actually sensitive. The state secrets privilege is important, but there’s a risk it will be overused and abused.

The privilege was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1953, and it’s been asserted since then by every administration, Republican and Democratic. Under the Bush Administration, however, use of the state secrets privilege has dramatically increased—and the harmful consequences of its irregular application by courts have become painfully clear.

Injured plaintiffs have been denied justice; courts have failed to address fundamental questions of constitutional rights and separation of powers; and confusion pervades this area of law. The Senate debate on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has become far more difficult than it ought to be, because many believe that if courts hear lawsuits against telecommunications companies, the courts will be unable to deal fairly and effectively with the government’s invocation of the privilege.

Studies show that the Bush Administration has raised the privilege in over 25% more cases per year than previous administrations, and has sought dismissal in over 90% more cases. As one scholar recently noted, this Administration has used the privilege to “seek blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs” related to its war on terrorism, and as a result, the privilege is impairing the ability of Congress and the judiciary to perform their constitutional duty to check executive power.

Another leading scholar recently found that “in practical terms, the state secrets privilege never fails.” Like other commentators, he concluded that “the state secrets privilege is the most powerful secrecy privilege available to the president,” and “the people of the United States have suffered needlessly because the law is now a servant to executive claims of national security.”

In 1980, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) to provide federal courts with clear statutory guidance on handling secret evidence in criminal cases. For almost 30 years, courts have effectively applied that law to make criminal trials fairer and safer. During that period, Congress has also regulated judicial review of national security materials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Because of these laws, federal judges regularly review and handle highly classified evidence in many types of cases.

Yet in civil cases, litigants have been left behind. Congress has failed to provide clear rules or standards for determining whether evidence is protected by the state secrets privilege. We’ve failed to develop procedures that will protect injured parties and also prevent the disclosure of sensitive information. Because use of the state secrets privilege has escalated in recent years, there’s an increasing need for the judiciary and the executive to have clear, fair, and safe rules.

Many have recognized the need for congressional guidance on this issue. The American Bar Association recently issued a report “urg[ing] Congress to enact legislation governing federal civil cases implicating the state secrets privilege.” The bipartisan Constitution Project found that “legislative action [on the privilege] is essential to restore and strengthen the basic rights and liberties provided by our constitutional system of government.” Leading constitutional scholars sent a letter to Congress emphasizing that there “is a need for new rules designed to protect the system of checks and balances, individual rights, national security, fairness in the courtroom, and the adversary process.”

The State Secrets Protection Act we are introducing responds to this need by creating a civil version of CIPA. The Act provides guidance to the federal courts in handling assertions of the privilege in civil cases, and it restores checks and balances to this crucial area of law by placing constraints on the application of state secrets doctrine. The Act will strengthen our national security by requiring judges to protect all state secrets from disclosure, and it will strengthen the rule of law by preventing misuse of the privilege and enabling more litigants to achieve justice in court.

Recognizing that state secrets must be protected, the Act enables the executive branch to avoid publicly revealing evidence if doing so might disclose a state secret. If a court finds that an item of evidence contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively separated from other evidence that contains a state secret, then the evidence is privileged and may not be released for any reason. Secure judicial proceedings and other safeguards that have proven effective under CIPA and the Freedom of Information Act will ensure that the litigation does not reveal sensitive information.

At the same time, the State Secrets Protection Act will prevent the executive branch from using the privilege to deny parties their day in court or shield illegal activity that is not actually sensitive. A recently declassified report shows that the executive branch abused the state secrets privilege in the very Supreme Court case, United States v. Reynolds (1953), that serves as the basis for the privilege today. In Reynolds, an accident report was kept out of court due to the government’s claim that it would disclose state secrets. The court never even looked at the report. Now that the report has been made public, we’ve learned that in fact it contained no state secrets whatever—but it did contain embarrassing information revealing government negligence.

In recent years, federal courts have applied the Reynolds precedent to dismiss numerous cases—on issues ranging from torture, to extraordinary rendition, to warrantless wiretapping—without ever reviewing the evidence. Some courts have even upheld the executive’s claims of state secrets when the purported secrets were publicly available, as in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet.

In that case, there was extensive evidence in the public record that the plaintiff was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA on the basis of mistaken identity, but the court simply accepted at face value the government’s claim that litigation would require disclosure of state secrets. The court dismissed Mr. El-Masri’s case without even evaluating the evidence or considering whether the case could be litigated on other evidence.

