-Caveat Lector- During the abovesaid time, and continuously thereafter, Kathy Schlund performed said acts, including but not limited thereto, the repeated setting up and framing of Plaintiff as aforesaid as a result of her being threatened by the D.E.A. and various other officials with the State of Arizona and others influenced by the aforesaid that they would murder her children if she refused to cooperate. Later, Kathy Schlund agreed to reveal the methodology and activities of how the D.E.A. set up Plaintiff and others to discredit them as political witnesses targeted as a threat to their illegal and corrupt activities. Kathy Schlund and her children, Holly, Summer, and Mindee, were injected with unique implants by various agents acting under color of authority as aforesaid for the purpose of the D.E.A. having the ability to punish and threaten them by using wireless electronic technology and devices designed for that purpose. Plaintiff hereby places the court on notice that he is requesting (which shall constitute a continuous request not waived) to demonstrate to the court that, in fact, the wireless electronic technologies affirmatively exists which can be used to physically and emotionally punish a human being. Plaintiff requests a date certain be established by the court for Plaintiff to substantiate said technology pursuant to Doran v. McGinnis, 158 F.R.D. 383 (1994) as required. Plaintiff in 1996 executed numerous legitimate requests for all D.E.A., C.I.A., F.B.I. A.T.F. and other agencies’ records relating and/or pertaining to Plaintiff pursuant to the then existing Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and other agency/department rules and regulations. 6. On or about April 28, 1997, Plaintiff, and pursuant to the F.O.I.A., 5 U.S.C.A. § ? 552(a) and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §? 552 et seq., requested by letter that Defendants produce copies of all records, documents, and other tangible things contained in Defendant D.O.J.'s case and other files involving Plaintiff for inspection and copying by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also offered to pay all search fees and was later determined by the agency to be allowed a waiver of any copy fees. A copy of this request is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference. 7. By letter dated June 24, 1997, Defendant D.O.J., by its agents Mr. James Greene, Acting Chief of the Freedom of Information and Records Management Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, D.C., 20537, partially denied Plaintiff's request for information with respect to the case files, documents, exhibits, and other tangible information under its direction, management, supervision, and control involving Plaintiff in their possession as admitted. A copy of this partial denial and admission to such documents, records, and other tangible things is attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this reference. On June 24, 1997, Defendant, through its agent Mr. James L. Greene, indicated their refusal to turn over certain documents, evidence, records, files and other tangible things in their possession on the grounds “the processing of Plaintiff's request identified certain materials that will be released to Plaintiff Portions not released are being withheld pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §? 552 and/or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.? § 552(a). Please refer to the list enclosed with this letter that identifies the authority for withholding the deleted material, which is indicated by a mark appearing in the block next to the exemption. An additional enclosure with this letter explains these exemptions in more detail: [Exemptions] Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §? 552(b)(2) and (b)(7)(D) and under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §? 552(a)(j)(2) renders a total of 22 pages withheld as exempt, as aforesaid.” Mr. Greene indicated there were 51 pages of information being maintained by the D.O.J.-D.E.A., and 22 pages were exempt, as aforesaid. 8. Also, before the above-denoted information would be released by the D.O.J., Plaintiff was required to submit a Department of Justice “Form D.O.J.-361, February 95" which was stamped “Form Approved by the OMB #1103-0016-Certification of Identity,” and notarized, which was submitted prior to the April 28, 1997 request. 9. Plaintiff sent back a letter on or about June 30, 1997 setting forth the exemption language and indicated an opinion that the exemption cited by the D.O.J. was not appropriate. Plaintiff did not receive any response from the letter. However, the June 24, 1997 Notice of Partial Exemption (Exhibit “B”) indicated on page 2 that “if Plaintiff wished to appeal any denial of his request, he may do so within (30) days pursuant to 28 Code of Federal Regulation Sections 16.8 and 16.48 (“CFR”) and the appeal should be sent to the Co-Director, Office of Information and Privacy, Flag Building, Suite 570, Washington, D.C. 20530. On Plaintiff's information and belief, the exemption response was sent to Mr. James L. Green, the Acting Chief of the Freedom of Information and Records Management Section under 28 CFR Sec. 16.8 and/or 28 CRF Sec. 16.48 as its agent. 10. Plaintiff on information and belief and on those grounds, never received a response regarding the appeal hearing date or an assignment to the judge for determination. Despite that fact, Plaintiff's original letter requested that the denied documents be made available to him per Exhibit “A” attached.
