UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

The Office of the Clerk, 513 564-7014

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Re: Appellant's Reply Brief Case No: 03-1343

524 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3988

Case Number: 03-1343

Case Name: Thomas D. Clark vs. Unites States of America named US corporation, and USA government, its agents and agencies, District Court Case No: 02-00782.

PRO SE APPELLANT’S Reply BRIEF

Reply Statements Regarding Defendants Appelle Brief Argument

1. The defendant stated in the Appellee Brief, "that references to the U.S. constitution do not confer jurisdiction upon the Federal Courts." If the Federal Courts are not based on constitutional and common law, then the courts are unlawful, and if the Federal Courts and Federal Government are based on the Universal Commercial Code UCC, which establishes the Corporate Federal Government, then the Federal Courts must follow the UCC. The constitutional and common law issues of the case, are applicable in Federal Court, by means of the Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 clause stated in the case, which requires the Federal Court to review the case under constitutional and common law grounds, and references to constitutional violations, if the US citizen claims the Without Prejudice Clause. The USA constitution has been suspended in part by presidential orders based on the UCC in part, and by unlawful but partly legal in the color of law agreements made by the US government with the US corporation per the Universal Commercial Code (UCC), but the UCC does allow any citizen to wave any agreements that the US government has made per the UCC, under the Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 clause, so that all constitutional claims, and common law claims are applicable in US Federal Court, if the US citizen mentions and claims the Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 clause in the case, as I have done. If the Federal Court ignores the Without Prejudice Clause UCC 1-207, that allows the plaintiff to claim constitutional and common law rights in Federal Court, then the Federal Courts and the whole Federal government are not only unlawful, since they are unconstitutional, but also illegal since they are not based on international universal commercial code law, which establishes the Federal Corporation, and international agreements made by the US become void, which means that there is no rule of law in the US or USA. I also show below in item 2 that I have proved the case based on statutory laws, and not just constitutional laws with specific legal facts which the court refused to look at seriously.

Furthermore, once I, the plaintiff, declare the UCC Without Prejudice 1-207, in Federal Court, the US government, can no longer make any secret agreements with any other organization, whether I am aware of the agreements or not or can prove the agreements or not in Federal Court, to use US resources and US agreements made with other organizations against the plaintiff to harm the plaintiff's health or constitutional rights as shown above and in the main case and supplements.

Clearly as the case evidence shows very specifically and not just with general assumptions and belief, that the US Corporation, and Federal Government have made agreements per the UCC and with international organizations and other nations states such as the United Nations and United Kingdom, to deny US citizens their constitutional rights, and to use US resources against US citizens, which denies US citizens their constitutional right of privacy, since the US government has made agreements with international organizations and nation states such as the United Nations, to place US citizens under surveillance and target them with chemical and directed energy technologies with space based and low earth orbiting stealth airship weapons, to deny them their basic right of privacy, which leads to loss of employment, due to loss of privacy, and health. US citizens in general, and a specific US citizen can file a complaint in Federal Court to ask and order the US government and court to change their policies, to defend the constitutional and statutory rights of US citizens, by not making any agreements with international organizations, other nation states, and private or secret organizations, that violate the constitutional, UN Charter, and universal commercial code and statutory rights of the US citizen.

Furthermore, a US citizen is also be able to file a case in US Federal Court against the United Nations for denying US Citizens their constitutional rights and UCC rights, since the United Nations is part of the US corporation, and owns and manages the social security numbers and taxes of all US citizens, and places US citizens under surveillance, per agreements made with the US corporation by the UCC. The United Nations, has a bill of rights similar to the USA constitution, which are not part of international law or the UCC, but are part of the UN Charter and all US citizens may claim rights to the UN Charter statements and bill of rights, as US citizens are beneficiaries of the US Corporation trust which has made agreements with the United Nations to manage the social security trust and the tax trust of the IRS.

2. The defendant and local district court claims that I did not or could not provide any evidence or legal facts in the case but only “belief and general assumptions“, and I shall show below that I presented legal and evidentiary facts which are a matter of public record and official governmental documents and congressional record, which are not beliefs or assumptions, but facts, and specific facts and not just general facts. The defendant and the district court are presenting their belief based on popular governmental counter propaganda and misinformation about the law and the facts, that there are no facts publicly available in the library that shows that the government uses surveillance technologies on US citizens on a daily basis. But it is quite well know by the US government, and by the well informed general public that governmental documents in the public library clearly explain in government policies that that government can use and does use surveillance technologies and radio waves on US citizens on a daily basis which harms the health of US citizens, which I shall show below and as was shown in the case had the court and defendants read the evidence, and understood the arguments.