When federal courts accept the executive branch’s state secrets claims as absolute, our system of checks and balances breaks down. By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, courts give the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and innocent victims are left unable to obtain justice. The kind of abuse that occurred in Reynolds will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act.

The Act requires courts to examine the evidence for which the privilege is claimed, in order to determine whether the executive branch has validly invoked the privilege. The court must look at the actual evidence, not just government affidavits about the evidence, and make its own assessment of whether information is covered by the privilege. Only after a court has considered the evidence and found that it provides a valid legal defense can it dismiss a claim on state secrets grounds.

The Act also gives parties an opportunity to make a preliminary case with their own evidence, and it allows courts to develop solutions to let lawsuits proceed, such as by directing the government to produce unclassified substitutes for secret evidence. Many of these powers are already available to courts, but they often go unused. In addition, the Act draws on CIPA to include provisions for congressional reporting that will ensure an additional layer of oversight.

I’m pleased that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have been able to work together to produce this bill. We expect to have a hearing soon on the state secrets privilege in the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Leahy. I look forward to a full airing of the issues and the important feedback that will come from the Committee’s thoughtful consideration of the legislation.

In particular, as the bill moves forward, we intend to continue to explore the possibilities for providing relief to plaintiffs who have a winning case, but cannot get a trial because every piece of evidence they need is privileged. This is an extremely difficult subject, which Congress should address if we can find a fair way to do so that will also protect legitimate secrets. We will also explore other measures to make the bill stronger, such as providing expedited security clearance reviews for attorneys.

Under the State Secrets Protection Act, the nation will be able to preserve its commitment to individual rights and the rule of law, without compromising its national defense or foreign policy. Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate the rules of procedure and evidence for the federal courts, and it’s long past time for us to exercise this authority on such an important issue. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this needed legislation as soon as possible.
###

State Secrets Protection Act (S. 2533)

Protecting National Security and the Rule of Law

The State Secrets Protection Act provides guidance to federal courts in civil lawsuits.

· The state secrets privilege is a common law doctrine that the federal government can invoke to prevent evidence from being publicly disclosed in judicial proceedings, if it would harm national security.

· Congress has established clear procedures to govern secret evidence in criminal cases under the Classified Information Procedures Act. But Congress has not yet provided guidance on the use of secret evidence in civil cases, and federal courts are applying the privilege in different ways, leading to inconsistent results.

· Some federal judges have viewed the executive branch’s state secrets privilege claims as absolute. By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, these judges have given the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and have left innocent victims unable to obtain justice.

· Reports document that the Bush administration has used the state secrets privilege more aggressively than previous administrations on cases ranging from kidnapping and torture to domestic warrantless wiretapping. As scholars have noted, the administration has used the privilege to “seek[] blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs,” and as a result, “the executive is stripping Congress of its ability to collaborate with the judiciary to curb executive power.”[1]

The State Secrets Protection Act will enhance national security.

· The Act will enhance national security by clarifying for courts the definition of a state secret. There is no settled definition now, resulting in inconsistent decisions.

· The Act ensures that the litigation process will not reveal state secrets, using many of the same safeguards that have proven effective in criminal cases and in litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. For example, a court may limit a party’s access to hearings, court filings, and affidavits, or require counsel to have appropriate security clearances.

· If a court finds that an item of evidence contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively separated from other evidence that contains a state secret, then the evidence is privileged and may not be released.

· The Act allows the government to refuse to admit or deny items in a complaint, if the mere act of admitting or denying those claims would divulge a state secret. The Act also allows the government to intervene in a case to which it is not a party in order to protect state secrets.

· To prevent flawed judicial rulings from erroneously authorizing the release of state secrets, any court order under the Act is subject to expedited interlocutory appeal.

The State Secrets Protection Act will provide oversight of the executive branch.

· The Act clarifies that the courts, not the executive branch, must review the evidence and determine whether information is covered by the state secrets privilege.

· If the court agrees that certain evidence is privileged, the court must, if possible, order the government to develop unclassified alternatives to the evidence. If the court determines that the evidence is not protected by the state secrets privilege, the evidence must be disclosed to the other parties and made available in the litigation, pursuant to the regular rules of evidence.

· In addition to providing careful judicial oversight, the Act requires the Attorney General to report regularly to congressional committees on the use of the privilege.

