US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Globalization
Whistleblower Claims High-Tech Torture By U.S. Gov't
17 Sep 2005
Whistleblower Claims High-Tech Torture By U.S. Gov't.
by Martin F. Abernathy Friday September 16, 2005 at 12:39 PM
abemarf59 (at) Providence, RI

This lawsuit might cause George W. Bush to be removed from office.

Charles August Schlund, III
8520 North 54th Drive
Glendale, Arizona 85302
Phone 602-670-2017

Plaintiff In Pro Per


Charles August Schlund, III, an individual



George W. Bush, President of The United States of America, a Sovereign Nation;
George W. Bush, an individual; Does 1-10, individuals; Does 11-20, entities,













Case No: CV-03-1590 PHX VAM


(Request for Hearing)

Charles August Schlund, III (“Plaintiff”) hereby files his Notice of
Motion for Injunction Relief for Order to Stop Torture, Invasion of Privacy and
Deprivation of Freedom of Speech and the cover-up of the Fixing of the
Presidential Elections of the United States of America causing him irreparable
harm under F.R.C.P. Rule 65. The grounds for the motion include but are not
limited to, (1) Torture is illegal and constitutes a criminal act in the United
States (2) Electronic invasion of privacy is a violation of the United States
Constitution and constitutes an electronic trespass and (3) Deprivation of
Freedom of Speech violates the United States Constitution. Anyone and all of the
aforesaid justify an Order for Injunction Relief under F.R.C.P. 65 and such
actionable violations of Plaintiff Schlund rights by the Defendant and others
under his protection, direction or control are subject to restraint by court

Plaintiff specifically requests which shall constitute a continuing
request for the court to make findings of fact including of law on each and all
of the issues raised herein and at the hearing of the matter pursuant to
F.R.C.P. 52.

Notice Of Request For Hearing On Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiff Schlund request the court to set a hearing on this motion
for injunctive relief.

Dated: September 12, 2005

By: _____________________________

Charles August Schlund, III

In Pro Per

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

I. Summary Of The Facts

Plaintiff Schlund filed his Verified Complaint (“Complaint”) in
compliance with F.R.C.P. Rule(s) 11 and 65 and has requested injunctive relief
in the Complaint to stop torture, deprivation of civil rights, deprivation of
freedom of speech, and deprivation of rights of privacy, including but not
limited to electronic wireless technology (Complaint pages 61 through 64). He
is also properly alleged in his Complaint injunction relief is necessary in
order to stop defendant’s use of torture on him which has deprived his
Constitutional Right to vote as well (Complaint page 35 and 36). He has alleged
specific facts of the emergency medical services, including but not limited to,
emergency ambulance services, electrodes, emergency room, pharmacy, medical
supplies, laboratories services, chest x-rays, EKG/ECG, Electrode Cardiogram,
and other professional medical fees and services of radiologist, ER Physicians
and their staff to stabilized his body after Defendant’s torture resulting in
Post-Torture Traumatic Shock (“P.T.T.S.”) based on the risk assessments by the
Glendale Fire Department Emergency Rescue Unit as a result of Defendant’s
torture of him and harassment by electronic invasion of privacy causing him
emotional harm though such electric harassment and invasion of his privacy by
Defendant’s causing irreparable injury and damages which have been continuous
and ongoing (complaint pages pgs 2 - 65, incorporated by this reference F.R.C.P.

Defendant’s physiological and psychological torture of Plaintiff
through electronic wireless technology and other electric harassment has caused
Plaintiff medical fees resulting from the torture which is continuous and
on-going in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars which can be easily
proved. Further, Plaintiff has never had high blood pressure until he was
injected with and tortured by these electronic devices and subjected to the
electric wireless technology utilized by Defendant’s for proposes of torture and
electric harassment and the Invasion of Privacy of Plaintiff which were forcibly
installed in Plaintiff’s body in 1993 and possibly other times. Defendant’s
have jointly been participants in the use of electronic wireless technology of a
nature which can be easily proved by Plaintiff with non-expert testimony and/or
expert testimony upon evidentiary proof at the hearing of the matter. This
electronic wireless technology and associated products have been and continued
to be used by Defendant’s against selected administrative, targeted individuals
(here, Plaintiff Schlund) for proposes of telecommunication extraction of
information / data, caused intentional electronic harassment and/or caused years
of sleep deprivation, extreme pain and suffering and other commonly known
episodes of trauma associated to and under the definition of “torture” has
acknowledged in the Domestic and International laws. Plaintiff has suffered
what appears to be the intentionally created diagnoses of diabetes, arthritis,
pain, blindness, heart attacks and other intentionally stimulated increases of
blood pressure levels with highs between 200 and 300 by Defendant’s use of
electronic wireless technology and associated devices for this propose.
Defendant’s acts are to induce threats, intimidation, obstruction of justice,
witness tampering and the murder of Plaintiff by making it appear as other
medically related ailments and during the interim prior to death electronically
inducing the appearance that Plaintiff is emotionally unstable utilizing the
electronic wireless harassment and torture of Plaintiff. In fact, this Court
has nudged the Honorable United States Marshall’s Office to send two of its
Officers to Plaintiff home to leave a paper trail of this appearance also having
the effect of harassing his children with ridiculous inquiries about Plaintiff’s
potential for violence as the courts and government use torture and sleep
deprivation to try to force Plaintiff to defend himself from the governments
evil and criminal acts. [1]

