Dear Bi Omega this is the second news letter
that you have sent but I don't know if regular tv antennas
are the same as a satellite dish on top of a house is that
the same..I am not in the science community and do not know
what the difference is between the two..
Thank you Kathy Wyckoff
discriminatory and retaliatory abuse of Active Electronic
has caused me severe physical harm and is causing similar
harm to my three-year-old daughter and to my two-year-old
son. Abuse of active electromagnetic surveillance makes a
microwave oven the home or the workplace of the subject a
investigation. This in turn can cause severe physical harm
to a whole family and to other unsuspecting victims.
Before the tragedy of 9-11, federal agents
could use active electronic surveillance only by a warrant.
Congress has given law enforcement and investigative agencies
the power to use active electronic surveillance on a discretionary
basis. However Congress did not provide any safeguards to
prevent the public against abuse. Any excuse even if it is
not honest, can subject the whole family to harmful radiation
for a long period of time, and victims of abuse are not likely
to find out.
The case below illustrates the horrors
caused by abuse of active electronic surveillance, and my
efforts before the courts to prevent further harm to my family
and myself. If the law allows this to happen to my family,
then the law allows for this to happen to anybody else. You
are in a position to demand from your legislators honest answers
about my case.
Please share this case with others so they
can do the same. Visibility of my case may help to bring this
tribulation to a stop, and may help other families in the
For many decades Electromagnetic Radiation,
EMR has been used for surveillance and as a weapon. Active
electronic surveillance irradiate the subject of an investigation
with frequencies which are higher than the frequencies employed
by a microwave oven. Active Electronic Surveillance, AEMS,
illuminates the subject of and investigation (and the whole
family), with high and extremely high EMR, including microwave,
ultraviolet and infrared light, laser and x-ray in order to
retrieve sound and image of subjects even inside doors. Beams
of these technologies are used to monitor day and night the
activities of a subject of an investigation.
Overexposure to high and extremely high
EMR causes severe physical harm. Overexposure to EMR amounts
to cooking inside - out a victim of abuse. The harm caused
by abuse may be visible only after severe physical harm has
occurred. At that time the victim may blame the injury to
Because of the secrecy surrounding the
use of electromagnetic radiation, even the sophisticated may
not be familiar with the the catastrophic effects of overexposure.
Overexposure to EMR may cause immediate failure of vital organs
or may have a delayed effect. Most doctors are not familiar
with injuries caused by EMR. Even the medical examiner may
not consider overexposure to EMR as the cause of death.
Even under the best evidentiary circumstances,
most people would rush to unjustified conclusions, or consider
the victim of abuse a mental case. This in turn makes active
electromagnetic surveillance a very attractive option in the
pursue of personal and hidden agendas. This case illustrates
the fact that abuse of active electronic surveillance is a
present and clear danger to what we treasure the most. That
is the main reason we can demand protection from our legislators.
is the number that see with their own eyes and feel with their
is true that you may fool all the people some of the time,
you can even fool some of the people all the time, but you
can't fool all the people all the time" -Abraham
arc of history is long but, it bends towards justice"
- Martin Luther King.
lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter" -Martin Luther King Jr.
silence will not protect you" -Audre Lorde.
time comes when silence is betrayal" -Martin Luther
could I imagine how lost in the open field I was"
this is not evil, then evil is meaningless" -George
In the Supreme Court of the United States
In re: Jesus Mendoza Maldonado. Pro se
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
2202 E 28th St.
Mission, Texas 78574
Now Comes Pro-se petitioner Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and respectfully
asks this Court to instruct the US Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit to direct the District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Mcallen
Division, to consider petitioner's application for a temporary
restraining order; to issue an order restraining the defendant,
the US. Attorney General, US Department of Justice from using
active electronic surveillance on petitioner and his children;
and to set a hearing for petitioner's Application for a Preliminary
Injunction, on the ground that active electronic surveillance
has caused severe physical harm to petitioner, and is causing
similar harm to petitioner's children, and on the ground that
the abuse of active electronic surveillance is impairing petitioner's
ability to prosecute his legal claims.