· Recently declassified information about the Supreme Court’s leading decision on the state secrets privilege, United States v. Reynolds (1953), provides an early example of executive abuse of the privilege. In that case, three widows sued the government over the deaths of their husbands in a B-29 crash, and asked for the accident report and statements from surviving crew members. The Supreme Court accepted the executive branch’s false assertion that the report contained references to secret electronic equipment, and therefore refused to allow the report to be used as evidence—without ever looking at the report itself. The report was declassified in the 1990s, and it contains no discussion at all of any secret equipment.[2] That kind of abuse will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act.

The State Secrets Protection Act will provide justice to litigants.

· The Act gives parties an opportunity to make a preliminary case with their own evidence, and it allows courts to develop specific solutions to let lawsuits proceed whenever possible.

· The Act prohibits the practice of seeking to dismiss a lawsuit altogether on the basis of the state secrets privilege, before the court considers any evidence. It makes clear that the privilege is an evidentiary rule, not a justiciability rule.

· The Act protects innocent government defendants by allowing them to use state secrets evidence to establish a valid, meritorious defense in secure in camera proceedings. But it also prevents the government from invoking the state secrets privilege merely to cover up non-sensitive facts that would support a judgment for the opposing party.

Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate the state secrets privilege.

· The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to enact “Regulations” concerning the jurisdiction of federal courts.[3] This constitutional power gives Congress authority to review and approve rules of procedure and evidence for the federal courts. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Congress retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution.”[4]

· Although Article II of the Constitution has been understood to grant the executive branch broad authority over the handling of secret information, this power is neither unlimited nor exclusive. Congress and the courts, as coordinate branches of government, also have an interest in creating rules for the federal courts and in the use of evidence in the judicial process.

· Congress has a history of acting to regulate judicial proceedings related to sensitive national security information. Congress has enacted FOIA, created the FISA court, and regulated the use of classified information in criminal trials. The constitutionality of these laws is well-established. Because of these laws, federal judges regularly review and handle highly classified evidence in many types of cases, but civil litigants have been left out.

State Secrets Protection Act (S. 2533): Section-by-Section Summary

Section 4051: Definition

Defines state secrets as “any information that, if disclosed publicly, would be reasonably likely to cause significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.” Not included is information that is already public or that has only a remote chance of harming national security.

Section 4052: Rules governing procedures related to this chapter

Allows the court to determine who will have access to documents and proceedings under the Act. The court may, in the interest of justice and national security, limit a party’s access to hearings, court filings, and affidavits, or require that attorneys have appropriate security clearances. The court may also assign a guardian ad litem or appoint a special master to assist in the proceedings.

Section 4053: Procedures for answering a complaint

Allows the government to intervene in any civil lawsuit to assert the privilege, which is no change from current practice. The court may not dismiss a lawsuit on state secrets grounds at the pleadings stage; it may dismiss a case on state secrets grounds only under Section 4055, after the parties have presented their evidence and the court has reviewed it. The government must file an answer to a complaint, but it may avoid admitting or denying certain facts by pleading “state secrets” to any allegation in a complaint. Each time the government pleads the privilege, it must submit an affidavit signed by the relevant agency head explaining why it is claiming the privilege.

Section 4054: Procedures for determining whether evidence is protected from disclosure by the state secrets privilege

Sets forth procedures for determining whether evidence is protected by the state secrets privilege. The court schedules a hearing to consider the government’s argument. The government must present to the court the evidence it asserts is protected by the privilege, and support its assertion with a signed affidavit. The court must make a privilege determination for each piece of evidence; if it contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively segregated from other evidence that contains a state secret, the evidence is privileged and may not be released. If the court finds that the evidence is privileged, it shall order the government where possible to create a non-privileged substitute for the evidence, such as an unclassified summary, a redacted version, a statement admitting the facts that the privileged evidence would tend to prove, or another alternative crafted by the court. If the government refuses to provide a non-privileged substitute ordered by the court, the court shall resolve the relevant issue of fact or law against the government.

Section 4055: Procedures when evidence protected by the state secrets privilege is necessary for adjudication of a claim or counterclaim

If the court finds that evidence is protected by the privilege and it is impossible to create substitute evidence, the court may dismiss the claim if it finds that doing otherwise would substantially impair the ability of a party to pursue a valid defense to the claim. The purpose of this Section is to protect parties for whom privileged evidence would provide a valid legal defense if they were able to introduce it.

