US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
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 | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights
High-Tech Torture: Whistleblower Seeks Restraining Order Against Bush
18 Oct 2005
This is an update on the Schlund v. Bush lawsuit. For more information do a Google search:

"Schlund" + "Bush" or

"Schlund" + "lawsuit"
Charles August Schlund, III
8520 North 54th Drive
Glendale, Arizona 85302
Phone 602-670-2017
Plaintiff In Pro Per




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III, an individual

Plaintiff,


v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a Sovereign Nation; et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Case No: CV-03-1590 PHX VAM

EX-PARTE APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (F.R.C.P. 65(a) AND 65(b)(1)).

TO DEFENDANTS: GEORGE W. BUSH, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AND GEORGE W. BUSH, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD


Charles August Schlund, III (“Plaintiff Schlund”) hereby moves the court:


1. For a Emergency Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction because of the death threats, Torture and attempts to assassinate Plaintiff by the government to stop this lawsuit or limit its effects;


2. TO ENJOIN DEFENDANTS from:

a. electronically or otherwise harassing, persecuting, or/and TORTURING Plaintiff Schlund, who is a political witness against Defendants. An order is requested to stop Defendant(s) from using electronic wireless telemetry of an integrated nature used with electronic associated products, to physically and psychologically trespass, influence, interfere, shock, and TORTURE Plaintiff Schlund in, on, and upon his body, constituting an illegal trespass or intrusion, invasion of privacy, deprivation of freedom of speech, interference with his voting rights, and the cover-up of Defendant Bush, an individual, in the fixing of the presidential elections of the United States of America, allowing him to become President. Also, to stop Defendants’ influencing and interfering with Plaintiff Schlund’s freedom of speech, ability to write books, trespassing on his property with the use of electronic telemetry force, influencing and interfering with his right of freedom of association and intentional violation of every known privacy and/or privilege, including but not limited to, all privileges set forth under Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 501 (i.e. Attorney-Client, Altering medical records such as CAT scans, x-rays, MRI scans, Physician-Patient, bathroom privacy, etc.). Plaintiff Schlund is in the protected status as a “political witness” or/and “whistle blower” while assisting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) on issues related to the illegal and unethical conduct of Defendants as set forth in Plaintiff’s First Amended Verified Complaint For Deprivation of Civil Rights Through Racketeering Activities filed with the Court and served on Defendants on September 15, 2005, hereinafter (“Complaint”);


b. from utilizing wireless telemetry electronic force in a manner and degree resulting in sexually harassing and discriminating against Plaintiff Schlund through the use of the integrated wireless telemetry electronic force in, on, and upon Plaintiff’s physical body and influencing and injuring him physiological and psychologically, causing him irreparable harm and injury. This injury and harm is a direct effect of Defendants’ intentional harassment, persecution, invasion of his privacy through the use of electronic transfer of sound and other forms of TORTURE through electronic medium(s) and associated electronic product(s), having the actual effect of harassment by sounds and pain, sexually harassing and discriminating against Plaintiff Schlund, influencing him electronically through the aforesaid wireless telemetry and associated product(s) and resulting in the deprivation of his sleep, clearness of thought, physiological and psychological harassment, persecution, pain and TORTURE, as aforesaid, resulting in the deliberate interference of his freedom of speech, sleep, influencing his thinking and acts and/or conduct in order to protect himself while Plaintiff discloses the racketeering acts and conducts of Defendants individually and/or collectively which have resulted and will continue to result in the deprivation of his Constitutional Rights of freedom of speech, voting, association, religion, and from trespass and invasions of privacy of his body, home, and other areas of privacy violated by Defendants’ use of the wireless telemetry and associated electronic product(s) due to Plaintiff’s status as a political witness and political whistle Blower against Defendants;