Because petitioner and his children are
suffering severe harm while this petition is pending, and
further harm will occur if this petition is heard under established
schedules, petitioner respectfully requests the Court to give
expedited consideration to this petition.
This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition under the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, and under 28 U.S.C. s 2106. A federal
court may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in the
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law. A court of appellate jurisdiction
has broad authority to direct a district court such action
on remand as may be just under the circumstances.
The exceptional circumstances of this case
warrant the issuance of a writ. Pro se petitioner is seeking
immediate consideration of his application for an order to
restrain the US Attorney General from using active electronic
surveillance to prevent further harm to petitioner and his
children. Petitioner cannot obtain adequate relief in any
other form or from any other court. Petitioner's requests
to defendant for help have been ignored, while petitioner
and his children are suffering irreparable physical harm.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
has not considered petitioner's application for an order restraining
the US Attorney for using active electronic surveillance,
and petitioner's application for an emergency telephonic hearing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not considered
petitioner's application to direct the district court to consider
petitioner's application for an order restraining the defendant
from using active electromagnetic surveillance on petitioner
and his family.
Petitioner is a former student of the Thomas M. Cooley Law
School. The law school is the second largest law school in
the country and is located in Lansing, Michigan. During petitioner's
second year of law school, petitioner brought before school
officials evidence showing that the president of the law school
had committed fraud of money paid by petitioner for a grade
appeal. During that time petitioner presented to school officials
evidence that the law school was operating a scheme to defraud
more than seventy-percent of minorities of their federal student
loans halting their education, while in the other hand the
school was giving law degrees to their affiliates. The law
school officials ignored petitioners' evidence and instead
incited against petitioner a malicious and retaliatory investigation.
Petitioner was subjected to attempts of
entrapment, illegal searches and to a malicious and abusive
active electromagnetic surveillance. The harassment forced
petitioner to withdraw from the law school one month away
from finishing his last term of law school there. Petitioner
withdrew from the law school in good standing and in full
compliance with the law school's Honor Code.
On February of 1999, pro se petitioner
filed in the Southern District of Texas, Mcallen Division,
a complaint against the law school, some of the law school
officers, some federal agents, and others. Petitioner's Second
Amended Complaint details the law school officials fraudulent
and retaliatory conduct against petitioner. After petitioner
filed his complaint, the law school defendants offered petitioner
leave to finish his law degree at a Texas law school in exchange
of a dismissal of petitioner's claims.
Petitioner refused the offer because the
abuse of active electronic surveillance caused on petitioner
an electrical sensitivity, (ES). Exposure to electromagnetic
fields and electromagnetic radiation, (Electricity) emitted
by power lines, transformers, flourescent lights, television
sets, computers, electric motors, cellular towers and telephones,
and other electronic equipment cause on petitioner among other
things pain, swelling of brain and heart, breathing difficulties,
loss of concentration, and speech problems. Petitioner's condition
has been progressively aggravating. Petitioner's ability to
work, to be inside a building and to travel have been substantially
impaired. The left side of petitioner's face has a visible
reaction to exposure to electricity. Petitioner has been violently
ill several times. Petitioner is in pain most of the time.
During their efforts to change the venue
of the case, the law school officials misrepresented to the
district court that petitioner was mentally insane at the
time petitioner was attending law school. However, the law
school officials failed to cite any instances of petitioner's
irrational behavior in their answer to petitioner's second
motion for sanctions.
On or about February of the year 2000,
petitioner sought to file criminal charges against the defendants
in that case and contacted the office of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in Mcallen, Texas. The next day three FBI
agents were found on the parking lot of the elementary school
where petitioner was working at that time. The left door of
petitioner's car had been unlocked. The principal of the school
made the incident and the identity of the agents part of the
school's record. (Note 1).
On June 6, 2002, Dr. William J. Rea of the Environmental Health
Center in Dallas, Texas, found petitioner electrical sensitive.