The National Security Agency NSA, by corporate policy is only limited to the federal statutory laws that mention its name only, so that the NSA can break any federal statutory law where its name is not mentioned as a matter of governmental policy and not law. The NSA's name is mentioned in some of the surveillance policy federal statutory laws but not in all of them, and it is not mentioned in the rest of the laws that prohibit the use of chemical and directed energy weapons on US citizens, and the NSA can make secret agreements with black operations and shadow governmental organizations, not a part of the public record and outside of the law per governmental policy. However as I have shown above in item 1, that part of this case is based on constitutional and common law, which the NSA and all shadow governmental and dark operations organizations of the US government are bound to, if I use the Without Prejudice Clause in the case, so that the NSA and all other governmental organizations are bound to all laws. In fact by the constitution of the USA all surveillance technologies used by the NSA are illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional, even if they are only used on US citizens in general daily surveillance of US citizens per governmental policy. Most of the governmental intelligence agencies can only justify themselves in court by governmental policy, and they must ignore the statutory law in many cases and the constitutional and common law in all cases.

I had shown with evidence in the supplemental case, that the NSA spends billions of dollars per year on surveillance technologies, and the US government spends trillions of dollars per year on black operations and shadow governmental operations, which are hidden in secret and classified agencies and agreements made with private corporations and international organizations to use advanced technologies such as surveillance technologies, stealth airships, and space based weapons on US citizens on a daily basis, and all of these facts are know by the US government, are available in public documents on the internet which I presented in the case as very specific facts corroborated by professional scientists and consultants who work and once worked with the US government.

The district court refused to look at the evidence and misunderstood the legal facts, so that the district courts opinion was based on belief, and until the court looks at the evidence, and corrects the legal mistakes it made, the court does not know if I presented beliefs, general assumptions, or specific facts in the case evidence. I presented official DOD surveillance policy statements in the supplemental exhibits which are specific facts and not belief or assumptions available in the public Library of Congress, which state that the DOD uses surveillance, remote sensing and imaging technologies on all US citizens in general on a daily basis per DOD policy, which affects and harms all US citizens health in specific, since the frequencies used in the daily surveillance and imaging technologies broadcast throughout the US and used by the NSA and US Government are the same frequencies as the frequencies of the organs of the human body as was shown in the supplemental case evidence by scientific facts; and

consequently the use of general surveillance and imaging technologies by the US government on a daily basis denies US citizens and a specific US citizen, such as myself, their constitutional and statutory privacy and health rights in specific.

The FCC stated to me in an official governmental letter, that the DOD is responsible for managing high energy frequencies and nonhertzian frequencies, that are used in surveillance on US citizens on a daily basis, so that some of the surveillance frequencies are outside of the FCC regulations. The high energy nonhertzian surveillance frequencies are magnetic currency frequencies as opposed to electrical voltage frequencies. The nonhertzian magnetic frequencies are the same frequencies of the human brain and bodily aura and spirit which affects the physical, spiritual, and mental health of all US citizens. Since the DOD is responsible for monitoring the nonhertzian high energy frequencies, and the DOD is managed by the NSA, which is not limited to many statutory laws by governmental policy but not by law, then the DOD may overlook the use of nonhertzian frequencies in surveillance and remote sensing imaging on US citizens by secret US agencies and agreements made with other nations states by policy but not by law. Tempest radar sensing technologies, are used by the US government on a daily basis on US citizens, as was presented as evidence in the case in exhibit B, so that the US government can view information on computer screens and radiated from the human body, which are not used in communication, which makes tempest technologies partly legal by FCC communication laws but illegal by statutory health laws, and constitutional and statutory privacy laws, since they harm the health and privacy of the citizen.

Since the recent terrorist acts encouraged new presidential orders, and congressional acts, the US government can use surveillance technologies on US citizens in specific, without any court order, or means for the US citizen to check the surveillance, since Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been limited and hidden. It is a congressional fact presented in the supplemental exhibits to the case, that the CIA hid FOIA request records related to mind control, which is illegal, but was made a part of governmental policy per congressional record. I also presented legal and scientific facts, stated by other US citizens and professional scientists, in the main case, that show the specific details and agreements made by the US government to make international agreements to use surveillance technologies on US citizens. Two or more citizens who claim a legal statement in court, can be considered a legal fact and not just belief or opinion. The general statements made in the case, excluding the evidence in the exhibits, to show that they are fact, also prove legal facts in specific, that apply to all US citizens, so that the complaint is based on specific damages done to a specific US citizen, namely myself, and family, and to all US citizens, based on constitutional grounds and violations of constitutional and statutory rights, which are legal facts, if the court accepts the constitutional claims and UCC Without Prejudice claims of law in Federal Court.

I also proved in the supplemental evidence as scientific facts, that the use of surveillance technologies on US citizens in general harms their physical and psychological health in specific, which denies them their basic constitutional rights and statutory health rights which proves the tort claim based on statutory laws, so that I should have won the tort case as well as the constitutional and APA act case in the district court, if the court had look at the evidence in the case, and understood the law. I also proved in the supplemental evidence that the CIA had made agreements with the United Kingdom, to engage in psychological warfare against US citizens, which certainly shows that the US government, is using US resources against US citizens to deny them their constitutional and statutory health rights.

I have presented legal facts, and legal evidence, which are specific and general and not just general assumptions, and belief in the case, where as the defendant and local district court has only presented beliefs, that such legal and evidentiary facts can not be presented in court or are not a part of the Federal Court process.