This court will recall that prior to, and on or before June 17, 1978
and continued thereafter, Plaintiff Schlund was an ex-Vietnam veteran who, upon
discharge from the United States Marine Corps was solicited by the Drug Cartel
members for the Central Intelligence Agency (1968) (Later, named the Drug
Enforcement Administration [“DEA”] and modernly, activities fell under the
Homeland Security umbrella). Other Agencies are also involved for the propose
of sheltering the internal corruption of Plaintiff Schlund’s personal
knowledge acquired due to his personal involvement with the aforesaid as set
forth with his Verified Complaint which touches the tip of the iceberg of
corrupt activities violating individual civil rights by Defendant’s. After
acquiring this personal knowledge of Defendant’s and their associates Plaintiff
Schlund began to fully understand the reality of Defendant’s agenda. He
rejected it and refused to work for them and pulled out. When he did he was set
up by the government as a purported drug manufacturer. Plaintiff forced the DEA
and Arizona State agencies to trial and after the Court found the government and
its individual agents engaged in outrageous conduct which included but not
limited to, perjured testimony, fabricated evidence, withholding truthful
evidence which exonerated Plaintiff, The government engaged in witness
tampering, death threats and other obstruction of justice and illegal activity,
Plaintiff Schlund was acquitted of all charges. Plaintiff was offered money and
power including the ability to gas and torture and/or rape any girl that turned
Plaintiff down for sex and other illegal activities normal to the gang-style
activates of the Defendant’s working under the color of authority. Although
this was offered under the pretext of color of law using warrants by the corrupt
individuals inside the said agencies which included the activities alleged in
Plaintiffs complaint involved the issuing of warrants which were used in
reported drug investigations issued by corrupt judges in the Surveillance Court
and other courts. Although these warrants had limitations under the law such
limitations were completely disregarded and surveillance activities continued in
perpetuity in a boundary list fashion violating the United States Constitution
and the individual’s civil rights. Nothing has changed despite the illegal
nature of the conduct and continued on modernly today. At the Injunction
Hearing Plaintiff can substantiate with actual facts what he alleges is true and
not surreal and fantastic.

After Plaintiff Schlund’s refusal to comply with Defendant’s demand he
was systematically, selectively and selectively administratively targeted and
placed under perpetual surveillance and repeatedly framed and/or set-up by the
corrupt individuals including Defendant’s within the government to torture him.
Defendant’s activities hope to locate critical information concerning their
illegal and corrupt activities, control the information or otherwise engage in a
campaign to dilute, deter and prevent the use of the truth against the
Defendant’s or substantiate the egregious and serious past and present,
individual and joint government corruption under color of authority of
Plaintiff’s personal knowledge and to punish him as a political witness against
Defendant in hopes in discrediting him and protect the veil of protection
through use of electronic means.

After the government intentionally fabricated evidence and engaged in
what the Honorable Judge Lacey who was a visiting judge to the United States
District Court of Arizona and assigned to the trial of the matter placed on the
record was nothing less than “outrageous conduct” by the government constituting
Obstruction of Justice and threatened the individual agents and others involved
with Contempt of Court and demanded that all the agents be arrested for perjury.
Judge Lacey determined that the government had intentionally fabricated
evidence, committed perjury and then set-up an arrested and charged Plaintiff
Schlund for alleged Conspiracy to Manufacture Illegal Drugs, claimed that he was
a drug dealer, murder, gun runner, smuggler and thief and that there was no
factual basis’s for these allegations or the intense perpetual surveillance and
investigation conducted by these corrupt government officials. The Federal
prosecution of Plaintiff Schlund was extraordinarily aggressive and Defendant
engaging in witness tampering through extortion, blackmail and threats of
murdering first witnesses’ children if they testified. One of the key threats
of said witnesses was jail if they testified truthfully. The key witness and
this fabricated and false malicious prosecution of Plaintiff Schlund was the
governments own agent who was an informant and a specialized drug chemist and
manufacturer of drugs for the government, Carl Altz AKA John Green. In fact,
the corrupt DEA agents short of being held in contempt by Judge Lacey who is
demanding their arrest for committing what he classified as clear perjury,
witness tampering and fabrication of evidence in an attempt to falsify the
justification of the surveillance operations against Plaintiff Schlund and those
associated with him. Federal Judge Lacey expressed extreme outrage at Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Department and DEA’s conduct in the malicious prosecution of
Plaintiff Schlund. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department and the DEA agents have
threatened to murder the children and wife of Plaintiff Schlund’s first witness
by slitting their throats while the witness was on the witness stand if he dared
to say anything other than taking the “5th Amendment”. This threat was made out
by the DEA and Sheriff’s Department as they interviewed Robert Snow who was
Plaintiff Schlund’s first witness.[2]

The DEA and various members of the Maricopa Sheriff’s Department then
went to Plaintiff Schlund’s second witness and threaten to prosecute him if he
admitted to having any knowledge of the facts of the case. These threats and
other exact same pattern of corrupt law enforcement tactics continue today.