Dr Rea, an expert in electrical sensitivity unjustifiably
severed the doctor-patient relationship with petitioner after
the law school defendants learned that petitioner's condition
had been diagnosed.
On or about July of 2001, the case was
severed into two distinct causes of action, and the case against
the law school was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, (Case
No. 5: 01 cv 93). The case against the federal agents has
been dismissed (Case No. M-99-77).
During more than three years of litigation,
law school defendants have not engaged petitioner's specific
claims and evidence detailing their fraudulent and retaliatory
conduct. During this time law school officials have not engaged
the evidence in support of the legitimacy of petitioner's
injuries, and in support of petitioner's mental stability.
During this time law school officials have engaged in unethical
behavior to obstruct the fact finding process and to defraud
the courts. During this time, petitioner's health condition
has aggravated before and during depositions, and before deadlines
to file documents. During this time there has been unusual
power levels of electromagnetic radiation inside and outside
On April of 2002, petitioner's precarious
health condition forced petitioner to terminate the deposition
of a law school official during the second hour. Five days
before the closing of discovery, law school officials attempted
to engage in discovery of petitioned for the first time, and
attempted to subject petitioner to a deposition under circumstances
which represents severe physical harm to petitioner. Petitioner
filed in the district court a timely motion seeking protection
form the defendants attempts to overreach and harm petitioner.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
granted law school officials motion to dismiss after petitioner
failed to appear to depositions. This case is on appeal to
the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, (Case No.02-2095).
Petitioner's Reply Brief points out to
the court of appeals to unchallenged evidence on the record
of defendants' fraudulent and retaliatory conduct. Petitioner's
Reply Brief points out to the court of appeals that the record
itself is sufficient to establish the law school defendants
fraud on the district courts, and the falsity of their statements
on their Defendants'-Appellees' Brief. Petitioner's motion
for sanctions against the law school defendants is pending
before the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, (Case
On October of 2002, two shots were fired
in direction of the place where petitioner had been staying.
Petitioner filed a report with the County Sheriff's Department.
During the Summer of 2002, petitioner started
to experience swelling and sensations of pain which petitioned
had not experienced before. Petitioner suffered severe pain
inside plaintiff's rib cage causing sudden and debilitating
conditions. During the last months of the year 2002, petitioner's
children started to complain of pain during the night time.
When petitioner's pain was more severe
petitioner's three year old daughter complained of body and
head pain, and petitioner's two year old son made intelligible
complaints of pain while covering his ears with both hands.
At many times relevant to this case petitioner's daughter
trembles on her asleep at the time a meter flashes high power
densities of electromagnetic radiation.
At many times relevant to this case, unusual
pulsed electromagnetic frequencies have been detected inside
and outside petitioner's home. At many times relevant to this
case these frequencies have set on the windows or on the doors,
and have disappeared after petitioner attempted to determine
their source. At several times relevant to this case petitioner's
pain becomes more intense before petitioner's phone rings,
during telephone calls, before petitioner's wife and children
arrive home, before and during the time petitioner has visitors,
at the time petitioner exits his home, when petitioner stays
still on the same place outside his home, and when petitioner
is doing legal work.
On December of 2002, petitioner sought
help from the US Inspector General in Mcallen, Texas. On January
of 2003, petitioner sought help from the U.S. Attorney in
Houston, Texas. Petitioner's requests for help were fruitless.
On February 3, of 2003, petitioner filed
on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston, Division petitioner's Application for a Temporary
Restraining Order, Original Complaint, and an Application
for a Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff's application for a TRO seeks
an order to restrain defendant Honorable John Ashcroft, U.S.