c. from engaging in the use of said electronic methods and associated wireless telemetry product(s) used in such a manner by Defendant’s, resulting in a form and profile of wireless telemetry electronic extortion and imprisonment, slavery, influential blackmail, illegal trespass on and into private property and related electrical systems and products used. and connected to the property, of which Plaintiff Schlund is billed through private commercial enterprises and Plaintiff pays for such services, such as utilities, constituting theft, as the wireless telemetry and associated wireless product(s) piggyback on such privately paid utilities and telecommunications systems paid for by Plaintiff Schlund (i.e., including but not limited to wireless phones, household telephones, aural surveillance through home television, bugging of his body, his residence and vehicles through GPS trackers and other associated electronic bugs) used on the wireless telemetry system to extract private communications of Plaintiff Schlund with [a]ll others he communicates with or comes in contact with in his status as a political witness and/or whistle blower against said Defendants individually and/or collectively. Once the contact is made by Plaintiff Schlund through the aforesaid communications, including personal communications, the implant bugging devices related to a nano-technology semi-advanced wireless telemetry system which captures, transmits, and is received by Defendants through the wireless telemetry system and product(s) which are then systematically filtered, analyzed, categorized, and placed in storage by Defendants as angles of attack on Plaintiff Schlund to further the intrinsic TORTURE, invasion of his privacy, harassment of him, persecution of him and others associated with him, and deprivation of his freedom of speech and interference with his voting rights and in a manner which constitutes sexual harassment, discrimination, and deprivation of his rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and federal law, which such violations have caused and will continue to cause severe and irreparable harm;


d. from intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence, including but not limited to: computer data, codes, various types of disk(s), instructional manuals related to the wireless telemetry technology and system(s), and associated electronic wireless product(s), computer compilations, computer calculations in digital format with specific digital identifier and serial identifier numbers, digital time computations related to the aforesaid surveillance operators, aka technicians, technology, systems and associated product(s), associated wireless telemetry software, including but not limited to GPS operations personnel by codes category(ies), digital serial identifiers, intrasystem networking websites, and data compilation storage and retrieval banks, false and government created credit card receipts and records, false and government created bank records, fabricated government created cash register receipts, false and created Bank records, the governments covert use and monitoring of private investigators to generate fabricated non truthful records. Intimidating, threatening, monitoring, gassing Plaintiff Schlund’s witnesses to stop their testimony and protect George W. Bush. All of the investigations are for the purpose of protection George W. Bush and the covering up of mass murder and treason by the government against the American people including Plaintiff. Which all constitute evidence relevant to this action and this restraining order. Spoilation or concealing of this evidence from Plaintiff Schlund requires the Court to order Defendants to preserve the evidence for trial to prevent irreparable harm by the destruction or tampering with the evidence in part or whole.


This motion is based on the files and records in this action and under Plaintiff Schlund and Defendants and their agents, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund, and the testimony of experts and others which may be presented at the time of the hearings, as well as other matters the Court may take judicial notice of under Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff reserves the right to call any expert for clarification of the nature and type of electronic wireless systems technologies and associated electronic wireless product(s) used by Defendant and their agents.
Executed this 10th day of October, 2005.



_________________________________




Charles August Schlund, III
8520 North 54 Drive
Glendale Arizona 85302
Plaintiff in Pro Per

ORIGINAL hand-delivered and filed this
6th day of October, 2005 to:

Clerk of the Court
U.S. District Court of Arizona
Sandra Day O’Conner
401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009

and COPIES of the foregoing mailed to:

Mr. Richard G. Patrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408
Fax: (602) 514-7760
Office: (602) 514-7500
Richard.patrick (at) usdoj.gov



The Honorable Virginia A. Mathis
United States District Court
Sandra Day O’Connor
United States Courthouse, Ste. 130
401 W. Washington St., S.P.C. 1
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118


By ____________________________

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

Comment

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.

Comments

Re: High-Tech Torture: Whistleblower Seeks Restraining Order Against Bush
18 Oct 2005
Another legal motion filed by Charles Schlund:


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




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles August Schlund, III, an individual

Plaintiff,


v.

George W. Bush, President of The United States of America, a Sovereign Nation; et al.,

Defendants.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Case No: CV-03-1590 PHX VAM

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SCHLUND’S APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.



I.


INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Schlund seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary relief to stop Defendants and their agents’ individual and/or collective efforts of using the said various techniques, including but not limited to Electronic Implants, Selectronic wireless telemetry, associated computers, computer system technology, codes, and associated wireless telemetry computer product(s) for the purpose of tracking Plaintiff and violating and interfering with his Constitutional Rights of privacy, privileges, association, and to stop Defendants and its agents from using surveillance, including but not limited to transmission of telecommunications to and used to extract from Plaintiff, including aural and other wireless telemetry surveillance to extract through the use of telecommunications private conversations and other information/data compilation processes used by Defendants concerning Plaintiff, his family, and his and the activities of others who associate with him. Defendants activities and conduct include the illegal and discriminatory “profiling” and “systems profiling” of Plaintiff Schlund and those he associates with and his/their activities directly connected to or casually related to Plaintiff in the status of a “political witness” or/and “whistle blower” of Defendant, deprivation and other interferences of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights in the manner aforesaid, constituting racketeering activities, including but not limited to those set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Id.). The Complaint and First Amended Complaint is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth verbatim, along with Plaintiff Schlund’s Affidavit supporting this motion. The Complaint sets forth adequate details of the harassment, persecution, and TORTURE of Plaintiff Schlund as a political witness / whistle blower, and the nature of the illegal physical and electronic trespasses into, on, and upon his body, home, and other areas of legally designated zones and orbits of privacy under the Constitution and federal law.