Plaintiff Schlund is not asserting all law enforcement is corrupt.
But it is common knowledge that there are corrupt law enforcement personnel in
all areas of law enforcement and it is these specific corrupt individuals of
which he makes reference. There is an ongoing list of these individuals which
are included in the Bolles papers.

Plaintiff Schlund second witness was Plaintiff‘s brother, William L.
Schlund who did not have wife or children to threaten. Judge Lacey repeatedly
called the government’s conduct outrageous conduct of the United States which is
the exact same conduct engaged in by Defendant as set forth in Plaintiff’s
Complaint prior to and after becoming President of The United States. Despite
the truth of what Plaintiff consistently has stated in writing and verbally over
the last 29 years, some of these facts were actually brought out in Court which
led to Judge Lacey’s findings and Plaintiff was acquitted on all counts which
the government appealed. The acquittal judgment was upheld on appeal. The
government surveillance, torture, and invasion of his privacy, and other
violations of his civil rights and his family and others Constitutional Rights
is motivated by corrupt government officials’ retaliation against him for the
purpose of continuing to harass and torture Plaintiff, his witnesses and
others associated with him. This has continued every day for over 29 years,
including the electronic wireless technology, monitoring, invasion of privacy
and torture of Plaintiff Schlund who has been and continues to be seriously
injured and damaged in his health, body, mind and financially by the illegal
harassment and torture as set forth in his Complaint. These facts remain
undisputed and in every case the government has admitted to these facts either
as a legal consequence of procedure maneuvering to avoid evidentiary hearings
and trial of the matter without exception. It is also to prevent Plaintiff
Schlund from having brought forth knowledgeable experts recognized under the law
and by Defendant in his individual capacity and the government itself from
having the truth exposed.

The injuries of Plaintiff Schlund are now so severe that they will in
time result in his death. This is murder. In fact Plaintiff Schlund was
tortured to near death and had to go to the emergency room at Thunderbird
hospital to save his life on September 10, 2005. The Death threats continue as
Plaintiff Schlund continues to work on this motion. This is one of the patterns
by Defendant and those associated with him in the government. The continued
modification and use of this pattern is the step-up of wireless technology
electronic activities using systems instrumentalities utilized for that propose
and other purposes including torture. These operations include injecting
electronic implants which function off a wireless technology into all Plaintiff
Schlund friends, attorneys, children as babies and again later again later as
teenagers and adults, along with Plaintiff Schlund employees and many of those
around Plaintiff as specify those of which are perceived to be in close
relationship to him. This illegal perpetual surveillance has no boundaries and
the core aspects of it are constantly attempted to be concealed except on
unimportant operational levels and classifications. The core levels of these
operations involved the endless and perpetual surveillance of Plaintiff Schlund
with select information passing only to relatively unimportant operational
levels to devise a way of further framing Plaintiff Schlund as being involved in
some kind criminal activity where none exist at all. This pattern and acts of
conduct is easily provable. Its focus is to harass, retaliate, discriminate,
torture, deprive Plaintiff of sleep and attempt to discredit Plaintiff Schlund
as a political witness and then murder Plaintiff for his whistle blowing
activities (In 1997 and forward until recently the disclosure of the corrupt
activities of the select individual within the government where not called
“Whistle Blowing” they were simply referred to as “Exposing” set individual).
The profiling and classification of the individuals targeted for “exposing” has
also been re-categorized but the systematic administrative listing and targeting
of individuals slotted into known illegal profiling is rampant. This is also an
undisputed fact easy to prove. These whistle blowing activities concerning
Plaintiff Schlund and others are usually done internally by individuals who work
for the government or have knowledge of government corruption. The acts of
torture and invasion of privacy by Defendant connected to his individual
capacity continued though his title of President of the United States or
government capacity and have been committed to make an example of Plaintiff
Schlund who has personal knowledge of these activities which clearly fall into
non-garden variety racketeering activities as alleged in the Complaint. The
focus on Plaintiff Schlund by Defendant is to threaten all other witnesses who
might dare try to testify against the corruption in the courts and government
and furthers the purpose to cover up the fixing of the Presidential elections of
The United States and the plundering of the United States Department of Treasury
and the ultimate overthrow of The United States and otherwise pursue the
individual goals of the Defendant as plead in the Complaint.