Attorney from using active electronic surveillance on petitioner
and his children until petitioner's application for a preliminary
injunction is heard on the ground that the abuse of active
electronic surveillance has caused severe physical harm to
petitioner and is causing similar harm to plaintiff's children,
and is impairing petitioner's ability to seek redress from
the courts. Petitioner's complaint asks the court to compel
defendant to show cause for any investigation of plaintiff's
Petitioner included with his application
for a TRO a copy of petitioner's Plaintiff-Appellant Reply
Brief. Petitioner's Brief points out to unchallenged evidence
on the federal record showing that petitioner has been the
subject of a discriminatory and retaliatory federal investigation,
and evidence showing that abuse of active electronic surveillance
has caused petitioner's injuries. Petitioner included with
his application for a TRO evidence showing that active electromagnetic
surveillance employs high and extremely high electromagnetic
radiation; evidence showing that exposure to high electromagnetic
radiation causes severe physical harm; evidence showing that
the abuse of electronic surveillance caused petitioner severe
physical harm; petitioner's pictures showing swelling caused
by overexposure to electricity. (The pictures show how swelling
inside petitioner's skull is displacing his left eye out of
place), an affidavit in support of the fact that continued
use of active electronic surveillance is aggravating petitioner's
injuries and is causing similar harm to petitioner's children.
Petitioner included with his application
for a TRO documents submitted to the US Inspector General,
to the U.S. Attorney, and to the USDepartment of Justice.
On information and belief, the U.S. District
Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal granted petitioner's application
to proceed without payment of fees and costs on February 4,
2003, (Case No 4:03MC67).
On February 6, of 2003, U.S. District Judge
Honorable Ewing Werlien, Jr. set the initial pretrial and
scheduling conference for June 13, 2003, (Case No. H-03-0434).
On February 10, petitioner filed on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a petition to
instruct the U.S. district court to issue an order restraining
the defendant U.S. Attorney, Honorable John Ashcroft, from
using active electronic surveillance on petitioner and his
children until petitioner's application for a preliminary
injunction is heard. (Case No. 03-20157)
On February 11, 2003, the US District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division transferred
sua sponte, the case to the US District court for the Southern
District of Texas, Mcallen Division.
On February 13, 2003, plaintiff effected
service of process on defendant, and returned to the district's
court clerk the certificate of service and filled summons.
On information and belief petitioner's
application for a TRO was presented to U.S. District Judge
Honorable Ricardo Hinojosa on February 14, 2003, (Case No.
At several times during February and March
of 2003,the breathing of petitioner's children has been disturbed
while asleep, at the same time petitioned suffers sharp pain
on heart and head. At several times during the night time
petitioner's children have been complaining of pain.
On or about February 24, petitioner filed
on the U.S. court of appeals Petitioner's Supplement to Petitioner's
Application for a Writ of Mandamus. Petitioner asks the court
of appeals expedited consideration of his petition. The petition
is pending before the court of appeals.
On or about March 1, of 2003, petitioned
lost his ability to be outside his home for extended periods
of time. On March 5, 2003, petitioner filed on the district
court a motion for an emergency telephonic hearing. On information
and belief, the same day the motion was presented to US District
Judge Honorable Ricardo Hinojosa. At several time relevant
to this case petitioner has notified the district court clerk
of the necessity to have an emergency telephonic hearing.
On March 11 of 2003, petitioner expressed his intention to
seek relief from this Court. The same day petitioner collapsed
on the shower after feeling severe sharp sensations of pain
on his heart.
On March 12, 2003, petitioner sought help
from Mr. Terry Leonard, US prosecutor in Mcallen, Texas. Petitioner
submitted with his Request a copy of this petition. Petitioner's
request for help has been ignored. Petitioner's children appear
increasingly disoriented while petitioner's is losing his
ability to be inside his home. Petitioner's children spent
the first hours of March 15, of 2003, with fever and screaming
in pain at the same time petitioner was suffering surges of
pain. Petitioner's motion for an emergency telephonic hearing
is pending before the district court.
The exceptional circumstances of this case warrant immediate
relief and the issuance of a writ. Petitioner cannot obtain
adequate relief from any other court or form any other source.
During the pendency of this application petitioner and his
children are suffering severe physical harm while petitioner's
health is falling apart. Unless the defendant is restrained,
petitioner's will lose the ability to prosecute this illegality.
