PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Clerk, (202) 479-3000

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20543

Supreme Court Petition No. 03-6295

Only the statement of case parts of the petition are listed below:

Statement of Case

1. General Questions Presented in the Case & in the Lower Court Rulings & Orders

I would like to explain to the Supreme Court the goals for filing the case, and how the lower courts (District and Appeals Courts) misread and misruled the case. My goals in part for filing the case, were to present a legal means to the court to allow the court to make a ruling and order the US government and corporation to honor their constitutional duty to protect all US and USA citizens from surveillance, directed energy, remote sensing, and mind control attacks coming from global mind control projects world wide, in the underworld, and contracted out or outsourced by the US government and corporation.

According the US Federal Code and international law as I understand it, it is presently legal for US government agencies and corporations, to use remote sensing, directed energies, and imaging technologies on all US and USA citizens, since the Federal Communications code laws protecting citizens from governmental surveillance only protect citizens in part while in the act of communication. The National Security Agency (NSA) and many other secret, shadow, and black operations agencies in the US government and corp. by the NSA Act. and agency policies, are exempt from the US Federal Code laws where there name is not mentioned, and even then they may override the law based on what they consider national security. Also the President of the US may place any person under surveillance without their knowledge based on presidential orders, and the Patriot Act recently passed in congress.

Many US government and corporate agencies can and have contracted out or outsourced international, underworld, shadow, and secret organizations world wide, to use global mind control, remote viewing, surveillance, and directed energy technologies on US and USA citizens as a means of psychological warfare as I show later in the petition and in the case filed in court. Therefore, to my knowledge one of the few means that a US and USA citizen has to protect their personal privacy rights, health rights, and airspace rights, is to file a case in Federal Court based on constitutional grounds to show that the "agreements" made by the US government and corporation to have surveillance, remote sensing, and directed energy technologies or to outsource them from other organizations, and to claim that their use of such technologies on US citizens is exempt from federal statutory laws is unconstitutional.

There are two other means to protect US citizens constitutional and legal rights in court that I am aware of presently. One is to file an Administrative Procedure Act request to get information from the government and to ask the government to change their policies and agreements made that are unconstitutional or endangers the health and privacy rights of US and USA citizens. The other is to prove that the general use of surveillance, remote sensing technologies, and imaging technologies is occurring and has caused harm to all US citizens and consequently to every specific US and USA citizen and file a tort act. The case I filed in the lower courts, used all of the above methods in the arguments and legal means presented in the case, so that the Supreme Court can better understand that my intention was not to file a frivolous case and that the case was for the benefit of all US and USA citizens and not just myself. I shall show below that in fact I did not file a frivolous case, and that the lower courts refused to comment on and make a ruling on the main parts of the case such as the constitutional aspects of the case, the common law restraining order, and the administrative procedure act which I did prove in court and which were not frivolous. I must assume that the district and appeals court felt that the constitutional, common law, and administrative procedure act parts of the case, are meant to be handled in the supreme court and not in the lower courts. The district and appeals court only commented on and made a ruling on the tort act part of the case, which I shall show below that they misread and misunderstood to make a ruling on an argument based on the "actual specific use" of surveillance technologies on myself that I did not pose in the case as a tort complaint. It is important to note that the district court applied a wrong rule in the court ruling to claim that I was a prisoner when I was not to deny me the chance to respond to the court ruling which forced me to file an appeals case, as the appeals court defendant stated in their defense case in the appeals court. Also the district court ruled on the case before the defendants could respond. It appears to me that the district court may have been attempting to not answer the real legal issues that I posed in the case which I proved. It also appears to me that the appeals court also followed the arguments presented by the district court that I must prove a tort case based on the use of surveillance technologies on myself in specific, to allow the appeals court to also not comment on the main arguments presented in the case which were not frivolous.

I would like the Supreme Court to certainly comment on and make a ruling on the constitutional violations claimed in the case, the administrative procedure act request, and common law restraining order aspects of the case rather than not commenting on them at all as the district and appeals court had done.

