US Court of Federal Claims
United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-02769-CCM

CLARK v. USA Assigned to: Judge Christine O.C. Miller Referred to: Demand: $1000000 Lead Docket: None Related Cases: None Case in other court: None Cause: 28:1491 Tucker Act

Date Filed: 12/01/03 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 118 Contract - Other (CDA) Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

 

Wednesday, May 3, 2006  Thomas Daniel Clark

Address and Phone Deleted for Internet Post

Clerk, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, (202) 219-9657
RE: Civil Rights Case Filing
717 Madison Place, NW, Room 103
Washington, D.C. 20005

 

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

 

Plaintiff, Thomas Daniel Clark

 

v.

 

Defendant, The United States of America (USA) and the United States Corporation (U.S.) including all Government Agencies, and outsourced US and USA Organizations and Agreements made with any other organization.

 

Civil Rights Case No: 1:03-cv-02769-CCM

 

Civil Rights Case and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

 

Jurisdiction:

 

1.This is a civil rights case which involves a claim seeking for the violation of a person’s constitutional rights brought under federal statute 42 U.S.C. S 1983.  Under this law a person, agency, corporation or organization who acts under color of state law to violate another’s constitutional rights may be liable for damages.

 

2. USA Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment IV

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things be seized. "

 

3. USA Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment I

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

4. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)  Section 207, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.

 

Your Honor, my use of Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 above my signature on this document below indicates that I have exercised the Remedy provide for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in book 1 at Section 207, to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government -- national, state, and local, -- that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement, in relations to this specific case.

 

Parties:

 

5.  Plaintiff is

 

Thomas Daniel Clark , Address and Phone deleted for Internet Post

 

 

6. Defendants are

 

The United States of America (USA) and the United States Corporation (U.S.) including all Government Agencies, and outsourced US and USA Organizations and Agreements made with any other organization. Defendants address as the Solicitor General of the United States, Room 564, DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530.

 

Legal Definitions:

 

Your honor, please note that the definitions for the legal terms defined below:

 

7. The use of the word "organization(s)" shall be defined throughout this legal document to be U.S. and USA agents, agencies, nations states, shadow governments such as Omega, international, local, secret, and shadow or public corporations such as Global Technology World Alliance in Australia, organizations at sea or in the sea, subterranean Earth organizations, Inner Earth organizations, organizations residing on low Earth orbiting platforms such as airships, and organizations in outer space such as on space stations, on the moon, and on other cosmological and planetary objects..

 

8. The use of the words "directed energies" shall be defined throughout this legal document to be any form of directed energy radiation or beam which may be coming from stations in the air, earth, sea, outer space, such as satellites, space based weapons, airships in low Earth orbit, submarines at sea, and space ships and stations in outer space. 

 

"Directed energies" shall include all forms of radiant energy such as radio, cellular communication,  scalar potential energy static electrical, lasers, sound, ultrasound, infrasound, extremely low frequency (ELF), electromagnetic, and nuclear energy waves and particles.

 

9. The terms "U.S. and USA" citizen shall be defined throughout this legal document to be all U.S. Corporate and United States of America (USA) citizens, and US and USA government agencies and agents, in general and in specific; which includes family members, relatives and ancestors.

 

Cause of Action:

 

10. The plaintiff shows and quotes from (Exhibit 1) as documented by congressional records, that, "Under the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA Intelligence Act of 1984 Congress allowed the CIA to simply exclude its operational files on all mind control activities, from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) processing in exchange for its promise to greatly improve its pace for responding to FOIA requests for other, less sensitive, files.", which violates Freedom of Press and Information civil rights, even if the CIA should show many of the records, since they can screen which records are hidden and which are made public.  Since I the plaintiff in specific and other US and USA citizens in general have filed for Freedom of Information records,  from 1984 to the present to obtain information on governmental and CIA mind control records:

 

- Filed a -CIA FOIA Request with the CIA Case No: P-1998-00125 (Date 1998) filed by the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff Thomas Clark, to obtain the FOIA records on mind control in a timely fashion, but the processing was delayed and slow to go several months beyond the grace period given by law, and yet some records may have been hidden from the CIA search according to the above congressional records in (Exhibit 1). 

 

, then the plaintiff has shown that the civil liberties of the plaintiff have been violated in specific and in general for all US and USA citizens by the policies and procedures of the US and USA Government and the CIA.

 

11. According to the National Security Act., Public Law 86-36, US Code Title 29, Chapter 22, Sec. 2006- Exemptions, and according to National Security Agency’s (NSA) General Counsel, no existing statutes control, limit, or define the signals intelligence activities of the NSA.  Further, the NSA’s General Counsel asserts that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to NSA’s interception of Americans international communications for foreign intelligence purposes.   Consequently, the National Security Agency’s (NSA) programs, codes and policies that state that they are not regulated by any statute or constitutional civil right that does not mention their name, and that they can break any law or violate any constitutional civil right for National Security reasons, is unconstitutional and violates the plaintiff’s civil liberties,  since it allows them to use advanced and classified technologies such as surveillance, remote sensing, space based weapons, and directed energy technologies which are unregulated by law to violate US and USA citizens guaranteed constitutional civil rights, privacy rights, and basic safety health laws.  I have also shown that the programs, codes, policies, and  agreements that the US and USA government and NSA publishes in the US Federal Code are unconstitutional and violate the civil liberties of the plaintiff in specific based on the US Federal Code and NSA policies being used as the evidence.
 