Plaintiff is not guilty of any crime and all physical evidence has been and will continue to be planted by the government to justify the use of torture by Defendants George W. Bush and his direction and control of the federal agencies and their agents. Plaintiff will never be arrested for the planted evidence and the investigations will continue for life and are designed to try to force Plaintiff under torture, attempted assassinations and death threats to commit some crime while bankrupting Plaintiff and TORTURING plaintiff and the use of constant sleep deprivation. These acts are State Sponsored acts of terrorism by the United States of America in the cover up of mass murder and treason. The courts of the United States have acted like Plaintiff is a Jew in Nazi Germany. Plaintiff will never be a drug dealer and will never intently or deliberately commit a crime. The zones and orbits of privacy have been and continue to be profiled, intruded into, and violated by Defendants, individually and collectively with their agents, in a manner which constitutes egregious deprivation of civil rights, sexual harassment and torture through illegal acts and conduct sanctioned by judges, constituting non-garden variety racketeering activities. See Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Amended Verified Complaint for deprivation of civil rights through racketeering activities, filed September 15, 2005, and his Notice of Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief to Stop Torture, Invasion of Privacy, Harassment, Persecution, and Deprivation of Freedom of Speech filed September 23, 2005, incorporated herein verbatim by this reference in the interests of judicial economy. The Court is requested to take mandatory judicial notice of the judicial records under F.R.E. 201 and 901(7) [Public Records].


2. Plaintiff can demonstrate the likelihood of prevailing in his causes of action and faces irreparable harm and his assassination of so called natural causes which are caused from being tortured unless Defendant and his agents are immediately restrained from continuing their infringing, targeting, profiling, systems profiling, and electronic telecommunication extractions, TORTURE and tracking of Plaintiff Schlund in a constitutionally prohibited, perpetual and nearly unlimited electronic wireless telemetry nature and degree through the methods of electronic intrusion, bugging, and tracking (as customarily referred to in the surveillance community) which involves Defendant Bush individually and Defendant Bush in his capacity and under color of authority/office as President of the United States, violating all of Plaintiff Schlund’s rights.


3. On the above basis, Plaintiff Schlund asks that his Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction be granted in order to maintain the status quo of his personal health and the digitally extracted, captured, transferred, compiled, and stored information concerning his personal life and his activities and associations with others be ordered preserved and maintained and placed under the custody of the Court, to be analyzed by Plaintiff’s experts, with the Court ordering a skilled, educated, and experienced Master Expert Commission composed of Plaintiff and three (3) experts retained by Plaintiff Schlund to ensure the accuracy and authentication of the computer compiled data and information concerning him, his activities towards said Defendants, his work with the FBI and others resulting in Defendants’ illegal profiling of him as a “political witness” and “whistle blower” and other categories for tracking and surveillance. If the preliminary injunction is not granted, irreparable harm will continue to result to Plaintiff, his family, and those that associate with him in that he and their privacy will be destroyed, interfered with, penetrated, and deprived through such electronic wireless telemetry intrusion and TORTURE prohibited under the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and other federal law. Plaintiff will continue to be subjected to physical and emotional harassment, sound harassment, electronic force harassment constituting electronic forms of persecution, harassment, sleep deprivation and TORTURE.


4. Plaintiff makes this motion in good faith and not for the purposes of harassment of any of the Defendants, but for the sole and exclusive protection of himself and others and the hopeful prevention of his being electronically harassed, persecuted, and tortured as a political witness against said Defendant and his agents.



