Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Appeal BRIEF PER ORDER OF MAY 26, 2017 Filed On June 7, 2017

Stan J.
Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-327-1566
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________________
In Re:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE, APPELLANT
CASE NO. 17-01233

Case No. 17-10615REF
BRIEF FOR APPEAL AS PER NOTICE OF MAY 26, 2017
On this 7th day of JUNE 2017, I Stanley J. Caterbone, APPELLANT, and Pro Se do
hereby file this BRIEF FOR APPEAL AS PER NOTICE OF MAY 26, 2017. APPELLANT also
requests leave to exceed page limit due to special circumstances outlined herein.
JUNE 7, 2017
___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
17-01233 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Page No. 1 of 1224 Wednesday June 7, 2017
ACTIVE COURT CASES
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals -
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL
FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case
No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen
Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary
Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Appeal BRIEF PER ORDER OF
MAY 26, 2017 Filed on June 7, 2017

2. BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR GRANTING APPEAL
3. Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography
4. CASE SUMMARY ARGUMENT

5. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
6. CASE LAW re BRIEF PER ORDER OF MAY 26, 2017 Filed on June 7, 2017
7. THE STAN J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP STATE-OF-

AFFAIRS UPDATED WEDNESDAY JUNE 7, 2017
1. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
2. THE INTERNET, COMPUTER, FILES, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES

3. LITIGATION AND COURT CASES
4. PHYSICAL PAIN, TORTURE, AND CRIPPLING
5. $13,052.94 DAMAGES DUE TO VANDALISM AND THEFTS

6. SOCIAL AND PUBLIC ACCESS
7. INTERNET LINKS OF EVIDENCE FOR ALL CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS
8. LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP re INTERVENTION IN THE STAN J.

CATERBONE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LANDMARK CASE June 5, 2017
9. STAN J. CATERBONE Federal Whistleblower and Targeted Individual of
U.S. Sponsored Mind Control Executive Summary WITH EXPERT

TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPTS, Edited November 21, 2016
1. Background of Stan J. Caterbone as a Targeted Individual
2. In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom CIA No-Touch Torture Makes

Sense, by Cheryl Welsh 2008
3. Allstate Sworn Testimony of Stan J. Caterbone TRANSCRIPT Volume 2
and Volume 1 July 12, 2016

4. Transcript of the Richmond City Council Public Hearing of May 19, 2015
Passing a City Resolution 5-2 to Ban Spaced-Based Weapons in Support

of the Many Targeted Individuals Suffering Symptoms of the City.
5. Karen Stewart, NSA Whistleblower and Targeted Individual
6. Julianne McKinney, US Army Intelligence Officer, Whistleblower, and
Targeted Individual
7. 8. Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group Executive Summary
8. Dr. Nick Begich, Author and Expert Researcher of U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control
9. 1975 TESTIMONY FROM DIRECTOR OF CIA STANSFIELD TURNER for the
1975 United States Senate Select Hearings on Mkultra

10.Proposed U.S. Government Settlement for TI via Change.org Petition by
Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group March 17, 2016 with
Affidavit and Kane Op Ed Letter Sent to President Obama
BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR GRANTING APPEAL
In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) has added a
new eligibility requirement to 109 of the Bankruptcy Code. New subsection (h)
provides that a person intending to file bankruptcy must first undergo credit counseling:
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
an individual may not be a debtor under this title unless such individual has, during the 180-day
period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved
nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in section 111(a) an individual or group
briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Internet) that outlined the
opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related
budget analysis.
11 U.S.C. 109(h)(1). Because Congress placed this requirement in 109, the section
that govern the fundamental eligibility to "be a debtor," this new provision has been described as
a "first level requirement for someone seeking bankruptcy relief." In re Wallert, 332 B.R. 884,
890-91 (Bankr.D.Minn.2005). As the Court in Wallert noted Congress's goal seems to be to
discourage the practice of hastily filing for bankruptcy, even if that be in the face of foreclosure,
repossession, or garnishment, and to discourage debtors from deferring their first consideration of
bankruptcy until the very eve of such decisive events in the exercise of creditors' remedies.
332 B.R. at 889. However, the requirement is not without its exceptions. For example,
paragraph (3) ofsubsection (h) provides:
(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to a debtor who submits to the court a certification that (i) describes exigent
circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1);
(ii) states that the debtor requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget
and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph *696
(1) during the 5-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and
(iii) is satisfactory to the court.
(B) With respect to a debtor, an exemption under subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply to that
debtor on the date on which the debtor meets the requirements of paragraph (1), but in no case
may the exemption apply to that debtor after the date that is 30 days after the debtor files a
petition, except that the court, for cause, may order an additional 15 days.
It is clear that the The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
(BAPCPA) was passed by Congress to prevent fraud and abuse in the filing of Federal Bankruptcy
Petition. The Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, has filed this Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition for the
following reason, as stated in the CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN and DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT filed on February 16, 2017 which states the following:
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN IS TO FORMALIZE

THE INTENT OF THE LITIGATION OF THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, AND TO
ERMARK A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE FUTURE SETTELMENTS FOR THE CREDITORS
NAMED HEREIN.
In order to provide this Court with adequate information to make an intelligent and legal
OPINION for this motion, the following is background information, also filed in the CHAPTER 11
REORGANIZATION PLAN and DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed on February 16, 2017:
The Debtor, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, is AN INDIVIDUAL, A CORPORATION, A

FICTICIOUS NAME, ALL CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE COMMOWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA SINCE 1986 UNDER VARIOUS NAMES AND REGISTRATIONS. SEE THE
FOLLOWING RESUME AND BIOGRAPHY FOR SPECFIC DETALS.
This Plan of Reorganization (the Plan) under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy

Code The Code) proposes to pay creditors of STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE DEBTOR
(the Debtor) from PROCEEDS FROM THE MYRIAD CLAIMS OF VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
RIGHTS, VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-TRUST, VIOLATIONS OF THE RICO STATUTE, FEDERAL
FALSE CLAIMS ACT RE ISC, INSURANCE CLAIMS OF VANDALISM AND THEFTS, DAMAGES
FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ETC., ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCRUING SINCE 1987.
THESE CLAIMS ARE CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
THESE CLAIMS HAVE ARE ALL WELL SUBSTANTIATED AND ARE SUPPORTED WITH
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, AUDIO RECORDINGS, AND
VIDEOS. HOWEVER DUE TO THE HISORY OF STAN J. CATERBONE, THISE CLAIMS HAVE
BEEN POLITICIZED SINCE 1987 AND THE FBI COINTELPRO'S PRGOGRAM HAS BEEN
USED TO OBSTRUCT EFFORTS IN ALL OF THE COURTS. IT IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND
CRIMINAL TO ALLOW THIS CONDUCT TO PROCEED AND NOT ALLOW THIS
REORGANIZATION PLAN TO BE CONSUMATED FOR THE SAKE OF THE CREDITORS, WHO
HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY PUNISHED JUST AS THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE. MANY OF
THSES CASES HAVE RESULTED IN ORDERS GRANTING PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNTIL THE UNDOINFLUENCE, COMPUTER HACKING,
HARASSMENT, VADALISM, ETC., IS REMOVED FROM THE DEBTORS LIFE SO THAT THESE
CLAIMS CAN BE FULLY LITIGATED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR SETTLEMENTS
REACHED. ALL OF THE USECURED CLAIMS IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY
DISPUTED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CLAIMS WERE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE
VIOLATIONS OUTLINED HEREIN AND ARE NOT LEGALLY THE DEBT OF THE DEBTOR,
STAN J. CATERBONE. IN ADDITION DUE TO THE COMPUTER HACKING TO THE DEBTOR,
STAN J. CATERBONE, MOST IF NOT ALL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS WERE AND ARE SUBJECT
TO ERRORS AND/OR FALSE LEDGER BALANCES.
Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography
Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.
In 1987 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner became a federal whistleblower for the case of local
defense contractor International Signal and Control, or ISC. ISC was a black ops program for the
NSA and CIA that was convicted in 1992 for an elaborate scheme to arm Iraq and other Middle
Eastern countries with a broad array of weapons, most notably cluster bombs. It was the third
larges fraud in U.S. History at that time. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner has been a victim of
organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005.
Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had also been telepathic since 2005. In 2005 the U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy;
hacking of all electronic devices; vandilism and thefts of personal property, extortions, intellectual
property violations, obstruction of justice; violations of due process; thefts and modifications of
court documents; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices and weapons
that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted victim. This assault was
no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in U.S. District
Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288. This assault began after
the handlers remotely trained/sychronized Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The main
difference opposed to most other victims of this technology is that Stanley J. Caterbone,
Petitioner is connected 24/7 with the same person who declares telepathically she is a known
celebrity. Over the course of 10 years Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner has been telepathic
with at least 20 known persons and have spent 10 years trying to validate and confirm their
identities without success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment and act on the
numerous formal complaints that are filed in their respective offices. Most complaints are focused
on the routine victimization's of a targeted individual including but not limited to stalking,
harassment, threats, vandalism, thefts, extortion, burglaries, false imprisonments, fabricated
mental health warrants or involuntary commitments, pain and torture to the body, and most often
the cause of obstruction of justice is the computer hacking.
I have a very sophisticated and authentic library of evidence of the use of U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control technologies on my father and brother that dates back to the 1940's while my father was
in the U.S. Navy after he graduated with honors from Air Gunners School in Florida, including an
affidavit motorized and authenticated by my father in 1996. My brother served in the U.S. Air
force and was victim to LSD experiments of the infamous MKULTRA program in the late 1960's.
In 2016 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was the AMICUS for Pennsylvania Attorney General
Kathleen Kane in the Pennsylvania Superior Court Case No. 1164 EDA 2016 in the
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Kane which included perjury charges during the alleged
leaking of grand jury information. Kathleen Kane took on the Good Old Boy network regarding
judicial reform in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in an effort to rid the state of the long
standing public corruption ring that was evident from local law enforcement to Supreme Court
Justices, and everyone in between.
In 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner filed an amicus curie on behalf of Lisa Michelle
Lambert who was convicted in 1992 of the murder of Laurie Show, both of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner currently is in litigation in the U.S. Third Circuit
Court of Appeals and in February of 2016 Lisa Michelle Lambert published her book titled
Corruption in Lancaster County My Story, which is available in bookstores and on
Amazon.com. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner is in frequent contact with her co-author, Dave
Brown of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In 2009 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED

ENERGY WEAPONS HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla
(Lancaster, Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation
is the work of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been working on helping
victims of these horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to individuals who
are being harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as protections to keep
individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by electronic frequency
devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons. Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner again reintroduced the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015
and frequented the Pennsylvania Capitol trying to find support and a sponsor; which Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner still does to this day.
In 2006 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner began his role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton
Financial, which is listed as "FULT" on the NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial
Management Group, Ltd., a full service financial firm, Stan J. Caterbone has drawn upon the
success in developing the strategic vision for his company and the experience gained in directing
the legal affairs and public offering efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial. Stanley J. Caterbone,
Petitioner has been in recent discussions with the Fulton Financial Board of Directors with
regards to various complaints dealing with such issues as the Resource Bank acquisition and the
subprime failures. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner believes that Fulton Financial needs
management to become more aggressive in it's strategic planning and the performance it expects
from it's management team in order to increase shareholder value. Expanding the footprint of the
regional bank has not yielded an increase to the bottom line that is consistent with the
expectations of shareholders. Lancaster County has seen several local banking institutions
acquired by larger regional banks, thus increasing the competition Fulton Financial will see in it's
local marketplace as well as in it's regional footprint.
In 2005 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner, as a Pro Se Litigant filed several civil actions as
Plaintiffs that are in current litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the United States Third District Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of
Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. This litigation include violations of intellectual
property rights, anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to several business
interests. Central to this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies, Financial Management
Group, Ltd,/FMG Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal False Claims Act
or Federal Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc., (ISC)
the $1Billion Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This
litigation dates back to 1987. Stan J. Caterbone was a shareholder of ISC, and was solicited by
ISC executives for professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of RICO
Civil Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as docket no. 05-2288.
In 2005 Advanced Media Group/Project Hope filed a Civil Action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County against Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn for their attempts to withhold the
Tourism Tax and Hotel Tax that supports the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center & Marriot.
We also proposed an alternative plan to move the Convention Center to the Hotel Brunswick and
Lancaster Square to all of the major stakeholders. The Lancaster County Convention Center is
finally under construction with a March 2009 Opening date.
In 2005 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was selected to attend the Clinton Global
Initiative in New York City after submission of an essay with and application. Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner received the invitation from Bruce R. Lindsey, Chief Executive Officer of
the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2005 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner began a philanthropic endeavor by spending our

