* Question - A discriminatory and retaliatory abuse of Active Electronic Surveillance (18/3/03)

Question

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


A discriminatory and retaliatory abuse of Active Electronic Surveillance,
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 same situation.

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 natural causes.

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.

Comments appreciated.

"Small is the number that see with their own eyes and feel with their own heart"
Albert Einstein.

"It 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 Lincoln.

"The arc of history is long but, it bends towards justice" - Martin Luther King.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" -Martin Luther King Jr.

"Your silence will not protect you" -Audre Lorde.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal" -Martin Luther King.

"How could I imagine how lost in the open field I was" -Neal Lindley.

"If this is not evil, then evil is meaningless" -George W. Bush.

No. _________


In the Supreme Court of the United States

In re: Jesus Mendoza Maldonado. Pro se Petitioner

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED

Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
Pro-se plaintiff-petitioner
2202 E 28th St.
Mission, Texas 78574
(956)519-7140


INTRODUCTION
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.

JURISDICTION
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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
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).

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 petitioner's home.

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 No. 02-2095).

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 activities.

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. M-03-38).

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.

ARGUMENT
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 as possible.

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 Mandamus.

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 electronic surveillance.

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 the
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 abuse.

RELIEF
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.

Respectfully Submitted:

Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
Pro-se petitioner
2202 E. 28th St. Mission, Texas 78574
956/519 7140
March 15, 2003


Citizens' Initiative Omega
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm
http://teleline.terra.es/personal/kirke1/pagact.html
http://www.idealist.org/orgs/91768
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EMR-EMF/

If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to
http://www.hohle-erde.de/body_home.html#bio

SAY NO TO WAR IN IRAQ go to:
http://www.idealist.org/en/ip/idealist/OrgViewer/default?SID=
c93d708d672c85410ea5bad5373193f0&1.9=1&ORG_ID=91768&#CAMPAIGN_2

Note: Citizens' Initiative Omega works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it here https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Star.Mail%40t-
online.de&return=http%3A//www.grn.es/electropolucio/
00omega.htm&no_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=USD


If you have informations which you would like to share with your friends and colleges around the world and which are from common interest, please send us this informations, we will send them out. Thank you.

Disclaimer:  The informations contained in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we believe to be accurate but is not guaranteed.

Citizens' Initiative Omega is not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this resources.