In addition to the above facts, Plaintiff Schlund has personal
knowledge of the corruption and has been under constant torture and surveillance
and under many different [investigations] since reading the Central Intelligence
Agency (“CIA”) and other files that he has always called the “Don Bolles Papers”
referred to herein as the “Bolles Papers”. Plaintiff has personal knowledge
from the government and private documents and files in 1977. The Bolles Papers
were all the papers that George H. Bush, had removed from the government when
Jimmy Carter was elected to the Presidency and these and the information therein
has been passed down to Defendant George W. Bush, Jr. as set forth in the
Complaint. Plaintiff has personal knowledge of these facts which remain
undisputed. These papers were removed to stop President Jimmy Carter and those
he would appoint from obtaining the contained information on government
corruption, drug manufacturing and running, assignations, fixing of presidential
elections and corruption of the federal and other courts and other related
activities there to. The Director of the CIA, George Bush Sr., intentionally
removed these documents from the government in 1976. Plaintiff has been under
constant endless and boundary less surveillance, by Defendant not for the
propose to collect information for the prosecution of him or for some crime he
purportedly has committed, but to authorized the use of retaliation,
harassment, torture, invasion of his privacy and in violation and deprivation of
other protected civil rights for the propose of attempting to collect
information to be used to discredit him while he is in the status of being a
political witness due to his personal knowledge of Defendants illegal and
corrupt activities.

It is factual substantiated that Defendant’s only purpose is to stop
any trial and to stop the release of factual information to the public of the
above and other regards. The defendant must continue to torture Plaintiff
Schlund though the use of electronic wireless technology and associative
instrumentalities and implant products as Plaintiff would write a book listing
the details of all the corrupt Judges, agents’ politicians and others jointly
connected with them and the corrupt and illegal activities if the torture of
Plaintiff was stopped to allow him to write a book. The corrupt elements in the
government have no intent on ever arresting Plaintiff Schlund. It remains an
undisputed fact that the torture of Plaintiff was and is continuously being done
to force him to make the statements to the Defendant individually and in his
capacity with the government that it desires after he has been tortured close to
death to justify the illegal surveillance such as occurred on September 29,
2003. These conversations were set forth in Exhibit “A” to Plaintiffs original
Notice of Motion for Order for Injunction Relief which the court has hereby
request to take judicial notice of. The conversations set forth in that exhibit
were taken from Plaintiff Schlund under torture and agreed to by him as a
condition in an exchange for some relief from the torture or in exchange for
sleep to stop the torture and sleep deprivation which is of operational activity
used by the Defendant in carrying out the illegal activities. These
conversations are then submitted to the court “including justification and
affidavits to the Surveillance Court or other courts with a twist of fabricated
facts based on perverted distortions of the truth by the select corrupt
individuals in the Chain of Command with Defendant in the government under
penalty of perjury done falsely out of context to reality to assist the intra
and /or inter-governmental departments (i.e. DOJ, DEA and others). Many of
these conversations were recorded while Plaintiff was working with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) setting up such corrupt agents in the DEA and
other federal and state departments and agencies and the judges of these corrupt

In short, Plaintiff Schlund is responsible for the busting of about a
billion dollars in drugs that were being ran or protected by the DEA and State
of Arizona including its in-house manufactured drugs or stated another way,
drugs manufactured under its supervision, protection and control along with CIA
and others in and connected to the government. Billions more in drugs were
stopped in addition to the aforesaid. This court has the power to order
information on these different drug busts for its review directly connected to
the factual information given by Plaintiff Schlund. This Court also has the
power to order the FBI to brief the court concerning their own investigations
related to the information they have in fact confirmed concerning the
information given to them from Plaintiff Schlund over the years, including the
well anticipated fixing of the Presidential election concerning defendant. It
also remains an undisputed fact (as well as one admitted and conceded to by the
Defendant) that Defendant’s torture of Plaintiff is in direct retaliation for
the loss of the above-said government drugs and the exposure of the detailed
plans to fix the President Elections of the United States. The proceeds from
these drugs were and continue to be used for the funding of covert operations
that were connected to fixing and/or influencing the presidential elections of
the United States and other public elections of the United States. These select
appointed agents and judges involved in these activities are far above any laws
and are protected from the highest offices of the United States government which
include the Judiciary. Select propaganda campaigns are utilized to adjust other
in the public’s perceptions of these select individuals, as part of the cover-up
operations as an operational activity toward the ends of achieving said goal on
a local and other levels. These agents and select judges can torture, murder
and deprive civil rights from individuals whom may pose a direct threat to their
operations which function under the total protection of the Department of
Justice (“DOJ”) and the courts. They can misappropriate all the funds they need
to commit these, nothing less than, racketeering activities from the Treasury of
the United States under the total protection of corrupt judges and politicians.

They are above all laws and this is now being proved in this court by their
continued freedom as they torture and murder the witnesses against them. The
Defendant, said agents and judges and assassins under them have had people
murdered in Plaintiff Schlund’s home with the police refusing to take police
reports because these people are above any laws. The same is true when the
government committed the murders of family members, friends and neighbors. The
agents and judges have taken Plaintiffs guns and then tried to assassinate
Plaintiff Schlund planning on using the guns as throw down weapons. Some times
when a gun was stolen by the corrupt agents the police department refused to
take a police report because federal agents took the gun and they are above the
jurisdiction of the local police. The FBI told the Phoenix Police that this is
a Federal matter and that they can not take a police report. The guns were then
most likely planted by the corrupt police and agents under the protection of
corrupt Judges to make it look like Plaintiff hid the guns. Then Plaintiff
could be targeted for the reported government crimes in addition to his
outspoken words about the defendants corrupt activities an individual and in
their capacity with the government.