12. The US and USA congress has proposed many bills that have not passed at all or only passed in part (Exhibit 3, Part 2,  Congressman Kucinich Space Preservation Act, Human Research Subjects Protection Act by Sen. John Glen), to ban the development and use of space based weapons, and other forms of advanced classified technologies on US and USA citizens that violate their constitutional civil rights and many health laws, which shows that such technologies exist and need to be regulated by law but are not; and consequently until Congress passes bills and laws to regulate the use of space based weapons and advanced classified technologies so that they do not violate civil liberties, US and USA citizens and the plaintiff have to file cases in court to ask the courts for relief, and to regulate the use of space based weapons and advanced classified technologies by the US and USA government and organizations on US and USA citizens to not violate their constitutional civil rights for their own safety.    Also until the congress passes bills and laws that state that it is unconstitutional and illegal for government agencies to make outsourced agreements with organizations to use space based weapons and other types of harmful advanced and classified technologies on US and USA citizens and the plaintiff that violate their constitutional civil rights and health laws, US and USA citizens have to file a case in court to defend their constitutional civil rights, by stating that it is unconstitutional for the US and USA to make agreements with organizations publicly, secretly, and classified that violate their constitutional civil rights and safety health laws.  I, the plaintiff, have shown that space based weapons and advanced classified technologies exist as the above bill’s in (Exhibit 3) present; which the US and USA government has programs to develop, and which are unregulated by law, and violate the civil liberties of the plaintiff and all US and USA citizens, merely by the fact that such US and USA governmental unconstitutional policies and programs presently exist.
 
13.  The Patriot Act (PL 107-56), subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code
with its enhanced surveillance and new court search procedures (Title II Sect 201 Enhanced Surveillance Procedures), passed in Congress violates many constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights, of US and USA citizens in general and the plaintiff in specific, since search procedure legal rules, and warrants may be suspended for US and USA citizens and the plaintiff allowing the government to conduct roving wiretaps on anyone, allows the government and police to sneak into our homes and confiscate property with no notice, and allows the government to access our financial and medical records with no meaningful judicial oversight, which clearly violates the 4th amendment of the US and USA constitution and bill of rights.  The plaintiff shows that former Vice President Al Gore and many other cities nation wide have spoken out on the fact that the Patriot Act passed by congress into law violates civil liberties of all US and USA citizens,  (Exhibit 3, Sect 1. Comments made by Al Gore and others on the Patriot Act violating constitutional civil rights ) .

 

The fact that the Patriot Act policies alone violate the civil liberties of the plaintiff in specific and all US and USA citizens in general is evidence to show that the civil liberties of the plaintiff have been violated. 
 
14.  After Roosevelt’s New Deal Democracy, all governmental contracts became colorable agreements, (counterfeit), and a new colorable (counterfeit) jurisdiction had to be created, and was changed to the term commercial agreement, so that the new governmental statutory jurisdiction is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. The change of civil law from public common law to private commercial law occurred in 1938, Erie Railroad Versus Thompkins case of 1938 and recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Since 1938 all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based on public policy.  This jurisdiction forced commercial agreements upon implied consent, rather than full knowledge, and all of our courts today sit as legislative tribunals, which are commercial obligations to the Federal United States, and the system of remedy to this is found in book I of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207, "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals that the signer of the document has reserved his common law right, and is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract. Pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed, in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who exercises the remedy provided, and retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of the Continental United States.

 

Since the Plaintiff has signed this document below by calling upon the Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 clause, the plaintiff is entitled to common law, constitutional and civil rights rulings in court which have been suspended or violated by governmental policies, codes, and commercial agreements as shown above.

 

15. The plaintiff shows below in a quote from (Exhibit 2, Part 1, bottom of page 1 and top of page 2,  a copy of a MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence, dated 20 December 1991, obtained from Freedom of Information Act Requests, that "the CIA has relationships with reporters from every major wire service …we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, and hold or even scrap stories:"

 

"http://www.members.tripod.com/CIABASE/index.html Ralph McGehee CIABASE, Institute for Global Communications

 

20 December 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence (After a number of introductory remarks the document sets forth the programs of the Public Affairs Office (PAO).