If the court reads what I, the plaintiff, requested for the court to order in the main complaint filed in the relief items 1 to 5, it shows that I was asking the court to rule on the legality and the constitutional violations, tort, and other harms that are done by the US government, corporation and any of its organizations when making “agreements” with other organizations and its own secret agencies, to use signals intelligence, surveillance, and directed energies on any US or USA citizen. Since the defendant did not respond to the Administrative Procedure Act request in a timely fashion as proven in the case, I assumed that the courts would then order the defendant to answer the Administrative Procedure Act request and to change their policies in the least case. Then I also assumed and proved in the case that the lower courts could rule on constitutional grounds which the defendants claimed in the appeals court were not admissible in the lower courts. An advisor of mine stated that the lower courts may not rule on the constitutional grounds presented in the case, after I had filed the case, and consequently I sent in the case supplements 1,2 and 3 with additional evidence before the case was ruled upon to show that the general use of surveillance technologies and agreements made by US government and corporation on US citizens in general harmed the privacy and health rights of US citizens in general and specific which includes myself.

I presented evidence in the case and case supplements to show the agreements that the US government, corporation and its organizations had made. I only need to show one factual “agreement” that the US government and corp. has made in the case, to use technologies that violate the constitutional, privacy and health rights of any US and USA citizen and the case is no longer frivolous as I understand it. I showed several factual agreements and not just one which are part of the public and governmental record, that the US government and corp. has made to use space based weapons(Supplements 2, Enclosure 1 US Government making agreements with the United Kingdom to place space based weapons in the UK), psychological warfare (Supplements 3, Exhibit 2 US CIA Making agreements with United Kingdom to use psychological warfare tactics against US citizens), and mind control (Main Case, Exhibit C, CIA making agreements in congress and on congressional record to hide mind control records) on US and USA citizens. I also showed many agreements made between the US government and corp. and secret organizations in exhibit B of the main case, to use surveillance and mind control technologies on US and USA citizens.

Furthermore the case was a simple administrative procedure act request to ask the US government and corporation for information on “agreements” that the government and corporation has made to use signals intelligence, surveillance and remote sensing technologies on US citizens, which needed no evidence, since it was a request for information from the government, due to the Freedom of Information act no longer being a valid means to get information on surveillance and other types of records from the government. I showed in the main case ( Exhibit C, ) that the congressional record “agreements” that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had made to hide mind control records from all US citizens, violated constitutional rights and legal rights of all Freedom of Information Act requests submitted on mind control by myself (as included as evidence in the main case) and other US citizens, since the records were hidden from them to hide the truth about agreements made by the US government on the use of mind control on US citizens. Also due to the Patriot act presently and several National Security Act, Presidential orders and NSA policies that are not regulated by Federal Law, the US government can place anyone under surveillance, and there is no means to check the surveillance, so that the Administrative Procedure Act is one of the means to ask the government for records on surveillance agreements as I have requested in this case.

Furthermore the US congress can not get the US government, corporation, and it agencies to respond to congressional orders and requests at times especially on questions related to the constitutionality of the US government and corporation using surveillance, signals intelligence, and remote sensing on US and USA citizens, due to executive privilege of the executive agencies, and consequently I filed the administrative procedure act request on behalf of all of the congress and all US and USA citizens, and I had enclosed a congressional letter of support from Congressman Nick Smith to show this in the case in exhibit A.

I presented emails received from military and executive government agents in exhibit D of the main case claiming that they were victims of surveillance and radiation attacks in the USA. I should also note to the court, that I received an unofficial email claiming to be from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), that stated that many government agencies and their families are held hostage by criminal underworld, communistic, and global surveillance and mind control projects, so that they can not protect the legal and constitutional rights of US and USA citizens, and this may be one reason why government agencies do not respond to congressional and citizens complaints and requests outside of court.

The district court and appeals court overlooked the above arguments, evidence, and requests from the court in the case, and instead placed into the ruling their own order that they felt I had to show that the US government was using radio waves, surveillance and signals intelligence on myself and other US citizens , and that I had not shown this strongly enough and therefore the case was frivolous. I did show that the US government was using signals intelligence, radio waves and surveillance technologies on US citizens in general on a daily basis according to their own DOD surveillance policy records (Exhibit 1 of supplement 1) which was presented as evidence, and according to classified and outsourced agreements that the US government has made with other nations states and secret organizations such as the United Kingdom (Supplements 2, Enclosure 1 ). I also included witness testimony from US citizens and government agents in (Exhibit D) in the main case to show that US citizens and government agents in general are having problems with directed energies, surveillance energies, and radio wave harming their health and privacy. I also included research papers in (Exhibit B), written by prominent professors and professional persons, showing the activities, facts, and agreements that the US government has made to use signals intelligence, directed energies, and surveillance technologies on US citizens. I also assumed that emails received from news agencies, private persons, and the general public may be presented as evidence in court, since any two persons reporting a public or private event by email or internet may be considered a business and public relationship based on the USA constitutional right to make agreements and present statements made between two persons.