The above said racketeering acts and conduct of the Defendant’s in his
individual and joint capacity with the government to selectively,
administratively target and/or prosecute Plaintiff is to assist in keeping the
corrupt individuals above the law and under the protection of the judicial
system through corrupt judges and to stop Plaintiff from getting his additional
documentation to further prove the truth of his position through Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) records which would lead to other documentation
confirming the truth of his position. It is undisputed that the truth of the
above said racketeering activities has resulted in egregious denials of
Plaintiff’s due process equal protection and rights to a jury trail protected
under the United States Constitution have all been disregarded by this court
despite Plaintiff’s reasonable compliance with all the Rules of Civil Procedure
as reflected by the record by this matter.

By this Court ignoring Plaintiff’s assertions of his Constitutional
Rights to fair access to the Federal System which it has done is also undisputed
fact. In turn, it allows Plaintiff to continue to be tortured by Defendants in
their joint operations which will more than likely result in horrible traffic
accident causing the death of innocent people including Plaintiff Schlund or
other kinds of death such as simulated heart attacks as was attempted September
10, 2005. The Defendant and others engaged in joint operations with him has
engaged in daily torture and have tried to force Plaintiff Schlund into an
accident to stop the present legal proceedings. Plaintiff will continue to do
everything in his power to stop from crashing his truck as he is being tortured.
The continued torture has made Plaintiff Schlund more and more disabled. In
the near future there will be no possible way of him being able to stop the
resulting accident from occurring while being subject to the torture pursuant to
the executive orders of the government and under the chain of command of
Defendant. If this court continues to allow the torture of Plaintiff and others
to continue it will have the effect of causing irreparable harm through death or
serious injury to innocent people caused as a direct result of Defendant’s acts
and conduct as alleged in the Complaint which remain undisputed. If this court
continues to allow the illegal activities of torture, trespass of Plaintiff’s
property, invasion of his rights to privacy through the use of electronic
wireless technology and other outrageous conduct of Defendant and those acting
with in his chain of command in the government has caused and will continue to
cause irreparable harm if not restrained by the court. The court will then be
guilty of premeditated murder and ratification of illegal conduct resulting in
the overthrow of the United States and the suspension of the Constitution.

Plaintiff has and will continue to do everything in his power to stop
the torture through use of the court system while depending on the integrity and
fairness of the court to allow him to go forward with his efforts to protect his
Constitutional Rights. If the court is going to allow the torture to continue
by not granting this motion for injunctive relief then the court will be given
the appearance of impropriety of ratifying illegal racketeering activity which
includes the murder of innocent people and torture of Plaintiff which is the
present posture of the case. The Court is respectfully requested to avoid the
appearance of impropriety and uphold the appearance of justice so as not to
undermine Plaintiff and the public’s trust in the honorary judicial system.

II. Legal Discussion.

A. Any Form of Torture Justifies Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiff Schlund has specifically detailed the acts by Defendant Bush done
individually and later in his capacity as President of the United States after
he was elected through the efforts of election fraud involving his family and
others ultimately the presidency being decided by specific appointments his
father Bush Sr. made to the United States Supreme Court. It is beyond debate
Defendant Bush as an individual engaged in election fraud and conspiracy to
commit election fraud to obtain the office of President of the United States of
America. Immediately upon obtaining the high office he shuffled the most
corrupt departments of the United States government ( i.e., DEA) under an
umbrella of “Homeland Security” to attempt to give creditability to an agency
which lacks total creditability due to it’s continuous illegal and corrupt
activities violating individuals civil rights to date. It has been repeatedly
substantiated that the DEA and other agencies engages in drug manufacturing,
sales of drugs, gun running, black mail, extortion, fraud and other types of
racketeering activities in attempts to continually place itself and members
above the law. One of the activities engaged in by Defendant Bush is
electronic harassment and torture. This activity justifies this court issuing a
restraining order even without consideration of the invasion of privacy,
electronic trespass and deprivation of freedom of speech of Plaintiff Schlund
which also violates his rights guaranteed and protected under the United States
Constitution. In fact, it remains beyond dispute that Plaintiff Schlund is a
“Political Witness” and as plead in his Verified Complaint has been subjected to
pass, present and will be subjected to future persecution because of his
political views. This fact alone justifies the issues of Injunctive Relief by
this court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. Appellant Schlund
has set forth in his Verified Complaint and Verified Affidavits herewith of
Defendant Bush’s pattern and/or practice of violation of his Constitutional
Rights guaranteed to him under the United States Constitution 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 Amendments to the Constitution which guarantee his rights as a United
States citizen. His affidavit unquestionably substantiates he has a reasonable
fear from his constant and perpetual harassment by Defendant Bush and others in
the government based on his personal knowledge of their corrupt activities and
his personal involvement with those individuals just after exiting the United
States Marine Corp where he was honorable discharged under honorable conditions.