Section 4056: Interlocutory appeal

Allows any party an expedited interlocutory appeal of any order under the Act. Such an appeal ensures a timely additional layer of review.

Section 4057: Security procedures

Draws heavily on the Classified Information Protection Act to provide security procedures.

Section 4058: Reporting

Requires the Attorney General to report within 30 days to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on each instance in which the United States claims the state secrets privilege, including turning over copies of the affidavits required under Sections 4053 and 4054 of the Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Amanda Frost, The State Secrets Privilege and Separation of Powers, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 1931, 1939, 1933 (2007).
[2] See Louis Fisher, In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power and the Reynolds Case (2006).
[3] U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
[4] Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 437 (2000).

Will victims win a lawsuit?

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 7, 2010 at 9:30pm

Will victims win a lawsuit?

Victims suffered a long period of extremely cruel of mind control weapon abuse and torture, brains being raped, spirits/souls and bodies ravaged. Many victims had make great efforts, but there was still no victim actually win a lawsuit.

Many victims are losing hope, or becoming numb, or getting depressed, or simply not seeing the hope of winning a lawsuit.

I use “the art of war” (Sun Tzu) to analysis whether victims will win a lawsuit.

Just for fun.

(First of all, victims should know that God strongly condemns such fascist atrocities. God will help victims to win a lawsuit. )

《孙子兵法》主孰有道？将孰有能？天地孰得？法令孰行？兵众孰强？士卒孰练？赏罚孰明？吾以此知胜负矣。

“The art of war”, (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?

(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?

(5) Which army is stronger?
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?

(7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?
By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

Victims want to win a lawsuit, currently have the following advantages:

(1) Victims are imbued with the Moral law 100%. Victims are standing on the right way; They require justice.

(Perpetrators raped victims’ brain and mind; tortured victims; harassed victims with voice directly to skull technologies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They not only violated of the laws of God, but also violated the laws of humanity)

(2) Victims have capacity 100%; (Victims united together all over the world. and through the network, exposing mind control weapons abuses and tortures).

(3)God directed victims how to do 50%. But Government and social communities still covered such horrible persecutions. (Currently the world's 60%-70% of people believe that the earth has entered the Judgment Days, in accordance with the bible -- Proverbs, mind control abuses and tortures (waylay souls) is the most sinful persecution that God condemns)

(4) Victims’advantages in this world (50%/2),

After victims' efforts, there are a lot of websites about mind control weapons abuses and tortures. Mind control weapons have also been reported on Media. But the Government and the Social communities still covered such fascist atrocities. Some people even called victims mental illness, This let more people refused to believe that such atrocities happen every day.

(5) There are laws of God which condemn mind control abuses and tortures. There are laws of Humanity which condemn mind control abuses and tortures too. 100%

(6) God will reward those who adhere to the laws of God; God will punish those who violate the laws of God. 70% (But some people don't God).

(7)Victims don’t have a big group and victims are not well trained soldiers. 20% (Victims had done a lot of work, but victims are a small groups)

(3 + 50% + 25% + 70% + 20%)/7 = 66% victims have 66% advantages in winning the lawsuit)

Disadvantages that victims have:

(1) Victims are not accessible. (Government and social communities have been covering mind control weapon abuses and tortures.

(2) Victims are not well trained soldiers; Victims are small groups.

Kidnapped by Mind Control Weapons, and Sent to US Embassy in Hong Kong （Soleilmavis）

Posted by Soleilmavis on January 1, 2010 at 11:30am

Kidnapped by Mind Control Weapons, and Sent to US Embassy in Hong Kong （Soleilmavis）

Nickname: Soleilmavis

Citizenship: Chinese

Year Torture began: Dec. 2001

Email: soleilmavis@yahoo.com

Book “Twelve Years in the Grave - Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp”, authored by Soleilmavis Liu, provides the sound facts and evidence about the secret abuse and torture with remote voice-to-skull and electromagnetic mind control technologies.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/soleilmavis

Here I wrote the Facts and Evidences, Not the Arguments of my story.

On Apr 2002, I was controlled by electromagnetic mind control weapons and was brought inside USA Embassy in Hong Kong. Because I was harassed by remote electromagnetic mind control weapons, I could not remember clearly all the details, but I tried to write more details.

Even I did not know WHO used mind control technologies and brought me inside USA Embassy in Hong Kong, and WHY? but I tried to write details of 'WHAT Happened'.