energies and working with such organizations as; ONE.org, Livestrong.org, WoundedWarriors.org,
The Clinton Global Initiative, Lancaster Convention Center Authority, Lancaster Chamber of
Commerce, Toms Project Hope, People to People International, GlobalWarming.org, Contact
Lancaster/24 Hour Suicide Hotline, Schreiber Pediatric Center, and numerous others.
In 2004 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner embarked on our past endeavors in the music and
entertainment industries with an emphasis on assisting for the fair and equitable distribution of
artists rights and royalties in the fight against electronic piracy. We have attempted to assist in
developing new business models to address the convergence of physical and electronic mediums;
as it displaces royalties and revenues for those creating, promoting, and delivering a range of
entertainment content via wireless networks.
In 2000 to 2002 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed an array of marketing and

communication tools for wholesalers of the AIM Investment Group and managed several
communication programs for several of the company wholesalers throughout the United States
and Costa Rica. We also began a Day Trading project that lasted until 2004 with success.
In 1999 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed a comprehensive business plan to develop

the former Sprecher Brewery, known as the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. This plan was developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Economic
Development Plan for the Revitalization of Downtown Lancaster and the Downtown Lancaster
Convention Center for the former Watt & Shand building.
In 1999 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner contributed to the debate, research, and

implementation of strategies to counter the effects of the global Y2K threat to the worlds
computer technologies. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner attended the U.S. Sponsored Y2K
symposium and Conference in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Senate Y2K Subcommittee and
Senator William Bennett.
In 1998 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had began to administer the charity giving of Toms
Project Hope, a non-profit organization promoting education and awareness for mental illness and
suicide prevention. We had provided funding for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County,
Contact Lancaster (The 24/7 Suicide Prevention Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other
charitable organizations and faith based charities. The video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been
distributed to schools, non profit organizations, faith based initiatives, and municipalities to
provide educational support for the prevention of suicide and to bring awareness to mental illness
problems.
In 1996 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc.,
during the time that Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was controller of Pflumm Contractors,
Inc., Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner, was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to
computerized their accounting and records management from top to bottom. Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner had also provided consulting for the computerization of accounting and
payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of Washington Boro. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was
retained to evaluate and develop an action plan to migrate the Informations Technologies of the
Jay Group, formally of Ronks, PA, now relocated to a new $26 Million Dollar headquarters located
in West Hempfield Township of Lancaster County. The Jay Group had been using IBM mainframe
technologies hosted by the AS 400 computer and server. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was
consulting on the merits of migrating to a PC based real time networking system throughout the
entire organization. Currently the Jay Group employees some 500 employees with revenues in
excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as