/ / /


II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS



5. The facts relevant to this motion are fully set forth in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint and in his Notice and Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief filed September 23, 2005, including his extensive Affidavit filed with such motion, incorporated herein by this reference, supra. Since the Court has been requested to take mandatory judicial notice of the aforesaid filings and its records, in the interests of judicial economy Plaintiff will not detail out the specific facts again relating to Defendants’ intentional deprivation of his civil rights of the racketeering caliber used to harass, persecute, discriminate, sexually harass, trespass, TORTURE and violate the privacy of Plaintiff except as set forth herein. Plaintiff does here notify the court that Plaintiff was almost tortured to death the last two times Plaintiff filed papers with the court and did end up in the hospital close to death from retaliation for the filings. The court must fully understand that any conversations about drugs made by Plaintiff were first agreed to be made with the government in exchange for relief from TORTURE and that everyone of these conversations was made while Plaintiff was close to death under TORTURE by the government and that all phone calls were made in threes where the first phone call was the agreement to give the corrupt evil government agents the phone call in exchange for relief from torture so the agents could supply the conversation to one of their pedophile or evil, corrupt or dishonest judges under perjury. The second phone call would be the government’s evidence and the third phone call would be about how the government will now commit more perjury before their evil or satanic or corrupt or pedophile judge. The government then planted all supporting physical evidence in the protection of the Bush family and to cover up the fixing of the presidential elections of the United States and mass murder and treason involved. Plaintiff can prove all of this in trial with the government having no chance in trial. As of the date of filing this Ex-Parte Motion for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Defendants’ acts and conduct have continued and will continue to irreparably harm Plaintiff in the nature aforesaid, violating all his rights. Defendants have used the electronic wireless telemetry technology, related system(s) and associated wireless telemetry wireless product(s), engineering and designed for trespassing and stealing Plaintiff’s personal information through provable telecommunications or other methods and then used such information to plant all physical evidence against Plaintiff, well known and provable by experts who are past employees and other associates with Defendants and who have utilized these system(s) and advanced systems in the past for these unique and specific purposes at will in perpetuity to, in fact, selectively target (including selective administrative targeting) of individual(s) to invade their privacy, harass, persecute, TORTURE and deprive such individual of privacy in an unlimited and perpetual manner. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund incorporated by this reference.

Plaintiff Schlund reserves the right to further prove the systems technology through witnesses, experts and will demonstrate the torture and if the courts wishes the murder of the courts selected targets at time of hearing and the acts and conduct of Defendants’ agents used for this particular type of surveillance which results in sound harassment, persecution, Physical TORTURE, sleep deprivation and deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. No secret technology is required to torture and murder political witnesses. All that is required is to legally authorize the placing of the devices on or in the targeted person under the cover and color of law by corrupt and dishonest agents. To torture only requires the legal access to the targeted person in a created investigation. The cover of law is used for that access and Plaintiff can supply the court with an almost unlimited number of witnesses to the torture and the resulting murders. The problem is not being able to prove the case but to force the court to allow the proving of the case.



6. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund.


/ / /

/ / /

/ / /



III.

ARGUMENT



6. Plaintiff meets the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and accordingly, his motion should be granted.



a. In cases involving the profiling and systems profiling of an individual as a political witness, whistle blower, or other category defined pursuant to Defendants’ self-serving criteria to violate Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief on the grounds he clearly meets the well settled standard which requests a showing of:
“Either a combination of probability of success and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.” Ingles & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975); Accord Kapau v. Yamamota, 622 F.2d 449, 457 (9th Cir. 1980); Miss. Universe Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1979).



b. The alternative test above clearly exists under the facts that exist here. To date, Defendant, whether in his individual capacity or in his official capacity as President of the United States, and his attorneys of record, absolutely cannot disprove the fact they are violating Plaintiff Schlund’s constitutionally protected rights, as aforesaid. In fact, Plaintiff has submitted overwhelming evidence, under penalty of perjury, and can continue to build a mountain of relevant, material, and quality evidence substantiating the facts of Defendants’ illegal and racketeering activities. Plaintiff can further substantiate with his experts the nature, degree, and methods of electronic wireless telemetry and associated product(s) to intrude in and upon Plaintiff and his home and other established orbits and zones of privacy which have been and continue to be violated by Defendant(s) and his agents.


c. Under present law, interference and violation of Plaintiff’s freedom of speech and voting are prima faciae violations of rights, justifying the restraining of Defendants’ acts and conduct, as aforesaid. Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 2000) [Prohibitation on “retaliation” against Plaintiffs who are suing for alleged violation of freedom of speech rights and the granting of the injunction is proper], in violation of voting rights, so historically protected it does not even deserve a citation, and the Court can take judicial notice of it.