Details of my stories:

I became a victim of mind control weapons abuses and tortures, when I was studying for a Master Degree in Australia on Dec 2001.

I had reported to police, but I could not get help to stop the abuses and tortures in Australia.

I tried to talk to many people about such matter; most of them said they never heard such technologies,

Some voices said to me:" USA has the most advanced technology in the world. You can go to USA; maybe you can cure your diseases there."

I went to the USA embassy in Melbourne to apply visa, paid the application fee. When I came home from Embassy, Some voices said to me:" Go to USA, we will arrange for you, do not have to apply visa." They also said:" We will apply medical leaves for you."

Because I thought those voices would not lie to me, and my brain was being harassed by remote electromagnetic mind control weapons; I could not even use my brain to think anything carefully.

On April 5, 2002, I brought my luggage and took a taxi to the Airport. At the ticket office, I showed my passport to a young lady, and asked for an air ticket to USA, the lady looked at my passport carefully and said, “Yes, you do not have to apply for a visa, trust me!”

I held the air ticket and passport to a check-in officer, and very carefully told him what the lady at the ticket office told me. He let me check-in and gave me boarding passes telling me that I did not have to apply for a visa to go to the USA.

Inside the airport, several people stopped me and checked my bags very carefully. I asked them the same thing: “They said that I did not need visa to go to USA. Is this true?" They told me that it was true.

I sat in a chair and waited for the airplane for a very long time. Finally it was boarding time. I carried my bag and followed the long queue of people. At the gate, a man and woman stopped me. They said they had some questions to ask me. I complained that the plane was about to take off. They told me not to worry because they had it arranged. They took me to a small room, and asked me only a few simple questions.

They questioned, “What have you been doing in Melbourne?”

I responded, “I am studying for a Master’s Degree.”

They asked, “Have you attended your classes?”

I answered, “Of course!”

They asked, “Why do you go to America?”

I replied, “To see a doctor.”

They asked, “Have you taken your medical leaves?”

I answered, “Yes.”

Later someone brought my bags to the small room, and said they had to check my luggage. I asked them why, but they said nothing as they opened my luggage, checking everything very carefully, even a small piece of paper. They took all of my notebooks on which I wrote telephone numbers, and they would later return these back to me. After they checked all my things carefully, they told me, “You cannot go to USA, but you can go to Malaysia, Singapore, Holland or Hong Kong.”

Finally they changed my tickets from Melbourne to Hong Kong to Amsterdam. A lady stressed that they would not cancel my student visa if I left Australia. “I want to go to the USA to look for medical treatment, so why should you cancel my visa?” I thought to myself but kept quiet. After I waited a long time, a lady brought my tickets, passport, and boarding passes, and sent me to the airplane. (Please see attached photos
(1) return-ticket (Melbourne to Washington) ;( 2) ticket (Melbourne to Amsterdam)

In Hong Kong, Airline stopped me and not allowed me to go to Amsterdam without visa. They said they would contact the office who issued the air ticket to me. I had to wait in Hong Kong.

From 6 Apr to 12 Apr 2002, I stayed in Hong Kong.

One day morning, I woke up early, I went to US Embassy in Hong Kong and wished to apply visa to America. (It was the first time I went to Hong Kong US Embassy)

(Because of under mind control weapons abuses and tortures, I was really like a Zombie. And I could not remember all the details, but I try hard to give as more details as I can)

I arrived to US Embassy very early in the morning. At first I took my breakfast in a small restaurant opposite the US Embassy. After I finished my breakfast, I went out the restaurant and a man approached me and I heard a low voice “follow me!”

so I followed the man. I was exactly like a robot, with completely empty mind, as I walked inside the USA Embassy. Nobody stopped me or asked me anything.

When I entered the main building inside the US Embassy, I saw there was a small room on the right side, and a man (with black skin color) wearing uniform was sitting there. It was the security guard. I thought I should register, so I walked toward the man.

When he saw me walking toward him, he stood up and asked politely, “Can I help you?”

I responded, “I want to apply visa to America.” I showed my passport to him.

He had a look at my passport and told me, “The visa office is outside of the US Embassy. You need go out, turn right, and walk about 50 meters.”

When I was taking to the security guard, I heard those voices come from the room upstairs. They said, “Why don’t you come upstairs to get your Permanent Resident card?”