controller, and was responsible for saving the company from a potential bankruptcy. At that time,
due to several unpaid contracts, the company was facing extreme pressure from lenders and the
bonding insurance company. We were responsible for implementing computerized accounting,
accounting and contract policies and procedures, human resource policies and procedures,
marketing strategies, performance measurement reporting, and negotiate for the payment of
unpaid contracts. The bonding company was especially problematic, since it was the lifeline to
continue work and bidding for public contracts. The Bank of Lancaster County demanded a
complete accounting of the operations in order to stave off a default on the notes and loans it was
holding. We essentially revamped the entire operation. Within 3 years, the company realized an
increase in profits of 3 to 4 times its previous years, and record revenues.
In 1991 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was elected to People to People International and the
Citizen Ambassador Program, which was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The
program was founded to To give specialists from throughout the world greater opportunities to
work together and effectively communicate with peers, The Citizen Ambassador program
administers face-to-face scientific, technical, and professional exchanges throughout the world. In
1961, under President John F. Kennedy, the State Department established a non-profit private
foundation to administer the program. We were scheduled to tour the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe to discuss printing and publishing technologies with scientists and technicians around the
world.
In 1990 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had worked on developing voice recognition systems
for the governments technology think tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards &
Technology). Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner co-authored the article Escaping the Unix Tar
Pit with a scientist from NIST that was published in the magazine DISC, then one of the leading
publications for the CD-ROM industry. Today, most all call centers deploy that technology
whenever you call an 800 number, and voice recognition is prevalent in all types of applications
involving telecommunications.
In 1989 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and was
one of only 5 or 6 U.S. domestic companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's. We
did business with commercial companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and
foreign companies. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner performed services and contracts for the
Department of Defense, NASA, National Institution of Standards & Technology (NIST), Department
of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Defense Mapping
Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), IBM, Microsoft, AMP, Commodore Computers,
American Bankers Bond Buyers, and a host of others. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner also was
working with R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was developing various interactive mapping
technologies, which is now a major asset of Map Quest. Map Quest is the premier provider of
mapping software and applications for the internet and is often used in delivering maps and
directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had arranged for High Industries to sell American Helix,
the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly. We had brokered a deal and the executives
from Donnellys Chicago headquarters flew to Lancaster to discuss the deal and perform due
diligence of the manufacturing facility located in the Greenfield Industrial Park.
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York and Tony Bongiovi retained me as executive
producer of a motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be delivered in a
digital format; the first of its kind. We had originated the marketing for the technology, and
created the concept for the Power Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which would follow the
copyright and marketing formula of the DOLBY technology trademark.
We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the development and
commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the recording
industry featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of
Philadelphia was the lead patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station
Studios was the brainchild of Tony Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown
when he was 15. Tony and Power Station Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the
country, and were responsible for developing Bon Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients
included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Cyndi Lauper, Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones,
Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power Station Studios had produced the original
Sound Track for the original Star Wars motion picture. It was released for distribution and was
the number one Sound Track recording of its time.
Tony Bongiovi was also active in working and researching different aerospace technologies. * We
had developed and authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with us in delivering the
Digital Movie and its related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was to include the
commercialization of technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the recording industry
simultaneously with the release of the Digital Movie.
I also created the concept for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark logo for the
technology, similar to the DOLBY sound systems trademark. The acronyms stand for the Power
Station Digital Movie System. Today, DVD is the mainstay for delivering digital movies on a
portable medium, a compact disc.
In 1987 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had a created and developed FMG Mortgage
Banking, a company that was funded by a major banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the
capability to finance projects from $3 to $100 million dollars. Our terms and rates were so
attractive that we had quickly received solicitations from developers across the country. We were
also very attractive to companies that wanted to raise capital that include both debt and equity.
Through my company, FMG, we could raise equity funding through private placements, and debt
funding through FMG Mortgage Banking. We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood,
California to secure financing of their postproduction Film Studio that was looking to relocate to
North Carolina. We had secured refinancing packages for Norris Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and
were in the midst of replacing the current loan that was with Commonwealth National Bank. We
had meetings and discussions with Drew Anton of the Eden Resort, for refinancing a portion of his
debt portfolio. We were quickly seeking commitments for real estate deals from New York to
California. We also had a number of other prominent local developers seeking our competitive
funding, including Owen Kugal, High Industries, and the Marty Sponougle a partner of The Fisher
Group (owner of the Rt. 30 Outlets). We were constantly told that our financing packages were
more competitive than local institutions.
In 1986 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had founded Financial Management Group, Ltd
(FMG); a large financial services organization comprised of a variety of professionals operating in
one location. We had developed a stock purchase program for where everyone had the
opportunity for equity ownership in the new firm. FMG had financial planners, investment
managers, accountants, attorneys, realtors, liability insurance services, tax preparers, and estate
planners operating out of our corporate headquarters in Lancaster. In one year, we had 24 people
on staff, had approximately 12 offices in Pennsylvania, and
several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of $50 million under management, and
our advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions, which did not include the fees
from the other professionals. We had acquired our own Broker Dealer firm and were valued at
about $3 to $4 million.
In 1985 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed the Easter Regional Free Agent Camp, the
first Free Agent Camp for the Professional Football industry; which was videotaped for distribution
to the teams scouting departments. (See Washington Post page article of March 24, 1985)
Current camps were dependant on the team scouts to travel from state to state looking for
recruits. We had developed a strategy of video taping the camp and the distributing a copy, free of
charge to the teams, to all of the scouting departments for teams in all three leagues FL, CFL and
WFL. My brother was signed at that camp by the Ottawa Roughriders of the CFL, and went on to
be a leading receiver while J.C. Watts was one of the leagues most prominent quarterbacks. My
brother also played 2 years with the Miami Dolphins while Dan Marino was starting quarterback.
We were a Certified Agent for the National Football League Players Association. Gene Upshaw, the
President of the NFLPA had given me some helpful hints for my camp, while we were at a
Conference for agents of the NFL. The Washington Post wrote a full-page article about our camp
and associated it with other camps that were questionable about their practices. Actually, that was
the very reason for our camp. We had attended many other camps around the country that were
not very well organized and attracted few if any scouts. We had about 60 participants, with one
player coming from as far away as Hawaii. We held the camp at Lancaster Catholic, with a
professional production company filming the entire camp, while Stanley J. Caterbone,
Petitioner did the editing and produced the video. The well respected and widely acclaimed
professional football scout, Gil Brandt, of the Dallas Cowboys, had given me support for my camp
during some conversations We had with him and said he looked forward to reviewing the tapes for
any hopeful recruits.
In 1985 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was elected Vice President of the Central
Pennsylvania Chapter of the International Association of Financial Planners, and helped build that
chapter by increasing membership 3to 4 times. We had personally retained the nationally
acclaimed and nationally syndicated Financial Planner, Ms. Alexandria Armstrong of Washington
D.C.; to host a major fundraiser. More than 150 professionals attended the dinner event that was
held at the Eden Resort & Conference Center. Ms. Armstrong discussed financial planning and how
all of the professions needed to work together in order to be most effective for their clients. We
attracted a wide variety of professionals including; brokers, lawyers, accountants, realtors, tax
specialists, estate planners, bankers, and investment advisors. Today, it has become evident that
financial planning was the way of the future. In 1986 executives approached us from Blue Ball
National Bank to help them develop a Financial Planning department within their bank.
In 1984 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had helped to develop strategic planning for Sandy
Weill, former President of Citi Group (the largest banking entity in the U.S). We were one of
several associates asked to help advise on the future of Financial Planning and how it would
impact the brokerage and the investment industry at large. Mr. Weil was performing due diligence
for the merger of American Express and IDS (Investors Diversified Services). We were at that
time a national leader in the company in delivering Fee Based Financial Planning Services, which
was a new concept in the investment community and mainstream investors. That concept is now
widely held by most investment advisers.
SUMMARY: It is evident, that the Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, had filed this Chapter 11
Bankruptcy Petition in GOOD FAITH to PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS, NOT TO
ABUSE THE Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). In
addition, as indicated by the preceding Biography and Resume, the Petitioner, Stanley J.
Caterbone, has the expertise and experience far exceeding any Credit Counselor that would be
administering the Credit Counseling Certification.
This Court must use it's DISCRETIONARY POWER, AND THE OPINION IN DiPinto,
336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006) and REINSTATE THIS CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY
PETITION FOR THE SAKE OF THE CREDITORS.
JUNE 7, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
ACTIVE COURT CASES
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case
No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen
Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary
Injunction Case of 2016
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1. 600 F2d 600 Hampton v. Hanrahan - This appeal concerns a civil rights action for
monetary damages brought by members of the Black Panther Party and the
mothers of two deceased party members against federal and state law
enforcement officers.
2. HANDBOOK: COUNTER INTELLIGENCE; A DOCUMENTARY LOOK AT AMERICAS
SECRET POLICE, Volume One The FBI's Counterintelligence Program Against
Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American, and Chicago/Mexican
MOVEMENTS.
3. November 28, 2016 Letter to FBI Director James Comey re ALLEGATION
COINTELPRO PROGRAM WITH HARASSMENT USED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN
(STAN J. CATERBONE'S) CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.
4. PLAINTIFF (hereinafter separately and collectively referred to as Plaintiff or
(BAKARFIT)) THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS FOR THE
BOKHARY, ASGHAR, KHWAJA AND RICHARDSON FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST"
and ROCK OF GIBRALTOR, LLC, (ROCK) v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE
CORPORATION re Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970,
RICO 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1) (A (1) (B) et. Seq.
5. HOLLILUNDAHL, Debtor Plaintiff-Appellant v. Paul Eves; Joylene Eves, et.al., re
Holliludahl, Appearing Pro Se, appeals the order of the United Sates Bankruptcy
Panel of the Tenth Circuit dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for failure to
prosecute.
6. UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THI RD CI RCUI T C.A. No. 07-
4474 STANLEY J. CATERBONE v . LANCASTER COUNTY PRI SON, et al. ( E.D. Pa.
Civ. No. 0 5 - cv- 0 2 2 8 8 ) re The quest ion of jurisdiction, and the mot ion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, are refer red to the me its panel. See I .O.P.
10.3.5. We do not dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) or take summary
action under I .O.P. 10.6. The Clerk is directed to issue a briefing schedule.
OUTCOME IN FAVOR OF CATERBONE, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PRECEEDINGS. DISMISSAL BY DISTRICT COURT IS DENIED.
7. 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 313 Lefteri POULIS and Athena Poulis, his wife, Appellants, v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY. No. 83-5600. United States Cour t of
Appeals, Third Circuit, re This appeal, as well as another decided today involving
the same attorney and district court judge, Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d
871, is brought from a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice due to
counsel's failure to meet court -imposed deadlines and other procedural
requisites.
8. FINDLAW - Police Misconduct and Civil Rights.
9. GEORGE ALLEN WARD, Pro Se, Plaintiff, | Civ. No. 03-6113 (SRC) v. OPINION
ARM & HAMMER and the CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant re In deciding a
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) all allegations in
the complaint must be taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Trump Hotels & Casino
Resorts, Inc., v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 1998); Robb v.
Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286, 290 (3d Cir. 1984).
10.MISCELLANEOUS CASE LAW FROM THE LAW LIBRARY OF STAN J. CATERBONE
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
600 F2d 600 Hampton v. Hanrahan http://openjurist.org/print/210031
Published by the ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Published on OpenJurist (http://openjurist.org)