I also showed in the supplements 1,2 and 3, to the main case that the types of directed energies that are used on US citizens in general imaging of the US landscape and surveillance harms their health by jamming and affecting their normal bodily frequencies. There are also scalar wave electromagnetic energies, which are pure static electrical energies, that are unregulated by the government and FCC, which are used in surveillance technologies and space based weapons technologies to see through walls and into homes and which does harm the constitutional and legal health and privacy rights of US citizens in general.

I have included governmental records, agreements made, and arguments posed in the case as evidence of the use of surveillance, directed energies, and signals intelligence agreements that affects and harms the constitutional and legal privacy and health rights of all US citizens in general, which is enough evidence to make the case not frivolous under the argument of showing the “use” and not just the “agreements“ of surveillance and directed energy technologies on US and USA citizens. Apparently the district and appeals court feels that I have to show the use of surveillance, radio waves, and directed energy technologies on persons in specific and not in general, even though this was not the main argument and rulings of the case as requested of the court and of the defendant in the main case.

Whether the court feels that I have proven the agreements made or not, the case filed in the original form asks the court and the US government and agencies whether the US government and corporation can use and make outsourcing agreements to use tempest based and other types of remote sensing surveillance and directed energy technologies not regulated by the Federal and International laws and international laws, on me, my family, ancestors, associates, U.S. and USA citizens, to harm our health and privacy, which I feel is unconstitutional based on constitutional privacy and health rights.

Part of the relief I requested in the case was for the court to considering ruling that the US government and corporation should defend US citizens from mind control, surveillance, and directed energy attacks from other nations states, the underworld, and from outsourcing agreements made by government agencies based on constitutional rights and duties of government agents to defend the constitutional rights of US citizens.

2. Constitutional & Uniform Commercial Code Questions Presented in the Case

By declaring the Without Prejudice (Uniform Commercial Code) UCC 1-207 in the original case, I, my family members, and other US and USA citizens are entitled to a ruling on the case based on constitutional grounds and not just on federal statutory grounds. The US government and corporation makes agreements based on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) with the owners of the US government and corporation, and consequently any UCC agreements and international treaties made by the US Government and corporation to deny US citizens their constitutional rights, may be claimed unconstitutional by a citizen claiming the UCC Without Prejudice 1-207 above in court, to make the Uniform Commercial Code consistent with itself and its own rules, and the USA constitution. .

Your Honor and court, 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 20, 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. This is further discussed in how it applies to this case in item 10 of the original case submitted.

Furthermore it is my understanding of the UCC Without Prejudice 1-207, that once I, my family and US citizens as the plaintiff, declare the UCC Without Prejudice 1-207, in Federal and Supreme Court, then the US government and corporation, 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 and privacy or constitutional rights as shown above and in the main case and supplements.

If the US government has made secret agreements and treaties of any sort with other nations states, secret and underworld societies, societies in the inner Earth, and extraterrestrials to deny the me, my family, ancestors, and US and USA citizens, our USA constitutional rights, and airspace rights, and to use directed energy technologies, surveillance technologies, or any other type of technology on myself, my family, my ancestors and relatives and on US and USA citizens, then according to the above statement which has now been declared in US Federal Court, the US government and corporation may no longer make such agreements, since the agreements were made in secret and without our knowledge and are unconstitutional; and I on behalf of my family, ancestors, and other US and USA citizens, have declared all such agreements void and null by UCC 1-207, since I am unaware of them, and they should no longer apply since they are unconstitutional, illegal, and unlawful.

The constitutional violations and harms done to my person, family, associates and other US and USA citizens, as stated and shown in the case, for which the court may award relief, are as follows:

Bill of Rights Amendment 1: Freedom of Press Violations

The evidence presented in the case in Supplements 3, Exhibit 2, shows a constitutional violation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the freedom of press, since the CIA made agreements with the United Kingdom to control the US media to engage in psychological warfare against US citizens. CIA or governmentally controlled media which encourages psychological warfare on US and USA citizens in general harms the psychological, mental and physical health of all US and USA citizens, and any citizen in specific.