 

A. MEDIA

 

1) Current Program: a. PAO now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped up turn some "intelligence failure" stories into "Intelligence success" stories...In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories .... "

 

The plaintiff also shows and quotes from (Exhibit 2 Part 2, on page 1),

 

"http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blacktown/20000318mediaoverb.htm
Author: Ashley Overbeck
Publisher/Date: September 1999
Title: A Report on CIA Infiltration and Manipulation of the Mass Media
The Church Committee Investigation
A flurry of public attention began to cast doubts upon the ethics of a press wedded to the Central Intelligence Agency after a Washington Star-News story by Oswald Johnson reported that the CIA had three dozen American newsmen on its payroll at that time (November 1973). Then-CIA director William Colby (CFR) leaked this information to Johnson, fearing an embarrassing fallout after both the Star-News and New York Times approached him to ask if any of their staff members were receiving payments from the Agency. (A Times investigation four years later showed the number of CIA-funded journalists to be closer to 50; Bernstein's expose in Rolling Stone that same year claimed it was more like 400.) "

 

And the plaintiff shows on (Exhibit 2, Part 3, on page 2) from a quote by Henry Makow, PhD in his news article Tales of Mind Control And World Tyranny:

 

"I suspect it was developed by the Tavistok institute for Human Relations in England and administered through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Rockefeller foundations through their control of education and the mass media.. …The mass media is used to maintain domestic psychological control.  According to Dr. John Coleman, the directors of the US TV networks, major newspapers and publishers were all handpicked by British intelligence, which organized the CIA.  For example, before becoming head of CBS, William Paley was trained in mass brainwashing techniques at Tavistock. "
The Committee of 300;, pp. 248-249)…(Pg 2 Exhibit 2)"

 

The plaintiff has shown that the US and USA government and CIA has programs and operations in existence as Freedom of Information Act Requests and other public documents above prove which violates the Freedom of Press civil rights for US and USA citizens in general and the plaintiff in specific.

 

16. The plaintiff has shown in the items noted above that many constitutional civil rights have been violated by US and USA governmental policies, codes, laws, treaties, programs and agreements that presently exist and that harm the plaintiff and violate the plaintiffs guaranteed constitutional rights in specific as well as all US and USA citizens civil rights in general.  It is up to the courts common sense and awareness of the circumstances described in this specific case to decide whether the evidence and arguments presented much of which are commonly known as governmental, public and published facts are sufficient to offer relief to the plaintiff in specific and all US and USA citizens in general.

 

17. The plaintiff has exhausted all legal remedies, since the plaintiff has,

 

-The US and USA government and congress have not yet passed bills and laws that protect the civil liberties of the plaintiff as shown above in this case. .
- As shown in item 1 above, filed a -CIA FOIA Request with the CIA Case No: P-1998-00125 (Date 1998) filed by the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff Thomas Clark, to obtain the FOIA records on mind control in a timely fashion, but the processing was delayed and slow to go several months beyond the grace period given by law, and yet some records may have been hidden from the CIA search according to the above congressional records in (Exhibit 1). 

 

18. The plaintiff is entitled to receive a ruling in this civil rights case from the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to federal statute 42 U.S.C. S 1983, constitutional bill of rights, and the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207, "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207.

 

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays:

 

(1) that the court order the defendants, the United States of America (USA) and the United States Corporation (U.S.) including all Government Agencies, and outsourced US and USA Organizations and Agreements made with any other organization (Both Classified and Public) with any other organization to not violate the civil rights stated above of the plaintiff in specific and any other US and USA citizen in general.

 

(2) that the Court award the plaintiff $1 million dollars in relief for damages done and violations to the plaintiff’s civil rights.

 

(3) that the court award the Plaintiff his costs and disbursements in the action pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C , Sec 552 (a) (4) (e), (3) that the court grant such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper, and (4) provide for expedition of proceedings on this complaint pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 552(a) (4) (C) (D).

 

Proof of Service and Signature:

 

I certify that a copy of this case was sent to opposing counsel as listed below via U.S. Mail on the ____th day of ________, 2003, 

 

1.Solicitor General of the United States, Room 564, DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530.

 

 Dated 5/3/06, Lansing, Michigan
(Signed by plaintiff Thomas Clark representing himself ),Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
_____________________________
Thomas Daniel Clark

Address and Phone Deleted for Internet Post.

 

 

 

Exhibit 2, with Quote on Page 2 of Exhibit

 

" Email news quote received from US TV News Service and CNN that shows that US TV Networks and publishers are trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and funded by Britain to maintain domestic psychological control on US and USA citizens by using mass media brainwashing techniques in the media as a form of psychological warfare

 

Exhibit 2

 

Exhibit 2, Part 1, bottom of page 1 and top of page 2,  a copy of a MEMORANDUM
FOR: Director of Central Intelligence from a Freedom of Information Act Request.

 

Exhibit 2 Part 2, on page 1), : A Report on CIA Infiltration and Manipulation of the Mass Media , The Church Committee Investigation

 

Exhibit 2, Part 3, on page 2) from a quote by Henry Makow, PhD in his news article Tales of Mind Control And World Tyranny.

 

Exhibit 3,

 

Congressional Evidence

 

1. Statements made by Al Gore and other representatives about the Patriot Act violating constitutional civil rights.
2. Bills proposed in Congress that have not passed to ban space based weapons and other types of advanced classified technologies that violate civil rights :

 

Space preservation Act of 2001 proposed Congressman Kucinich
Bill S. 193 The Human Research Subject Protection Act proposed by By Sen. John Glenn

 

Appeals Case Memo:[ Counter Human Subjects Research Appeals Case Memo]