Home > 600 F2d 600 Hampton v. Hanrahan
600 F2d 600 Hampton v. Hanrahan

600 F2d 600 Hampton v. Hanrahan
600 F.2d 600
Iberia HAMPTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.
Edward V. HANRAHAN et al., Defendants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Honorable Joseph Sam PERRY, Appellee,
v.
Jeffrey H. HAAS, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Honorable Joseph Sam PERRY, Appellee,
v.
G. Flint TAYLOR, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant.
Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 and 77-1370.
United States Court of Appeals,

Seventh Circuit.
Argued Aug. 14, 1978.

Decided April 23, 1979.
As Amended April 30, 1979.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 12, 1979.
Jeffrey H. Haas, G. Flint Taylor, Jr., James D. Montgomery, Dennis Cunningham, Charles
Hoffman, Jonathan C. Moore, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
John O. Tuohy, Camillo F. Volini, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT and PELL, Circuit Judges.
SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns a civil rights action for monetary damages brought by members of the
Black Panther Party and the mothers of two deceased party members against federal and state
law enforcement officers. The suit arises from a gun battle which occurred in Chicago during the
early morning hours of December 4, 1969. Two Black Panthers were killed and four other
COINTELPRO CASE
17-01233 BRIEF LAW - FRED
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 272
No. 20of
of538
481
1224 Monday December
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
1 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Panthers were injured by the gunfire. The
action was tried in the district court before a
jury in 1976-1977. At the close of plaintiffs'
case, the district court directed verdicts for
some of the defendants. The district court
directed verdicts for the remaining defendants
at the conclusion of the trial. We reverse as to
most defendants and remand for a new trial.
I. BACKGROUND
At 4:30 a. m. on December 4, 1969, fourteen