The writ of mandamus has traditionally
been used to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise
of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise
its authority when it is lawful to do so. Allied Chemical
v Daiflon, 449 US 33, 101 S Ct. 188 (1980). The circumstances
of this case warrant this Court to direct the lower courts
to consider petitioner's applications and motions as soon
Petitioner's right to obtain mandamus relief
is clear and undisputable. A district court may not simply
ignore a motion or deny it without consideration, to do so
would be the equivalent of depriving a person of a property
right without due process. See Mulane v Central Hanover Trust,
339 US 306, 313 (1977) Petitioner has been deprived of fundamental
constitutional rights when the lower courts declined to entertain
petitioner's application for equitable relief. In spite of
the emergency involved in this case, the district court has
not considered petitioner's application for a TRO, and petitioner's
motion for an emergency telephonic hearing. The court of appeals
has not considered petitioner's application for a Writ of
The purpose of the temporary restraining
order is to preserve the status quo pending the hearing on
the preliminary injunction. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood
of Teamsters, 415 US 423, 439, 94S.SCt 1113, 1124 (1974).
Petitioner application for a TRO seeks
to restrain defendant from inflicting further physical harm
to petitioner and his children while petitioner can be heard
on his application for a preliminary injunction. Petitioner
has presented the lower courts with unchallenged evidence
on the federal record in support of petitioner's requests
for immediate relief.
Petitioner included with his application
for a TRO, petitioner's Reply Brief. The Brief points out
to unchallenged evidence on the federal judicial record of
the legitimacy of petitioner's claims, including evidence
that petitioner's injuries were caused by a frivolous and
retaliatory federal investigation incited by the law school
defendants, evidence that active electronic surveillance employs
high and extremely high electromagnetic radiation, evidence
showing that overexposure to high frequencies of electromagnetic
radiation causes severe physical harm.
Petitioner included with his application
for a TRO an affidavit detailing the harm being inflicted
to petitioner and to petitioner's children. Under these circumstances
petitioned is entitled to immediate equitable relief.
Under certain circumstances, a temporary
restraining order may be used without notice to the adverse
party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), First Tech. Safety Systems Inc.
v. Depinet, 11 F3d 641, 650 (6th Cir. 1993); American Can
Co. v Mansukhani, 724 F2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). The circumstances
of this case merit issuing a TRO without giving further notice
to the defendant.
At several times relevant to this case
petitioner has notified defendant that the use of electronic
surveillance has been causing severe harm to petitioner and
his children, and of his intention to file suit to restrain
defendant's wrongful conduct. Defendant has ignored petitioner's
requests for help. Also, petitioner has served defendant with
service of process.
Then, an order restraining defendant form
using active electronic surveillance on this investigation
does not present an undue burden or undue surprise to defendant,
and will prevent infliction of further harm to petitioner
and his family.
Under the circumstances of this case, immediate
consideration of an application for a TRO is consistent with
due process. The due process right of access to the courts
applies to persons in extraordinary circumstances. Bounds
v Smith, 480 US 817, (1977). The circumstances of this case
are extraordinary. An abusive active electronic surveillance
has caused petitioner's injuries, is causing similar harm
to petitioner's children, and is impairing petitioner's ability
to seek redress from the illegality.
The circumstances of this case merit immediate
consideration of petitioner's application for a restraining
order. There is no legitimate interest that could justify
burdening petitioner's right to petition and access the courts.
The right to access to the courts cannot be infringed or burdened.
It is as fundamental a right as any person may hold, and cannot
be limited through a balancing of interests. See Silver v
Cormier, 529 F 2d 161, 163, (10th Cir. 1976); Adams v Carlson,
488 F 2d 619, 630 (7th Cir. 1973). Although it is desirable
a closer scrutiny of peoples' activities, in this case, there
is no interest that can justify the use of active electronic
surveillance on petitioner and his family.