d. Plaintiff has also alleged sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination and testifies Defendant electronically invaded his toilet privacy, shower privacy, and sexual privacy and harasses him through their methods. Defendant also discriminates against Plaintiff by illegal profiling and assigning computerized code identifiers to Plaintiff, resulting in the electronic and other classification methods used for such intrusions of his privacy, which also justify the Court granting the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff. Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) [Court enjoined the City to abstain from racial and other forms of discrimination in annexation “policies” does “no more than instruct the city to obey the law, requiring the court to specifically identify the specific conduct to be enjoined.”]. Plaintiff is only asking the court to abide by the law and the government is trying to authorize the use of TORTURE and murder of political witnesses that they know are not guilty of any crime.



e. Plaintiff’s experts can convey to the Court the exact nature and type of system(s) technology, associated electronic product(s), and the type, nature, and degree of the Defendants’ acts which are prohibited, to justify the restraining order against Defendants. F.R.C.P. Rule 65(d) describes the categories of persons subject to an injunction or order, which can easily include Defendant individually and/or in his official capacity as President of the United States, which include all associated agents, officers, employees and others “in act of concert or participation with Defendant and others associated with or to him which can be easily substantiated by Plaintiff.” Additive Control and Measurement Systems, Inc. v. Flow Data, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1395 (Fed. Circ. 1996); and a person(s) or agency(ies) in a closer connected relationship, whether casual or otherwise, with Defendants, may be bound, including alter egos and public officials and employees who may be the successor in office or interest to the use of said electronic systems and methods used for surveillance as alleged by Plaintiff. United States v. Vitek Supply Co., 151 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1998) (Rule 65(d) extends scope of injunction to bind alter egos); Hernandez v. O’Malley, 98 F.3d 293, 294 (7th Cir. 1996) [Injunction against public official also applies to successor in office and impliedly to others connected therewith.]. See Restatement, Torts Section 937 Comment (a): Injunctive relief is necessary and mandatory “even though the harm done or threatened consists of nothing more than injury to feelings, sensitivity, honor, and especially invasions of privacy.” Invasions of privacy cannot be remedied at law by way of damages which are deemed inadequate, justifying the restraining order.


f. Plaintiff has alleged Defendants’ physical and electronic intrusion, TORTURE which constitutes a type of molestation, including that of a type of sexual harassment and molestation of Plaintiff, as the surveillance has interfered with his sex life and his bathroom activities during defecation and urination and those of his family members. The nature and degree of the perpetual and unlimited surveillance of Plaintiff Schlund is clearly subject to injunctive relief, if anything, to prevent his personal hygiene, bathroom privacy, and sexual privacy. Defendants, as electronic “peeping toms” are no different than any other peeping tom, except they hope not to be caught through the use of the aforesaid use of the electronic wireless telemetry. See Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund. One’s right of privacy is the right to be left alone and to be free from unwarranted nuisance, harassment, persecution, and TORTURE, which must be protected by means of injunction. The list of citation is nearly endless, 42 M.Jur 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, see Injunctions. Trespasses, especially of an electronic nature, lack an adequate remedy at law and is the ultimate ground on which equitable intervention in cases of trespass rest. Not to mention electronic wireless telemetry trespass has injured Plaintiff in the past, present, and future, accelerating his damages beyond adequate compensation and justification for the injunctive relief to prevent multiplicity of suits, as each occurring trespass constitutes a new cause of action justifying the injunctive relief.



g. Rule 65(b)(1) requires Plaintiff to show by his Affidavit or his Verified Complaint (both of which are done here), that irreparable injury will occur if the Order is not granted and until the opposing parties are notified and have an opportunity to appear. American Can Co., v Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321-24 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has filed his Notice and Motion for Order for Injunctive Relief to stop TORTURE, invasion of privacy and harassment, persecution, and deprivation of freedom of speech on September 23, 2005, which has been served on Defendants the same date. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, Affidavit under penalty of perjury, supply the quality and detail required, sufficient for the Court to understand the nature of the risk of irreparable injury and the need for the Court to execute prompt action, to stop the irreparable harm to Plaintiff and his rights. Defendants have no right to use electronic surveillance to violate Plaintiff’s rights. Assuming arguendo, any issue attempting to justify same by the Defendants would warrant a trial on the merits, or at least an evidentiary hearing with experts on the issues of law and/or facts, to be determined by the Court. George W. Bush is presently arguing with the Senate and Congress that he has the right to torture and use cruel and unusual punishment against prisoners never convicted of any crime. The Presidents defense or authorization of torture is undisputable. Plaintiff is not necessary after the loss of money Defendants have caused him, or any law capable of recoupment in an action at law, but to stop Defendants’ perpetual and unlimited trespass and violation of his Constitutional Rights. In Re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1145 (3rd Cir. 1982) [An Ex-Party Temporary Restraining Order should be issued where the irreparable loss and the nature of the damages will be such as are difficult to calculate, and the injury may be perpetual in nature due to Defendants acts and conduct.].