Chicago police officers, detailed to the Special
Prosecutions Unit of the Cook County State's
Attorney's Office, arrived at an apartment
building located on the near west side of Chicago. They were equipped with a search warrant
issued the previous day by a judge of the Cook County Circuit Court authorizing the search for
and seizure of "sawed-off shotguns and other illegal weapons," at the first floor apartment, 2337
West Monroe Street. This apartment was occupied by nine members of the Black Panther Party
("BPP"). Seven officers took "cover" positions at the front and rear entrances of the apartment;
seven entered the apartment. Immediately upon the police entry there was an enormous burst of
gunfire. Two of the occupants, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, died as a result of the gunfire and
four others, Ronald Satchel, Blair Anderson, Brenda Harris, and Verlina Brewer, were wounded.
Louis Truelock, Deborah Johnson, and Harold Bell escaped without physical injury.
Many reverberations followed the incident. Among these were the arrest and imprisonment of the
surviving occupants of the apartment, their prosecution by the Cook County State's Attorney for
criminal offenses, a coroner's inquest, and an internal investigation by the Chicago Police
Department. A federal and two state grand jury investigations were initiated. Indictments were
returned by the Special Cook County Grand Jury against several of the present defendants for
conspiring to obstruct justice. The case terminated when defendants' motions for acquittal were
granted at the close of the prosecution's case. Finally, this civil action was initiated.
The mothers of Hampton and Clark, as administratrices of their sons' estates, and the seven
survivors of the December 4 incident filed four separate actions in 1970 against a number of city
and state defendants. The actions were consolidated in an amended complaint filed in the district
court in April 1972.1
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court denied the motions by the
fourteen police officers participating in the raid. The court dismissed the complaint as to the
remaining defendants.2 Upon appeal this court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Hampton v.
City of Chicago, 484 F.2d 602 (7th Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 415 U.S. 917, 94 S.Ct. 1413, 39
L.Ed.2d 471 (1974), ("Hampton I ").3 Thereafter plaintiffs requested this court to supplement its
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 273
No. 21of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
2 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
mandate by directing that the case be reassigned to another judge for trial. We denied the
request.
In December 1974 plaintiffs amended their complaint by naming four additional defendants, all
connected with the federal government. In October 1975 plaintiffs moved to have the district
judge recuse himself or to reassign the case. The motion was heard by another district judge and
was denied.
The trial began January 5, 1976 and lasted approximately eighteen months. Thirty-seven
thousand pages of testimony were taken. At the conclusion of plaintiffs' evidence, defendants
moved for directed verdicts with costs. The motion was granted except for the seven police
officers directly participating in the shooting incident, the court ruling that "no Prima facie case of
a conspiracy or joint venture has been established as alleged in the Amended Complaint . . . ."
The trial continued as to the seven remaining defendants and at its conclusion the case was
submitted to the jury. After three days deliberation the jury announced it was deadlocked. The
trial judge then directed verdicts in favor of these defendants and assessed costs against
plaintiffs for $100,000. This appeal followed.
view counter
8
During the trial, Jeffrey H. Haas and G. Flint

Taylor, attorneys for the plaintiffs, were found
guilty of contemptuous conduct in the
courtroom. They appeal from the contempt
judgments.
The principal issue on appeal is whether the