Moreover, the activities of Defendant Bush as an individual and/or in his
capacity as President or as his individual capacity transition into his position
as President of the United States raise above the level of mere harassment and
constitute a form of “persecution” and “torture” as set forth in the Circuit
Court decisions of every Circuit Court in the United States of America and the
United States Supreme Court opinions as further explained herein. Further,
Appellant Schlund has set forth specific facts concerning these severe and
continuous economic hardship which also is a form of persecution and torture and
an independent ground like those set forth above for “asylum” asserted by others
attempting to seek the protections of their rights under the United States
Constitution by remaining in this country under that defense to deportation, as
further explained below.


The aforegoing various forms of torture asserted in depth by Plaintiff Schlund
are all fully acknowledged in well known federal law and also as violations
under the United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment the (“CAT”) as clarified under 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3) or under the United Nation Convention against torture and other
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, 8 C.F.R § 208.13(c)(1) and
the interpretative case law set forth herein. Essentially, under all of the
interpretative case law provides an Appellant Schlund must demonstrate a
‘well-founded fear of persecution” based on a “preponderance of the evidence”
and that it is “more likely than not” he is being persecuted. The well-founded
fear of persecution “standard” is allowed to be proven by creditable evidence of
Appellant Schlund to substantiate his civil rights claim against Defendant Bush
and those acting in a joint effort with him to carry out the same common scheme,
plan and design which lead to the persecution of Appellant Schlund. See, Vagil
vs. Gonzales, INS No. A75-259-237(7th Cir., August 16, 2005) [Dealing with black
listing and persecution against Mr. and Mrs. Vagil on grounds of their religious
and political affiliations with the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints;
the “Mormon Church” who then became victims of harassment, threats, and
“crushing economic pressure” by the (“Soviet Intelligent Service”) “KGB”
claiming that they were “American spies simply because Vagil was educated in the
field of Physics. The KGB individual agents involved wrongfully assigned to
Vagil a political opinion as justification for their harassment and torture of
her to justify their stupid act of violating her Civil Rights. The exact same
types of acts done by Defendant Bush and the agents in departments working under
his chain of command as asserted by Plaintiff Schlund]. This court is mandated
to uphold the justification to issue a restraining order under Federal Rules
Civil Procedures Rule 65 for the violation of any Plaintiff Schlund’s
Constitutional Rights or the harassment or torture of him which consuetude’s
irreparable harm. All Plaintiff Schlund needs to substantiate is that his
claims as set forth in his Verified Complaint and Affidavit are “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole”. See INS vs. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), sighted id. It
is also beyond dispute that the law acknowledges that the government
interferes, harasses and tortures (political witness) such as Plaintiff Schlund
causing irreparable harm by tortuously violating his civil rights justifying
injunctive relief. See, Central Intelligence Agency vs. John Cary Simms and
Sidney M. Wolfe, 471 U.S. 159, 85 L.Ed. 2d 185 S. Ct. 1881(1965); Siderman
DeBlake vs. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992)].

All governments use their highest levels of available technology for
surveillance intrusion in violation of the law as well as torture of the
targeted individual and then always deny it used it for those proposes or
otherwise.]; U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d

1450 (9th Cir. 1991)] Koyomejian was an alleged drug dealer whereupon the
government utilized illegal wireless telemetry electric aural surveillance using
their system technology to integrate with his television recording his
conversations and use of other optical extraction of his personal activities
therewith. This same form of wireless telemetry is somewhat similar to that
used on Plaintiff Schlund and others which can easily be proven. The court
specifically found that this was illegal and outside the scope of the reported
legitimate warrants issued by the surveillance court. The evidence extracted
from Koyomejian by these illegal means was suppressed.]; Tel-Oren vs. Leban Arab
Republic, 765F.2d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(Opinion of Edwards, J.) Cert.
denied, 470 U.S.1003, 105 S.Ct. 1354, 84 L.Ed 2d 377 (1985) [Id. Interference,
harassment and torture.].

In the underlying Siderman Case, the 9th Circuit Justice Kaufmen
noted, “Judge Kaufman’s surrey of the universal condemnations of torture
provides much support for the view that torture violates…[a]mong the rights
universally proclaimed by all nations (including U.S.A.), as we have noted is
the right to be free of harassment and physical torture (and interference with
our civil rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution) (630 F.2d at
890). The Restatement 702 comment recognizes the prohibition against official
torture (harassment and interference) as one of only a few jus cogens
norms.”(Words in parenthesis’s added for emphasis and underlined by undersign.)