7. Plaintiff has asserted great personal and public interests related to Defendants’ violations of his and others’ rights.



a. Plaintiff has requested the Court to enter a temporary restraining order based on Defendants’ acts and conduct of using illegal surveillance, trespassing, intruding, violating, and depriving him of his Constitutional Rights to privacy, speech, voting, and to stop the harassment, persecution, and TORTURE of Plaintiff Schlund in the cover up of treason and other crimes. Id. supra. Each and all of these issues are supported by recent Supreme Court precedent authorizing the use of prejudgment injunction for equitable purposes, such as here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has set forth that when there are personal and collective individual interests involved, the equity court “has enhanced authority when public interests are involved.” See, United States Ex Rel. Rahman v. Oncology Associates, 198 F.3d 489, 495-97 (4th Cir. 1999) [“Has enhanced authority when public interest is involved.”]; De Beers Consolidated Mines, LTD v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 219, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1133-34, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945); and Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (1940). It is also appropriate for the Court to enter a restraining order so that the Court can conduct “a thorough inquiry” on injunction, Hospital Resource Personnel, Inc. v United States, 860 F.Supp. 1554, 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1994).



8. Any form of harassment, persecution, and/or TORTURE justifies injunctive relief.



a. As set forth in the Complaint, Injunction Motion filed September 23, 2005, and Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund incorporated by this reference, supra, the said actions of Defendant and/or his agents constitute outrageous conduct and serious torture, cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment and punishment which violate
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and the international laws of the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) as clarified under federal law and the interpretative case law, supra. Plaintiff has established a “well-founded fear of persecution” based upon a “preponderance of the evidence,” and that it is “more likely than not” that he is being harassed, persecute,
and/or TORTURED in the manner set forth in his Complaint, provable by him. Such conduct is always entitled to injunctive relief.


In the immigration context, when a “political witness” is subjected to similar or identical conduct that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff Schlund to, resulting in electronic harassment, other harassment, persecution, blacklisting, illegal profiling, discrimination, sexual harassment, a form of discrimination, status discrimination, violations of his privacy, electronic physical assault and battery on Plaintiff, witness tampering, theft of his personal property and information and activities through agents and/or their electronic wireless telemetry and associated electronic product(s), used specifically for that purpose and tracking of Plaintiff, would allow such immigrant to assert an “asylum” defense to deportation. To deny this motion in any way will force Plaintiff under the use of TORTURE to seek political asylum in other countries. See, Vagil v. Gonzales, INS No. A75-259-237 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2005); INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Cary Simms v Sidney M. Wolfe, 471 U.S. 159 (1965); and in the criminal context, such illegal electronic invasion of privacy and electronic trespass by the government results in the evidence obtained being suppressed and thrown out as illegal confiscation of information, data, and communications, prohibited by the United States Constitution.

Siderman DeBlake v. R epublic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, all governments use their highest levels of available technology for surveillance intrusion, in violation of Constitutional Rights to privacy, in violation of the law, as well as TORTURE of the targeted individual (here, Plaintiff Schlund), and always that it used it for those purposes or otherwise. U.S. v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991) [Koyomejian was an alleged drug dealer, whereas the government utilized illegal wireless telemetry aural surveillance to steal Koyomejian’s activities in his home through his television and recorded his conversations and used other optical extraction of his personal activities, which was found by the Court to be illegal and in violation of his rights.). Tel-Oren v. Leban Arab Republic, 765 F.2d 774, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985) [Interference, intrusion, trespass, harassment, and torture.]. Invasion, trespass, and intrusion through electronic means, violating Plaintiff Schlund’s rights to privacy, in and of itself, constitutes the Court granting injunctive relief under F.R.C.P. Rule 65, which remains undisputable. See, Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America, 564 F.2d 531 (1977); Black v. United States, 389 F.Supp. 529, remanded 184 App. D.C. 46, 564 F.2d 531, 23 F.R. Serv. 2d 1490. Also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980); Bevins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 38 (1971); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319 (1978).