3.The defendant stated that the APA act is not applicable. I received congressional support from US Congressman Nick Smith of Michigan, with a letter from congress as provided as evidence in the case in Exhibit A of the main case, to file the APA act complaint, and the congress must also understand the nature of the complaint that I filed with the US government, which the congress reviewed. The APA act complaint is a general complaint for all US citizens, and specific complaint for a specific US citizen, namely myself the plaintiff, and the Congress approved that the complaint could be filed under the APA act for congressional reasons. Quite often Federal governmental agencies will not respond to the congress per Executive Privilege, and hence I filed the APA case for the US congress, for other US citizens, and for myself.

Part of the main complaint is that the Federal Government, can and is presently using US resources against US citizens and government agents in general, including myself in specific, which includes surveillance, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies, since the Freedom of Information Act request and other US laws have been limited presently due to presidential and martial law orders, and records have been hidden by the CIA in the past, as was provided as evidence in the case supplements per congressional record. Presently, the US government can and is using surveillance, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies on any US citizen in general and on myself in specific, and there is no way for the US citizen to get any information from the government by means of the Freedom of Information Act Request, to discover whether the citizen is under surveillance or affected by chemical and directed energy weapons used by the US government, to check the governments use of surveillance, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies on US citizens. The APA act is one avenue, for a citizen to follow, to file a case in Federal Court to discover the details of the agreements made by the US government, by outsourcing with private, shadow, secret, and international agencies, to use surveillance, chemical weapons and directed energy technologies on US citizens in general, and on any US citizen in specific, and to request that the government to change their policies to not harm US citizens privacy and health rights.

The US government is presently in a state of war, due to terrorist acts, and the very fact that the US government, will not even acknowledge, look into, or reply to any complaints made by US citizens and even congress, outside of court by means of the APA act and other means of filing complaints with a Federal Agency, that US resources are being used against US citizens by other nation states which include the enemies of the US citizen and part of the US government, to deny them their basic constitutional rights, and to use physiological warfare tactics and US resources against US citizens, for the advantage of the enemies of US citizens and part of the US government, then the Federal Court should require the US government to respond to the complaint in writing and change their policies, even if the evidence is only general evidence which applies to US citizens in specific, otherwise the US government, could be hiding the truth that the government knows, by hiding governmental records, agreements, and actions made by the government, and by not responding to complaints filed in court and out of court, that US resources are being used against US citizens as stated in this case.

The US Federal Government is encouraging Federal Acts in congress such as the Patriot Act, which deny the US citizen the right to the courts, and even the right to a trial, and habeas corpus, to check the Federal Government. And I have shown in the case, that the Federal Government is in part owned, and controlled by foreign powers, nations and the United Nations, which are in part enemies of the US, which means that foreign powers are controlling the US Federal Government, to act against the US citizens, and to create wars and terrorist acts in the US, to encourage Federal Acts to deny the citizens their constitutional and legal statutory court rights.

4. I filed the supplemental exhibits and arguments, to the original case, since an associate of mine felt that the district court may not understand the constitutional grounds to the case, and I had to explain the constitutional grounds to the court in the supplements, and add in extra evidence, to show the specific legal facts, and not just general legal facts that the US government has made agreements with other nation states to use US resources against US citizens in psychological warfare, and that the use of the resources, such as space based weapons and stealth airships placed above the United Kingdom for use by the US for surveillance and directed energy attacks on US citizens, per international agreements, harms the health and constitutional rights of US citizens in general and myself in specific.

4. The defendant ignored to comment on the common law restraining order requested to be placed on the US government by the court, which the federal court can order. In local court, a US citizen is able to file a restraining order, without strong evidence, but just with a reasonable cause; and per the Without Prejudice UCC clause above, that I have claimed, all common laws, and statute law restraining orders may be called upon in Federal Court. I have shown with reasonable cause that the US government has public policies, and agreements made with other nations states, to use surveillance technologies, chemical weapons, and other types of directed energy and US resources, on US citizens in general, and on myself in specific, so that I may request the US Federal Court, to file a restraining order on the US government and international organizations that follow the UCC laws, to not allow the US government or any of its agencies, to make agreements with other nations states, or with itself, to use surveillance, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies on myself as a US citizen, my family members, and any US citizen in general. If the US government, were not using surveillance, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies on US citizens or had not made any agreements to do so with itself or with international and secret organizations, then the US government should have no complaint to a restraining order filed upon it by a US citizen, namely myself, and the Federal Court to order the US government to not use surveillance technologies, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies, nor make agreements with other organizations to use surveillance, chemical weapons, and directed energy technologies on US citizens in general and a US citizens in specific such as myself.

5. If the US government will not respond to the complaint, and repair the damages done stated and proved above and in the main case, and change their policies so that US resources are not used against US citizens, by international organizations and agreements made with them by the US Federal Government, to harm the constitutional and basic statutory health rights of US citizens in general and myself in specific, then the court should order the million dollar relief sought to the plaintiff, and the restraining order on the US Government to prevent further potential incidents.

I certify that a copy of this brief was sent to opposing counsel via U.S. Mail on the 4th day of June, 2003.

________________________

Signature (Notary not required)

Thomas D. Clark,

Deleted For Interntet Use.

Lansing, MI 48917, USA