Bill of Rights, Amendment 4: Freedom from Surveillance & Freedom of Association Violations

The constitutional violations proved in the case, were caused by a harm to privacy, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of press, and personal health of all US citizens in general, due to the general use of signals intelligence, remote sensing technologies, and surveillance technologies used on all US citizens by the US government and the NSA as proven by the official governmental documents from the DOD surveillance policy Directive 5240, provided as evidence in Exhibit 1 of supplement 1; and since I am a US and USA citizen, I may ask for relief due to damages done to my constitutional rights that have been violated in general, which harmed my right to freedom of association, religion, and health, and prevented me from getting work due to disabilities caused by radiation overexposure symptoms coming from surveillance and imaging technologies used on all US citizens in general.

Bill of Rights, Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion Violations

I provided the comments on my ancestry in the case which is in part claimed to be distantly royal, to define who my family members and ancestors are to protect them legally in court by means of the agreements I am making with the government in this case and potential ruling to not harm my family members and ancestors. The court should also be aware of the extent of the loss and violations of constitutional rights of freedom of religion, culture, citizenship, employment, and race due to black listing and governmental surveillance targeting persons such as myself with distant royal or a unique genetic and spiritual ancestry.

Persons in the USA in general, who happen to have a unique ancestry relating them to distant members of royalty from mythological sources, or Christian royalty, are a minority in the USA, and may be blacklisted and denied their basic constitutional rights due to being a minority. Many persons who have royal ancestry related to mythological sources can not establish their ancestry records in court, since the ancestry is based on oral, secret, and common law traditions, which the statutory Federal Government does not allow to be placed on governmental marriage licenses, family documents, and governmental historical records. Even though it is unpopular to speak about extraterrestrials being related to and creating human beings based on oral and mythological traditions in court and in the popular media, it is an acknowledged fact by the US government through treaties that the US government has made with extraterrestrials that extraterrestrial exist, and did indeed create part of the human race on Earth by means of test tube baby science. I provided ample evidence in the case from scientists and published books under exhibit B about the existence of extraterrestrials, star visitors, and inner Earth societies and agreements made with the US Government, which President Bush and the Majestic agency of the US government acknowledges privately but not in the mainstream public media.

The supreme court and lower courts should look at arguments and evidence presented in specific cases as this one, even if they are not part of the main stream public media and political trends of the government.

The motives for royal and mythological ancestry as I have claimed are important in the case in part, since it shows that governmental political and policy trends in general are being used to violate constitutional rights, and to repress the truth about evolution and creation theory, and to deny me, Christian's, and persons with ancestry from mythological religions, a fair trial in court, since the facts are not politically popular and are repressed, to hide the truth about E.T.’s and inner Earth societies. Christian and extraterrestrial royal lines are being repressed by political policies in the government which ignore the scientific and legal facts in court to support religious evolution theories based on political belief to cover up the truth. According to modern science it is impossible for organs in the human body to have evolved separately, since they had to be co-created or genetically engineered at the same time by a creator or genetic engineer, consequently evolution theory of human life as we know it on Earth is impossible genetically speaking and must be a religion and political belief system and not a science, whereas creation theory is more of a science like genetic engineering and not a necessarily a religion.

3. Common Law Restraining Order Questions Presented In the Case

I also asked the court in (supplement 3 to main case), to consider issuing a permanent restraining order on the US government and corporation, and any organization that it has made agreements with both secret, public, and by outsourcing, to define the airspace around my body and the bodies of my ancestors and relatives, US and USA citizens, as free from space based weapons, directed energies, surveillance, remote control of bodily functions by means of radio or energy waves, chemical, biological and nuclear technologies, and signals intelligence, so that the US government and corporation and its organizations and agreements made with other nation states and secret organizations, may not use any type of directed energies, surveillance, signals intelligence, chemical, biological, nuclear, and space weapons technologies on my person, family, associates, and US citizens. Any corporate or legal entity which includes a US or USA citizen can define the rights to the airspace around and in their property and person in court based on constitutional rights.