My brain could not move, but I knew my purpose today was to go to the US Embassy to apply for that visa.

I walked out of the USA Embassy and went to the visa office which was in the north part of the building. In the visa application office, an officer told me that my Chinese passport would not allow me to apply for a visa in Hong Kong, and that I had to apply for a USA visa in Melbourne or China.

Later, I went to Thailand; I went to US Embassy again. They said they could not help.

In the following one month, I was kidnapped few times and even was jailed by some people for few days. Those people disappeared soon; the places where they jailed me or where they sent me to, also could not be found again.

US Embassy in Hong Kong was the only place which was still there. – A place where they had sent me to after they controlled me with mind control weapons.

At Thailand, I sent a letter to USA president George W. Bush by carrier letter dated 22 Apr 2002, but I did not receive any reply. (Please see attached photo of the receipts of carrier letter: EMS to USA (Bush))

In the coming years, I had written many letters to USA and complaint that I had been torturing and harassing by secret mind control weapons. I did not get any reply.

I also worked with other victims together and started a worldwide campaign against Secret Mind Control Weapons/directed energy weapons abuse and torture since 2007.

Because the government had covered such horrible crime for many years, and they did not help me when I called for help, I suffered the horrible abuses and tortures and big losses in my life.

I was controlled by mind control technologies and sent to USA Embassy in HongKong. USA government must take the responsibility to investigate such horrible crime. Because my human rights were violated within the jurisdiction of USA, even I was not a USA citizens, USA must compensate my losses.

I strongly urge US government to immediately investigate such horrible remote mind control weapons abuses and tortures.

I strongly urge US government to immediately stop the abuses and tortures of remote mind control weapons which I had been suffering for more than 10 years, and compensation for my losses caused by the abuses and tortures.

Thank you and Best Regards!

Yours Sincerely,

Soleilmavis

I had written many letters to USA government, but I never received a reply.

It would be much appreciated that if anyone who can forward my story to USA President Barack Obama and his administration; and other authorities.

I wish reporters and journalists could report my story according to all facts and evidences.

I have been inspiring the civil rights movements through my case in USA. Many victims and I have been working hard together to seek justice. We believe the sense of justice is still rooted in many American's minds. We believe the power of good triumphs over the power of evil.

I have a dream, that I can find justice from USA.

Torturers have been cruelly torturing and harassing me with remote voice to skull (V2k) and remote electromagnetic mind control technologies (possibly through satellite and other technologies) for more than ten years since December 2001.

Torturers used to control my brain with remote V2k and remote electromagnetic mind control technologies, and brought me inside USA Embassy in Hongkong in April 2002.

As an innocent civilian who has been horribly persecuted, I urge USA government to investigate my case, and sentence torturers according to law.

I also wish all countries to legislate against the abuse and torture of such technologies.

I am an innocent civilian. Even if governments have political struggles, they can not violate my legitimate rights and interests as a civilian.

Supporting Documents:

Supporting Documents will be sent by requiring.

(1) Scan Copy of return-ticket (Melbourne to Washington) and boarding pass.

(2) Scan copy of ticket (Melbourne to Amsterdam) and boarding pass.

(3) Scan copy of receipt of EMS to USA(Bush)

(4) Soleilmavis Case summary of secret mind control weapons abuses and tortures

https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/soleilmavis-case-summary-on-mind-control-torture-and-abuse

Life of Soleilmavis in Brief Summary

https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/lifeofsoleilmavis

I have collected many reported articles which introduced 'mind control technologies'. The listing of these articles will not mislead readers; it is a short cut for readers to learn what mind control technologies are.

https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/introduce-mind-control-and

**********************************

I can not find any lawyer who would like to handle my case. First reason, I did not have money to pay lawyers fees; the second reason, it was hard for lawyers to get all evidences. The only route is to appeal,which is a administrative procedure,and that is exactly a way one lawyer does not dare and does not have the energy. With enought supporting voices from public and with evidences, government must answer my appeal.

**********************************

Please help to send my story to the USA government and Congress.

**********************************

Some lawsuits filed by Soleilmavis

Posted by Soleilmavis on December 31, 2009 at 9:00pm

As all of us know, A lot of victims had died, but no victim had ever won any lawsuit of remote mind control abuses and tortures.
I knew those victims who passed away did wish me to win my lawsuits. My victory will bring them justice too.