Petitioner has submitted an affidavit stating that petitioner's
family is a law abiding family, and stating that neither petitioner
nor his wife have ever used or dealt with any illegal drug
or narcotic, and unchallenged evidence on the federal record
showing that any investigation of petitioner's activities
is discriminatory and retaliatory. Defendants' investigation
is in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.
The lower courts are in clear violation
of petitioner's fundamental constitutional rights. The right
to access to the courts and the right to petition the government
with grievances find their source in the first amendment's
free speech and right to petition clauses. In Re Primus, 436
US 412, 426, 98 S Ct. 1893, (1978), as well as the due process
clauses of the fifth and fourteen amendments, Bounds v Smith,
430 US 817, 821, 97 S Ct. 1491 (1977). Petitioner is entitled
to be heard on his claims. The record by itself is sufficient
to establish the legitimacy of petitioner's claims and the
urgency of immediate equitable relief.
The granting of this Petition will advance
the interests of other similarly situated. This case presents
a problem of substantial public import which importance transcends
the results of the case at bar. This case demonstrates that
government agents have been abusing active electromagnetic
surveillance, before agents had the discretion to employ these
technologies on the general population. This case demonstrate
that abuse of active electronic surveillance causes severe
physical harm. This case demonstrates that the abuse may not
be detected until severe physical harm has occurred. This
case demonstrates that a TRO is the only remedy available
to prevent further physical harm caused by the abuse of active
For many decades pulsed electromagnetic
radiation has been employed for surveillance and as a weapon.
Because of the secrecy surrounding federal investigations,
even the sophisticated are not aware of the catastrophic effects
of overexposure to pulsed electromagnetic radiation.
Active electronic surveillance, illuminates
the subject of and investigation and bystanders with high
and extremely high electromagnetic radiation, in order to
retrieve sound and image of subjects even inside doors. Active
electronic surveillance employs microwave, ultraviolet, and
infrared light, laser, x-ray and other high and extremely
high electromagnetic frequencies.
On many cases the frequencies employed
exceed many times the frequencies employed by a microwave
oven. Subjects of an investigation and their families may
be subjected to long term exposure to high density, pulsed,
electromagnetic radiation for long periods of time. Even short
term exposure to high or extremely high frequencies may have
a devastating effect on children, the pregnant, the elderly,
the ill, and on persons with immunological deficiencies.
Because people have less tolerance to pulsed
electromagnetic radiation, exposure can be harmful even to
the healthy and strong.
Law enforcement and investigative agencies
now have the discretionary authority to use active electronic
surveillance on the general population. The harm caused by
abuse may be visible only after severe physical harm has occurred.
Even when the symptoms of overexposure to electromagnetic
radiation are readily visible, most doctors are not prepared
to diagnose or treat these type of injury and would blame
assault to natural causes.
Even the medical examiner may not consider
overexposure as the cause of death. Subjects of abuse cannot
run to the police department for help. Most local police departments
are ill prepared to understand these technologies and do not
have the equipment to detect and prevent these assaults.
Although the Access Board and some states
have recognized electrical sensitivity as a disability, most
people are not aware that this injury can be caused by overexposure
to electricity. Most people are not prepared to identify symptoms
of electrical sensitivity, and may blame their maladies to
natural causes. Even under the best evidentiary circumstances,
most people would rush to unjustified conclusions, or consider
the victim of abuse a mental case.
This case demonstrates that active electronic
surveillance has been abused even before authorities could
use these technologies on a discretionary basis. This case
demonstrates that abuse of active electronic surveillance
causes severe physical harm.
Consequently, immediate consideration of
a TRO remains the only remedy available for victims of authority
For all of the above reasons petitioner respectfully asks
this Court to instruct the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit to instruct the US District Court for the Souther
District of Texas, Mcallen Division, to rule on petitioner's
application for a Temporary Restraining Order, and to issue
a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining defendant from using
electronic surveillance on plaintiff and his family, until
petitioner's Application for a Preliminary Injunction is heard,
and to provide petitioner any other relief on equity or at
law that petitioner may be entitled.
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
2202 E. 28th St. Mission, Texas 78574
March 15, 2003