11. Because the Co-Director of the Office of Information and Privacy or/and through its agent, Mr. James L. Greene, who is the Acting Chief of the Freedom of Information and Records Management Section of the D.E.A., never sent Plaintiff a denial of the appeal due to the lapse of time. Such lapse constitutes a constructive denial of Plaintiff's request. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff has exhausted all of his administrative remedies in attempting to obtain the material requested under the F.O.I.A. and Privacy Act except, on information and belief and on those grounds, those administrative remedies or procedures which Plaintiff was prevented from performing as a condition concurrent to a condition precedent to Defendant's condition related to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as aforesaid. 13. On information and belief and on those grounds, Plaintiff asserts all the information sought by Plaintiff is within the provisions of the F.O.I.A., 5 U.S.C.A. ?§ 552(a)(3) and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522 et seq. on the grounds, including but not limited to: (1) Part of the documentation is over 20 years old; (2) the information is no longer sensitive as to the purported D.O.J.-D.E.A. operations related to the Plaintiff or anyone else for that matter at this junction; (3) the information is not related to efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals; (4) the records or information compiled under the “pretext” of conducting a legal law enforcement investigation with legitimate purpose was determined by the court to be false and lack all substance and truth and in fact determined the informant worked for the D.O.J.-D.E.A., all the evidence was fabricated, and the testimony asserted by the officers involved was false, fraudulent, and subordination of perjury and perjury constituting outrageous government conduct which was contemptible; (5) none of the information was submitted from a private institution on a confidential basis; (6) because the criminal investigation was determined by the court to be nothing more than an illegal “pretext,” the information is not such that was obtained or compiled in the course of a legitimate criminal investigation and is not protected; (7) the information is not related to any agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, as this was strictly an alleged domestic drug case which does not fall under any of the exemptions; (8) any of the alleged documentation or materials cannot be said to be related solely to any of the internal rules or practices of the D.E.A. and the Maricopa county Sheriff’s Office, as the D.E.A. agents were bound by an “oath” of office to be honest and truthful, not to commit perjury or fabricate evidence, and not to be in contempt of court for doing so, and not to conduct an investigation under color of authority under a fabricated set of circumstances commonly known as “pretext” in order to get a warrant (such as was done here by the Hon. Richard Gromley) based on lies and deceit, to a federal judge and a grand jury in doing so, as determined by the court at the time of Defendant's “acquittal” as substantiated by the documentation submitted by Defendants pursuant to the F.O.I.A.. See Exhibit “C” attached and incorporated by reference. Also, due to the course of time, the exemptions have been either greatly amended for the release of the documentation or rendered void, null, and of no effect, according to proof. 14. The documentation requested by Plaintiff included information concerning the alleged “illicit laboratory” information and the records and documents concerning the D.O.J.-D.E.A.'s chief chemist at the regional laboratory of the Southwest Regional Laboratory and the information concerning the Task Force supervisor who signed a certificate indicating the evidence was “disposed of” in accordance with existing administration instructions pursuant to Case No. N4-78-X012 of the Regional Office of Dallas, Texas or/and the District Office of Phoenix, Arizona on March 12, 1980, contained within part of the documents released pursuant to the F.O.I.A. (D.E.A. Form 48 Jan. 1975). The documentation given to Plaintiff was so gutted of the vital information, as well as it is obviously apparent that the documentation submitted had been greatly redacted and cut and rexeroxed with other documents which don't apply to the nature of the form, which was then pasted together to produce the document copy which was ultimately released to the Plaintiff. See Exhibit “C” and specifically the letter from Defendant D.O.J.-D.E.A., Washington, D.C. dated June 24, 1997, referencing Request No. 97-0942-C claiming Plaintiff's F.O.I.A. request was being processed of the requested “identified certain materials that will be released” to Plaintiff. The documents requested by Plaintiff were, in fact, not released to him. 15. On information and belief and on those grounds, all of the information sought by Plaintiff is within the provisions of the F.O.I.A., 5 U.S.C.A. §? 552(a)(3) and 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 et seq. under the Privacy Act, as they pertain to him personally; and it is requested to be disclosed by the Defendants. The information is vitally important to Plaintiff so that Plaintiff can then file a Request for Correction of Records so the record can finally represent the truth and accurate information, rather than the fabricated, deceitful, and false information which was the federal judge, Hon. Lacey's decision, not Plaintiff; and this correction is extremely important for the emotional piece of mind so the entire matter can be corrected and laid to rest. 16. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief and on those grounds that specific individuals within the D.E.A., after Plaintiff was acquitted, continued to keep Plaintiff under surveillance and otherwise have continuously, in an ongoing fashion using electronic technology, invaded Plaintiff's privacy in such a manner as torturing Plaintiff with a motive of retaliation for the acquittal he obtained. It was also for the purpose of continuing to cover-up their activity of murder, torture and invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy. It is also to continue the investigation under the guise that a criminal investigation is ongoing. Plaintiff resided in Glendale, Arizona where the local officers, in combination with the Joint Task Force, continued to operate in the manner which led to Plaintiff's acquittal as determined by the Hon. Judge Lacey. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, this retaliation by the select officers and agents will continue in the form of such retaliation; and the records, dockets, and other tangible evidence are relevant and material in order to identify the specific and select individuals who have conducted this pattern of retaliation for their own personal purposes, or for other reasons unknown to the Plaintiff (i.e. perhaps an internal, unwritten agency policy which is understood and agreed to by the select officers involved). Such conduct is not legitimate and not legal, and Plaintiff asserts he has a right to know the names of all individuals involved as represented by the documentation as part of this purported, legitimate, Joint Drug Task Force which represented to the Federal District and State Courts it was conducting a legitimate drug investigation which was later flatly rejected by the Hon. Judge Lacey; and a verdict of “acquittal” was rendered, which forbids any such facts of being in dispute other than in favor of Plaintiff. 17. Defendants' failure and refusal to furnish all of the requested information is arbitrary and capacious and irrefutable injuries Plaintiff by depriving him of public information to which he is entitled access. Further, on information and belief, the failure and refusal to furnish the information is further arbitrary and capricious and irrefutable injures Plaintiff by depriving him of the knowledge of the select officers or/and agents involved which were nothing less than evil and corrupt, entered a conspiracy for corruption, and carried out the plan, scheme, and design in a corrupt manner, conducting subordination of perjury, violating their sacred oath of office taken to become such officers or/and agents under the Dept. of Justice and D.E.A., who also took an oath not to violate the law, uphold the United States Constitution, and to not violate any other individual's constitutional rights in the course and scope of their capacity as trusted individuals holding power to enforce the law or others who work within their influence, specifically, all the information, data, documentation, and all other tangible evidence from the day in time the D.E.A. started its investigation(s) of Plaintiff (on or about 1973) up to and through the present, or until a final adjudication of the matter. 18. Plaintiff specifically requests the Court to order Defendants, individually and jointly, to disclose and make available all information pertaining to Petitioner's request for an in camera hearing and subject to an evidentiary hearing, with a request which shall be a continuing request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, which is incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations and operable to the Freedom from Information Act and Privacy Acts respectively. WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Schlund requests this Court: 1. Deem all of the information sought by Plaintiff to constitute public information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. §? 552(a) and/or the Privacy Act under 5 U.S.C.A. §? 522 et seq. and as amended and order Defendants, individually and jointly, to make available for inspection and copying or otherwise deliver all such unaltered and unredacted legible documentation (information and data irrespective of medium of preservation, compilation, or format) and account for the whereabouts and actual or theoretical suspension of the aforesaid of all such information under their direction, supervision, management, custody, or/and control or/and knowledge or relating to or connection with, whether directly or indirectly, whether in part or whole, all of the information requested by Plaintiff in his request pursuant to Exhibit A attached and incorporated by reference, and any amendment thereto; 2. Enjoin Defendants from withholding any of the requested information from Plaintiff or his agents; 3. Expedite the proceedings in this action as provided in 5 U.S.C.A. ?§ 552(a)(4)(B); 4. Award Plaintiff all of his costs and reasonable attorney fees, law clerk, paralegal, secretarial, or as a private individual allowed under the law in an amount according to proof; 5. Issue a written findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. ? 552(a)(4)(F), that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raises questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously and not objectively with respect to the withholding; 6. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court, in its discretion, to order Defendants individually and jointly to produce and make available to the Court all the documentation requested by Plaintiff for an in-camera review and hearing related to the matters alleged in this Complaint and a specific request for an evidentiary hearing on such matters, and for a request for the Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, and this request shall request a continuous request and not waived under any act or failure to act by Plaintiff and constitutes a specific reservation of Plaintiff's rights related thereto; and 7. Grant Plaintiff all such other and further relief as the court deems just, fair, and proper. DATED this day of , 2002. By: Charles August Schlund, III Plaintiff in Pro Per <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