I could not be 100% sure for a wining lawsuit, So I don't want to file a group lawsuit.
I filed my own lawsuits, other victims also can file their own lawsuits and learn from others.

Welcome advices on my lawsuits

Below are some lawsuits files by Soleilmavis, Please support these lawsuits by providing more documents:
(Write Reference: Supporting Soleilmavis--mind control case ref:xxxxx (you can find the case reference Number from following))

(1) Patent numbers or scientific documents for the following weapons which can remotely attack victims and cause most of the following symptoms:
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS; NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS; MIND CONTROL WEAPONS; BODY AND BRAIN MANIPULATION WEAPONS; PSYCHOTRONIC WEAPONS; SPACE WEAPONS; NON-LETHAL WEAPONS and any other unacknowledged means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psycho-tronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.

symptoms:
1)Hot and Cold Flashes
2)Nausea
3)severe sweating
4)Induced Sleep
5)Sleep deprivation
6)Extreme Fatigue
7)Blurred Vision
8)Sensations of pain in internal organs
9)Sensations of pain in Backbone, arms, legs, muscles
10)Numbness and tingling, Paresthesias, Loss of sensation
11)Muscle Cramps /Spasms/tension
12)Sudden Headaches
13)Irregular Heartbeat
14)False Heart Attacks
15)Tooth Pain
16)diarrhea.
17)Acute inflammation/autoimmunity reactions
18)autoimmune disorders like Fibromyalgia
19)Urinary tract infections
20)Skin problems and skin irritations
21)Change in growing of hair and nails
22)female problems which eventually lead to hysterectomy
23)Cancer
24)Fevers
25)Flulike Symptoms /Sneezing
26)Dizziness or Loss of Balance
27)Sudden loss of consciousness
28)Benign or Malignant Tumors
29)Sensation of Electric Current Running through the Body
30)Induced Thoughts/telepathic communication, messages
31)Hearing "voices" (reception of auditory acoustic weapon transmissions or similar)
32)Seeing "Holograms"
33)Dream Manipulation
34)Artificial Emotions (induced fear,anger,shame,joy,hate,sadness)
35)Sudden unexpected" Sexual Arousal
36)Genital manipulation
37)Induced Smells
38)Sudden extreme moodswings (depression - euphoria)
39)Induced pleasure-aversion reactions towards people or objects
40)Making you say things (forced speech)
41)General behaviour control in some situations
42)Manipulation of Memory (forgetting/remembering/screen memories)
43)Remote steering of eye movements
44)Remote steering of body movements /motor control
45)Virtual reality experiences while awake

(2) Victims can write mind control case summaries to support Soleilmavis' cases
Please sign your documents and send original by posting.
Write Reference: Supporting Soleilmavis--case ref:xxxxx (you can find cases Reference Number from following)

(I) International Criminal Court
Head of Information & Evidence Unit
Office of The Prosecutor
Post Office Box 19519, 2500 CM The Hague, The Netherlands
Boîte postale 19519, 2500 CM La Haye, Pays Bas
Telephone / Téléphone: + 31 70 5158515 • Facsimile / Télécopie: + 31 70 5158555 •

http://www.icc-cpi.int

Result : Got a reply:
Soleilmavis (China)
Soleilmavis@yahoo.com
Reference Number: EM_T01_OTP-CR-00122_07

soleilmavis2.pdf

EM_T01_OTP-CR-00122_07.pdf

(II) United Nations
Petitions Team
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax：+ 41 22 9179022 (particularly for urgent matters)
E-mail: tb-petitions@ohchr.org
File lawsuits since 2007
Result: No reply, no reference number

(III) United Nations

Special Rapporteur on Torture
c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

E-mail: urgent-action@ohchr.org

https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/soleilmavis-questionnaire-to-un-special-rapporteur-on-torture

Result: No reply, no reference number

(IV) Committee on the Elinimation of Discrimination against Women

c/o Division for the Advancement of Women, Department of Economic and Social Affairs

United Nations Secretariat

2 United Nations Plaza

DC-2/12th Floor

New York, NY 10017

United States of American

Fax: 1-212-963-3463

File lawsuits since Nov 2010

Result: No reply, no reference number

(V) To: The Registrar
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
67075 Strasbourg-Cedex
France
Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 20 18
Fax: +33 (0)3 88 41 27 30
http://www.echr.coe.int/
Sent by letter on Date: Dec 2009
Result: No reply yet, no case reference number.