Moreover, the Federal Rules Of Evidence Rule 803 and as acknowledged in the case
of Warfield vs. Shell Oil Co., 106 Ariz. 181,472, P.2d 50 (1970), specifically
referencing the prohibition against harassment, interference, genocide, slavery,
murder, causing the disappearance of individuals, or prolonged pain and
suffering though any [device] or [instrumentality] in violation of
Constitutional or other protected rights known though out the nations. It is
indisputable that Plaintiff Schlund has allege specific facts in his Verified
Complaint and Affidavit attached and incorporated by this reference, hereinafter
referred to as (“Schlund Affidavit”) states Defendant Bush’s acts and conduct
of interfering with his rights, harassing him and his family, murdering
witnesses, engaging in witness tamping, engaging in election fraud, causing the
disappearance of individuals, causing prolonged pain and suffering to Appellant
Schlund, invading his rights to privacy and other privileges with his attorneys,
doctor, etc. through use of wireless telemetry and aural surveillance couple
with bugging his home, vehicle and, most of importantly, penetrating his body
with known scientific medical procedures for propose of implanting electronic
implants into him for various purposes and then conducting observational
surveillance though a electronic wireless telemetry including optical and other
means according to proof. See Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (“Complaint”)
incorporated by this references and the court is requested to take judicial
notice of it and any amendments there to in it’s record and the Court file in
this matter. The above sighted case law is rashly based decision in conclusion
by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court which
distinctly state that all governments (through it’s workers and independent
contractors) including the USA, “then engage in torture deny it, in no state
claims a sauvignon right to torture it’s own citizens.” (See Filartiga, 630 F.2d
at 884 noting that no contemporary state has a right to torture its own citizens
or another nation citizenry Id. at (Footnote 15). Torture constitutes an
obvious interference in violation of individual protected rights under the
United States Constitution which fall within this reasoning. United States vs.
Koyomejian;. The Affidavit of Schlund substantiates the factual bases for him
being targeted as a political witness constantly asserting his “political
opinion” and the truth about the corrupt activities of Defendant Bush both
individually and/or through the use of fraudulent election and fixing of the
Presidential election appointed by the United States Supreme Court to the title
of President Of The United States has placed him on a “list” maintained by the
Defendant and its agencies for purposes of harassment, discrimination, torture,
and other forms of persecution of him on that basis entitling him to Injunctive
Relief. For example, in the Summary Of The Facts (“SOF”) incorporated herein
here by this reference in the interest of judicial economy he states as an
example his requesting injunctive relief in his complaint to stop “torture,
deprivation of Civil Rights, interference with his freedom of speech,
interference with his rights to privacy, harassment, administrative profiling
and selective enforcement of the law, administrative punishment, selective
enforcement of the law, the exercise of administrative selective attempt
justification for (P)perpetual surveillance, trespass into his home and other
areas, trespass by electronic means, trespass to his rights of privacy and other
trespasses well recognized that shackle liability to the individuals involved
(including Defendant Bush in either capacity as sued) for the personal liability
and damages justify injunctive relief under FRCP Rule 65. Black vs. Sheraton
Corp. of America, 564, F.2d 531(1977); Black vs The United States, 389 F. Supp.
529 Remanded 184 App. D.C. 46. 564 F.2d 531, 23 F.R. Serv. 2d 1490 (Disagreed
with Metz vs. United States, 788 F.2d 1528, Cert. Den. 479 U.S. 930 (1975).

And sovereign or limited immunity is absolutely not a defense against deference
against the tort claims, Supra. as set forth in those cases. Also, see Clinton
vs. Joan, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (“No one is above the law.”). Defendant Bush’s
allege acts and conduct as an individual and/or in his capacity as appointed by
the U.S. Supreme Court to the title of President of the United States and other
Federal Statutes prohibits the volition of individual or the tortuous
deprivation of individual civil rights under Federal Law, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680 (a)
and United States vs. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991). The test is whether the
government employee or agent (or independent contractor) charged with the
negligent or wrongful conduct was engaged in “planning level” or “operational”
activities. Id. Planning is considered inherently discretionary, but
operational activities are not. Said statute is not designed insulate the
government or its agents or other employees or independent contractors or even
select employees for conduct or intently or grossly negligent acts and conduct
violating public policy laws against discrimination, retaliation, fraud, deceit,
intentional trespass, intentional defamation, violation of civil rights or
invasion of privacy or trespass through wireless electric means for
surveillance and the individuals are subjected to liability for injury and
damages connected therewith. Brown vs. U.S., 193 F. Supp. 692 (1961); United
States vs. Newstadt, 281 F.2d 596, 602; Fitch vs. United States, 513, F.2d 103
Cert. denied (1975) for intentional tortuous or grossly neglect acts. Plaintiff
Schlund has alleged that the individual Defendants acts and conduct stack-up to
the high degree that they are discretionary acts nature, form, manner, and
content to selectively target, discriminate, harass, persecute invade his
privacy and are intentional violations of his rights protected under the United
States Constitution and Federal Law, the discretionary choice of Defendant Bush
to act in that manner exposes him to personal liability at the exact point in
time such acts began and “no one is above the law”. United States v. Gaubert,
499 U.S.C. 315 (1991); Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) Clinton
v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997); Bevins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38, (1971); and the Circuit Courts follow Black v.
Sheraton Corp. of America, 564 F.2d 531 (1977); Black v. United States, 389 F.
Supp. 529, Remanded and disagreed with Metz v. United States, 788 F.2d, 1528,
Cert. denied 479 U.S. 930 (1975); Black v. United States, 389 F. Supp 529
(1977); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, (1980) [involved the representative of a
deceased inmate, the court that he had remedies under the Bevins v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Supra. diverged from the Bush v.
Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, Case motion granted 462 U.S. 1114 (1980). Plaintiff
Schlund has alleged in his Complaint Defendant Bush whose joint activities with
the government, its employees, agents and independent contractors have violated
his rights to privacy engaged in harassment, persecution, trespass and
deprivation of his rights causing him injury and damages (Complaint pages 1-69)
in gross and expensive detail. Under FRCP it is sufficient that Plaintiff
Schlund has sued Defendant Bush for the intentional trespasses invasion of his
privacy which are actionable claims against him and any other individual whether
known or unknown (Id. Bevens) for injunctive relief. Birnbaum v. United
States, 588 F.2d 319 (1978) also cited in 47 A.L.R. Fed. 259 (1970).
Intentional and other electronic surveillance act and conduct by Defendant Bush
or any other individual are not barred by sovereign immunity, and those
individuals as well Defendant Bush will be held liable and subject to injunctive
relief. Black v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 529 (1977) directly on point.