Therefore, “Testimony, by itself, is sufficient to meet the burden, if credible.” Lukwago v. INS, 329 F.3d 157, 177 (3rd Cir. 2003). Plaintiff Schlund’s Affidavit and Verified Complaint, which constitutes an affidavit, is sufficient for the Court to rely on in granting this Ex-Party Application for a Temporary Restraining order against Defendants’ illegal surveillance. Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (1965).
CONCLUSION


8. Based on the above said, Plaintiff Schlund respectfully requests the Court to grant his Ex-Party Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and preliminarily enjoin Defendants from electronically harassing, by invasion of his privacy and tracking Plaintiff, otherwise harassing, persecuting, and TORTURING him, which is illegal under the United States Constitution, CAT, and federal and state law, as stated herein. Plaintiff further requests the Court enjoin Defendants from depriving Plaintiff of his freedom of speech, privacy to his body, physiologically and psychologically, stop the interference with his privacy and association with others, guaranteed under the Constitution, interference with his voting rights, and to stop the cover-up of the fixing up the presidential elections of the United States of America, and Plaintiff’s whistle blowing activities concerning the aforesaid and other things causing him irreparable harm by the unlimited and perpetual violation of his rights, which renders any action for damages inadequate, justifying the equitable relief requested herein.


9. Plaintiff Schlund specifically requests the Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in each and all of the issues raised related to the granting of the denial of the Ex-Party Restraining Order requested by Plaintiff as required under F.R.C.P. 52 and 65(d). Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) [“Without adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellate review is in general not possible.”].


10. By the court denying this motion will result in the deaths of great numbers of men, woman and children from the government’s authorization to gas and inject people in investigations and will cause great numbers of Constitutional violations resulting in fixed trials and political imprisonments of innocent people. The government has never released any records on the gassing of people in any Freedom of Information Act Request and has side stepped the governments use of implants in every lawsuit and has only allowed cases to go to trial where the injected targeted person did not have the needed information to legally address the governments crimes. This is not a free and open society this is Nazism. The court should not be a party to mass murder and treason and should immediately grant this motion. These devices do not stop crime. The devices are used to generate crime and they are a weapon system designed into a bugging device which is used to fix elections and cover up corruption. By not granting this motion proves that we are no longer a free country and that the government has the right to the peoples bodies and can torture, rape, murder and control people as they wish as long as the government does such crimes under the protection of a corrupt judge’s warrant and protection. Such a country is not a free country and none of this is needed in any investigation. I have been under constant investigation for 29 years with implants and bugging devices in my clothing and I have been torture and denied all human and Constitutional right under the cover and color of law and after 29 years there is still no chance of my arrest for any crime. This in its self proves that I am not guilty of any crime. I am a eye witness to the President George W. Bush fixing the elections of the United States of America and I was injected with the present implants while I was working with the FBI supplying the FBI with every detail of how and where and why the elections would be fixed and I supplied the information with 100% accuracy eight years before the election. It is undeniable that anyone could do this without first reading the plans to do it. The government continues to deny Plaintiff all Constitutional rights under the cover and color of law. This kind of government can only be called Nazism. Plaintiff is like a Jew in Nazi Germany filing complaints against Hitler. America should stand up for Human Right not be a blatant violator of Human Rights using the cover of law.


Reservation of Rights.


10. Plaintiff is under electronic harassment, persecution, and torture by Defendant and his agents and reserves the right to change, add, supplement, and modify in part or whole this Application, Affidavit, and any other document filed or used in connection herewith at any time in his discretion.
Executed this 6th day of October, 2005.




_______________________________________



Charles August Schlund, III
8520 North 54 Drive
Glendale Arizona 85302
Plaintiff in Pro Per

ORIGINAL hand-delivered this
6th day of October, 2005 to:

Clerk of the Court
U.S. District Court of Arizona
401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009

and

COPIES of the foregoing mailed to:

Mr. Richard G. Patrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix Arizona 85004-4408
Fax: (602) 514-7760
Office: (602) 514-7500
Richard.patrick (at) usdoj.gov

The Honorable Virginia A. Mathis
United States District Court
Sandra Day O’Connor
United States Courthouse, Ste. 130
401 W. Washington St., S.P.C. 1
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118


By ____________________________