(VI) Curia
To: The Registry
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
Tel.: (352) 4303-1
Fax: (352) 43 37 66
Email: ECJ.Registry@curia.europa.eu
http://curia.europa.eu
Sent by letter on Date: Dec 2009
Result: case reference number: CaseT -507l09A J (a reply can be read from "comment" below)

(VII) European Ombudsman

To: Directorate A

Registry

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

www.ombudsman.europa.eu

eo@ombudsman.europa.eu

Acknowledgement of receipt

For Soleilmavis’ (soleilmavis@yahoo.com ) Complaint

Result: case reference number: European Ombudsman gave the Registration number: 1191/2012/MF (S2012-156875)

LEGAL Complaint

Miss Soleilmavis - Plaintiff

against

Some of the following countries
The China Government;
The USA Government;
The France Government;
The UK Government;
The Russia Government;
The Japan Government;
The Germany Government;
The Italian Government
The Sweden Government
The Australia Government - Defendants

For not limited to Human Rights violations;
A) These parties covered/cover the abuses and tortures of the following Weapons:-
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS; NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS; MIND CONTROL WEAPONS; BODY AND BRAIN MANIPULATION WEAPONS; PSYCHOTRONIC WEAPONS; SPACE WEAPONS; NON-LETHAL WEAPONS any other unacknowledged means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psycho-tronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.
B) These parties ignored/ignore all my complaints.
C) These parties did/do not help me when I was/am suffering from the terrible abuses and tortures from one or few abovementioned weapons.

I wish the Defendants immediately expose the abuses and tortures of the following weapons:-
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS; NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS; MIND CONTROL WEAPONS; BODY AND BRAIN MANIPULATION WEAPONS; PSYCHOTRONIC WEAPONS; SPACE WEAPONS; NON-LETHAL WEAPONS any other unacknowledged means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.

I wish the Defendants immediately help me to stop the abuses and tortures, and compensation for the losses caused by the abuses and tortures.

Thank you and Best Regards!

Yours Sincerely,
Soleilmavis
Email: soleilmavis@yahoo.com

Annex1: The facts of the case and the arguments in support of my action

I was controlled by remote Voice to Skull technologies and Mind Control technologies, and I was brought inside US Embassy in Hong Kong

https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/kidnapped-by-mind-control

Soleilmavis Liu, Author of the book: “Twelve Years in the Grave – Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp”, is helping the public understand voice-to-skull, and remote electromagnetic mind control technologies. Her book provides the sound facts and evidence about the secret abuse and torture with such technologies.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/soleilmavis

Soleilmavis case summary of mind control abuses and tortures

https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/soleilmavis-case-summary-on-mind-control-torture-and-abuse

Annex3: An anonymous Survey for Mind Control Victims (result on 19 Dec 2009)
https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/mindcontrolsurvey

Annex4: supporting documents
(1) Thousands victims are working together all over the world to expose such secret abuses and tortures:
https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/mailteam-1

(2) articles and researches about mind control/directed energy weapons and related technologies https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/introduce-mind-control-and

(3) Online petitions:
https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/online-petitions-to-stop-mind
(4) Other information: https://peacepink.ning.com/forum

Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/blog/laws-against-criminal-uses-of

Lawsuits filed by Mind Control victims

https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/lawsuits-of-mind-control

Soleilmavis's Posts (195)

USA BIll HR 2977 IH

European Parliament A4-0005/1999

Maine Act HP 868

Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons

2. Article 13 - effective remedy

House Bill 4513

House Bill 4514

Massachusetts Act

House bill H.R. 1160 (2001)

Berkeley resolution of "ban the weaponization of Space"

United States Code: Section 1983 of Title 42

2010 California Code: Human Experimentation

US Code(Chapter 32) 1520 and 1520a: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or

USA Bill H.RES.1026 (COINTELPRO)

STALKERS Act of 2010 (H.R.5662 -- IH)

July 1, 2010

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. STALKING.

`Sec. 2261A. Stalking

SEC. 3. BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING LAWS TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Some suggestions on how to file a court case.

Is Torture Against the Law?

What Uncle Sam has to say about it.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A COINTELPRO STATEMENT

Information of USA State Secrets Protection Act

Will victims win a lawsuit?

Kidnapped by Mind Control Weapons, and Sent to US Embassy in Hong Kong （Soleilmavis）

Some lawsuits filed by Soleilmavis

Note: this page contains paid content.