Plaintiff Black was a Washington lobbyist with Robert (Bobby) G. Baker,
secretary to the majority to the Senate. The FBI decided to violate Blacks
rights to privacy by installing a microphone through the common wall of a room
adjoining Black’s suite at a hotel at Washington D.C. By means of this
electronic device, the FBI agents illegally and secretly listened (such as
Plaintiff Schlund has alleged here) invading his privacy and trespassing to his
room for an unknown period of time. This illegal surveillance also involved
conversations with his attorney which untimely lead to Defendants Black’s
acquittal and he sued the individual FBI agent for illegal eavesdropping
operations. His four theories of recovery: (1) trespass (2) invasion of privacy
by electronic intrusion (3) invasion of privacy by publication related to the
invasion of privacy by electronic intrusion (4) violation of his constitutional
rights which containing tribal issues of facts (exactly on point as to Plaintiff
Schlund). Black specially alleged that the information obtained by (means) of
electronic eavesdropping (Plaintiff Schlund has alleged this in his Complaint)
has been disseminated to (1) A Grand Jury and inducted him for tax invasion (2)
the antagonist in the Capital Vending suit (3) the Senate Committee which
investigated Black and Baker (4) various agencies of the federal government,
which then allegedly ‘black balled” or ‘black listed” or otherwise conducted
additional investigations with him and former employee which were pretectual in
nature as an attempt to be used to coerce Black into becoming an informant for
the FBI relating to organized crime in Los Angeles CA. This is exactly same
activity which is ongoing and continuous and in perpetuity relating to political
witness Plaintiff Schlund and others connected to him as alleged in his
Complaint. Even when Plaintiff Schlund writes a letter, confidential memorandum
to himself or otherwise makes notes relative to his litigation, legal research
or conversations with an attorney subjected to individuals to personal
liability. In Birnbaum v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 967 (1977) the Plaintiff
was allowed to sue the government

Dated: September _______, 2005

By: _____________________________

Charles August Schlund, III

In Pro Per

Original filed and a copy of the foregoing

mailed this _____ day of September, 2005 to:

Richard G. Patrick

Assistant U.S. Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

District of Arizona

Two Renaissance Square, Suite 1200

40 North Central Avenue

Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408

(602) 514-7500


[1] The comparable analogy is placing a dog in an electronic cage and then
torture it every day until it becomes emotionally unstable documenting it. Then
when it bites somebody justify killing the dog due to it’s unstableness from the
torture claiming it necessary in order to protect the dog and members of the
Public. Use of the wireless technology and wireless technology associated
products allows the government to harass and torture and murder common people
who lack the sophistication of knowledge and more importantly the direct
evidence against the Defendant’s to prove the modus operandi in these regards.
Plausible denial of this and other conduct by the defendant has always been a
commodity to cover up its acts and conduct and to absolve itself from civil
liability and damages. Plaintiff knows these facts to be true because the
government repeatedly offered Plaintiff Schlund any position in the government
he desired if Plaintiff would work for the government torturing and murdering
political witnesses and dissidents and economic threats. The government
repeatedly offered Plaintiff money and total protection for any crimes Plaintiff
commits under the color and cover of law and the protection of a warrant if
Plaintiff would work for the government in the government’s illegal covert

[2] It is worth mentioning that this court had the Honorable United States
Marshal’s Office go to Plaintiff Schlund’s home and cross examine his children
while Plaintiff Schlund was not home. Asking them about their misperceived and
unfounded presumptuous level or threat of possible violence as the government
tortured and threatened Plaintiff. One of the two purposes of this tactic is to
tamper with the children witnesses and deter a threat of violence which doesn’t
exist. It fits the exact pattern of illegal activity under color of authority
previous experience in an attempt to set-up Plaintiff and those dealt with by
Federal Judge Lacey. Plaintiff Schlund does not claim that the Marshal’s are
corrupt or that they intimidated Plaintiff. They did scare Plaintiff Schlund
children and ex-wife.

[3] The Court has requested to take Judicial Notice under Federal Rules of
Evidence Rule 201 of Plaintiff Schlund’s Notice of Motion of Injunctive Relief
previously pending before it, specifically Exhibit “A” concerning the facts or
details of his personal knowledge of one these corrupt Federal District Court
Judges. These facts remain undisputed which were given to the FBI.

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.