trial judge erred in directing verdicts for the
defendants. We are convinced that he did err.
Among the other issues presented which we
deem necessary to discuss are the breadth of
the official immunity available to defendants,
the scope of discovery, the circumstances of the issuance of the search warrant, the companion
diversity action filed by Verlina Brewer, the attorneys' fees and costs, and the contempt
judgments. Before a discussion of the directed verdicts and these other issues, we believe it
would be helpful to list the names of the defendants and to summarize the amended complaint.
Federal Defendants
10
Marlin Johnson Special Agent-in-Charge of Chicago office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
11
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 274
No. 22of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
3 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Robert Piper Supervisor of the Racial Matters Squad of the FBI, Chicago office.
12
Roy Martin Mitchell Special agent of the FBI, Chicago office, assigned to the Racial Matters
Squad.
13
William O'Neal Paid informant for the FBI.
State Defendants
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
14
Edward Hanrahan Cook County State's Attorney.
15
Richard Jalovec Assistant State's Attorney and supervisor of the Special Prosecutions Unit of the
State's Attorney's Office.
16
James Meltreger Assistant State's Attorney.
17
Sheldon Sorosky Assistant State's Attorney.
Raiders
18
Shooters: Daniel Groth, James Davis, Joseph Gorman, George Jones, Raymond Broderick,
Edward Carmody, and John Ciszewski.
19
Nonshooters: William Corbett, Lynwood Harris, Fred Howard, Robert Hughes, Philip Joseph,
William Kelly, and John Marusich.
20
All of the above defendants were Chicago police officers detailed to the Cook County State's
Attorney's Office.
Chicago Police Crime Laboratory
21
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 275
No. 23of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
4 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
David Purtell Director.
22
John Koludrovic Supervising officer of the Mobile Crime Laboratory Unit.
23
John Sadunas Firearms examiner.
24
Chicago Police Department Internal Investigations Division ("IID")
25
Harry Ervanian Captain, Chicago Police Department, director of IID.
26
Robert Kukowinski Lieutenant, Chicago Police Department, head of Excessive Force Unit of the
IID.John Mulchrone Deputy supervisor, Chicago Police Department.
27
John Meade Sergeant, Chicago Police Department.
28
The amended complaint contains seventeen counts. For convenience we shall segregate the
counts into different categories.
29
Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the four federal defendants are named in Counts 1, 2, 3, and
4. Counts 1 and 2 charge these defendants with intentionally and negligently depriving the
occupants of the apartment at 2337 West Monroe Street of their civil rights under the Constitution
and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by participating in the planning and execution of the raid. Count 3
describes a conspiracy to deprive the occupants of the apartment of the equal protection of the
laws, violating 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985(3), as well as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth,
Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Count 4 alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1986, that
these defendants failed to prevent the wrongs perpetrated in violation of section 1985(3).
30
Counts 5 and 6 are directed against Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the police officers participating in
the raid. Count 5 alleges intentional deprivation of the occupants' civil rights by false
imprisonment in violation of their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their rights
secured under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Count 6 charges a conspiracy for the deprivation of the
occupants' civil rights by false imprisonment under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments
and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3). Count 7 charges all defendants named in Count 6 and, in
addition, Mitchell, Piper, and Johnson, with failing to prevent the alleged conspiracy and illegal
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 276
No. 24of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
5 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
acts described in Count 6, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1986.
31
Count 8 charges all defendants, except O'Neal, with conspiring to deprive the occupants of the
equal protection of the laws and their due process rights by malicious prosecution in violation of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3). Count 9 charges the
same defendants as listed in Count 8 with intentional deprivation of civil rights by malicious
prosecution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Count 10 alleges that these defendants neglected to
prevent harm from the execution of the conspiracy charged in Count 8, thereby violating 42
U.S.C. 1986.
32
Count 11 charges a conspiracy among Hanrahan, Jalovec, Groth, O'Neal, Mitchell, Johnson, and
Piper to obstruct the "due course of justice" with intent to deny the occupants of the apartment
the equal protection of the laws and their Sixth Amendment right to counsel as protected by 42
U.S.C. 1985(2).
33
Counts 12 and 13 charged the City of Chicago and Cook County with the deprivation of the civil
rights of the occupants of the apartment, directly and under the doctrine of Respondeat superior.
The district court dismissed these counts and there is no appeal from this ruling.
34
Count 14 is a wrongful death action against Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the four federal
defendants under both federal and state law by the estates of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark
through their respective administratrices.
35
Verlina Brewer is the sole plaintiff in Counts 15, 16, and 17 which are based on diversity
jurisdiction. These counts name Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders as defendants. Count 15
charges assault and battery, Count 16, false imprisonment, and Count 17, malicious prosecution.
II. DIRECTED VERDICT
36
We first consider the rulings of the district court directing a verdict for twenty-one of the
defendants at the close of plaintiffs' case in chief, and for the remaining seven defendants (who
fired their weapons during the raid) after the jury was deadlocked. On appeal plaintiffs assert that
the trial court disregarded the proper legal standard in granting the directed verdicts and that
their claims justified submission to the jury.
37
This court has enunciated on numerous occasions the rule that a motion for a directed verdict
must be denied when the evidence reveals that reasonable persons "in a fair and impartial
exercise of their judgment may draw different conclusions therefrom." Hannigan v. Sears,
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 277
No. 25of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
6 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Roebuck & Co., 410 F.2d 285, 287 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 214, 24
L.Ed.2d 178 (1969). The function of the trial court considering such a motion was further
discussed in Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6, 9 (7th Cir. 1972), a civil rights action involving facts
similar to the case at bar. In Byrd we emphatically stated that the court is not to substitute its
judgment for that of the jury and accordingly we reversed a ruling by the district judge granting
defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the court had weighed the
testimonial evidence and had passed on the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The function of the
trial judge is to review the testimony most strongly against the moving party "(a)nd if there is
doubt, or the question is close, the case should go to the jury." Keaton v. Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe RR. Co., 321 F.2d 317, 318 (7th Cir. 1963).
38
On appeal our task is equally well established. We must consider all the evidence disregarding
conflicting, unfavorable testimony and extract all the reasonable inferences therefrom. Viewing
such evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the question is whether
a prima facie case has been presented against any of the defendants. Clark v. Universal
Builders, Inc., 501 F.2d 324 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070, 95 S.Ct. 657, 42 L.Ed.2d 666
(1974); Kish v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 426 F.2d 1132 (7th Cir. 1970); Pinkowski v. Sherman
Hotel, 313 F.2d 190 (7th Cir. 1963).
39
At the conclusion of this trial, the district judge prepared a lengthy "Summary" of the evidence
which illuminated the court's rationale in directing the verdicts of April 15 and June 20, 1977.4
Upon a comparison of the extensive record, including the received and improperly rejected
evidence, and the trial judge's Summary, there can be no doubt that the district judge erred by
supporting his grant of the directed verdicts with evidence which was considered in the light most
favorable to the defendants. Furthermore, we are compelled to conclude that, once again, as in
Byrd, the district judge weighed the evidence, thereby invading the province of the jury.
40
We recite the facts adduced at trial to determine whether the plaintiffs presented a prima facie
case against any defendant which warranted submission to a jury. The facts can be considered
in three stages: pre-raid, the raid itself, and post-raid.
A. Pre-Raid
41
In August 1967 the FBI initiated a national covert counterintelligence program called
"COINTELPRO" which was designed to neutralize a variety of political organizations including
those which the Bureau characterized as "Black Nationalist Hate Groups." Directives from
Washington ordered the Chicago office of the FBI to implement the program in the Chicago area.
While the Black Panther Party was not an original target of this program, it was included within
the ambit of COINTELPRO's scrutiny by September 1968.5 The trial court's Summary stated that
the "purpose of the counterintelligence program, as it was implemented in Chicago as to the
Panthers was to prevent violence." The plaintiffs, however, presented considerable evidence to
compel a different conclusion.6 Perhaps the most damning evidence indicating the
COINTELPRO was intended to do much more than simply "prevent violence" comes from the
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 278
No. 26of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
7 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
files of the FBI itself. An FBI memorandum from February 1968 described the goals of
COINTELPRO as:
42
1. Prevent a coalition of militant black nationalist groups . . . .
43
2. Prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify the militant nationalist movement . .
. Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammad all aspire to this position . . . .
44
3. Prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups . . . .
45
4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability by discrediting
them . . . .
46
5. . . . prevent the long-range growth of militant black nationalist organizations, especially among
youth.
47
Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence

Activities, The FBI's Covert Action Program to Destroy the Black Panther Party, S.Rep. No.
94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 187 (1976). These goals were incorporated into the various
directives which Marlin Johnson, the special agent-in-charge of the Chicago FBI office, received
instructing him to establish the program in Chicago.
48
The national COINTELPRO program adopted a variety of tactics which seemingly were aimed
not at preventing violence, but at neutralizing the BPP as a political entity. These tactics included
efforts to discredit the BPP among "liberal" whites, the promotion of violent conflicts between the
BPP and other groups,7 the encouragement of dissension within the BPP, and the disruption of
the BPP's Breakfast Program for Children. Memoranda from Washington directing the local
employment of such tactics were transmitted to Johnson, Robert Piper (after March 1969 the
chief of the Racial Matters Squad of the Chicago FBI which was responsible for FBI programs
regarding the BPP), and Roy M. Mitchell (special agent assigned to the Racial Matters Squad in
Chicago).
49
The evidence presented by plaintiffs indicates that when the local chapter of the BPP opened in
Chicago in November 1968, the Chicago FBI was quick to implement the tactics mandated by
Washington. One of the key figures in the Chicago FBI's program to disrupt the Panthers was
William O'Neal. O'Neal was a paid FBI informant whom Mitchell originally had contacted while
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 279
No. 27of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
8 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
O'Neal was incarcerated in the Cook County Jail. Mitchell recontacted O'Neal and instructed him
to join the BPP. O'Neal walked into the BPP office at 2350 West Madison Street the day it
opened in November 1968 and joined, soon becoming the local chief of security for the Panthers.
50
The local FBI was able to effectuate many of its plans to disrupt the BPP through O'Neal. O'Neal
informed Mitchell about a proposed merger between the BPP and a local black gang, the
Blackstone Rangers. The Chicago office, with Johnson's approval, then sent an anonymous
letter to Jeff Fort, the leader of the Rangers, telling Fort that the Panthers had a "hit out" on him.
The purpose of the letter was to prevent a merger and to induce the Rangers to initiate reprisals
against the BPP. O'Neal also falsely accused a member of the Vice Lords, another black Chicago
gang, of being a police informant, thereby squelching another possible merger. O'Neal, according
to plaintiffs' evidence, encouraged the Panthers to initiate and participate in various criminal
activities, to obtain more weapons, and to increase their use of violent tactics.
51
O'Neal also facilitated the FBI's efforts to discredit the BPP leadership and to frustrate their
attempts to garner support among white groups. O'Neal provided Mitchell with information that
enabled local police to serve an arrest warrant on Fred Hampton, the leader of the BPP in
Chicago, just prior to his appearance on a local television interview show. O'Neal also
encouraged the distribution of racist BPP cartoons, thereby fostering a rift between the BPP and
the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). For his efforts, O'Neal received several pay raises
from Mitchell with Johnson's approval.8 After March 1969 Piper also lent his approval to O'Neal's
efforts as a part of the FBI's counterintelligence program.
52
The FBI had other means of monitoring the BPP in Chicago. Johnson and Piper requested and
received authorization for a warrantless wiretap on BPP headquarters. And in June 1969 the FBI,
based on information provided by O'Neal, executed a fugitive arrest warrant at Panther
headquarters. No shots were fired; however, several Panthers were arrested for harboring a
fugitive and weapons were seized. All the charges against the arrested Panthers ultimately were
dropped.
53
The FBI in Washington urged its offices implementing COINTELPRO to develop liaisons and
working relationships with local law enforcement officials to comply with the FBI's mandate to
provide information to these agencies as well as to help effectuate the FBI's counterintelligence
goals. In Chicago the FBI had an ally which also was quite concerned about the growth of
militant black groups. In November 1968 Edward V. Hanrahan was elected Cook County State's
Attorney. Hanrahan appointed Richard Jalovec an Assistant State's Attorney and made him the
chief of the office's Special Prosecutions Unit (SPU). By April 1969 the primary focus of the SPU
was on black street gangs. About this same time Mitchell contacted Jalovec and told him that the
FBI had an informant, O'Neal, within the Chicago BPP.
54
Before June 1969 the State's Attorney's Office had relied on its own police force which it used
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 280
No. 28of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
9 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
only for routine matters. At that time, however, the State's Attorney's Office requested that nine
Chicago police officers Groth, Davis, Carmody, Jones, Ciszewski, Howard, Marusich, Kelly, and
Joseph be assigned to the SPU. Groth was next in command after Jalovec, to whom all the
officers reported.
55
Tension and hostilities between the BPP and local law enforcement agencies in Chicago
escalated throughout the summer and fall of 1969. Shooting incidents involving Chicago police
and Panthers occurred at the BPP headquarters in July and October. On July 21 and October 3
the BPP headquarters was ransacked by Chicago police. And on November 13, 1969 two
Chicago policemen were killed in an ambush-shootout with Jake Winters, who was closely
associated with the BPP.9 Winters also was killed and seven other Chicago police officers were
wounded.
56
On the evening of the Winters incident, Mitchell met with O'Neal and showed him photographs of
the dead police officers. Soon thereafter, on November 19, Mitchell again met with O'Neal and
with O'Neal's aid constructed a floorplan of the apartment at 2337 West Monroe Street to which
Hampton recently had moved. The floorplan included the layout of the rooms, the placement of
doors and furniture, the identity of the apartment's occupants and frequent visitors, and the
location of the bedroom which Hampton shared with Deborah Johnson. And, either on the basis
of this or previous conversations with O'Neal, Mitchell compiled a list of weapons which O'Neal
said were in the apartment and incorporated the list into a memorandum dated November 21.
This memorandum, however, failed to mention the presence in the apartment of two federally
illegal weapons a sawed-off shotgun and a stolen police riot gun which O'Neal had told Mitchell
about. There is evidence that the appropriate FBI procedure would have been to notify the
Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco Division of the Treasury Department about these weapons. This
was not done.
57
After his meeting with O'Neal on November 19, Mitchell met with members of the Chicago Police
Department's Gang Intelligence Unit (GIU) and conveyed to them the information contained in
the floorplan. Mitchell also told them that a large quantity of weapons was stored at the
apartment, including the sawed-off shotgun and the stolen police gun.10 Piper was aware of the
transfer of this information to the GIU and at a meeting with Johnson informed him of the
same.11 On the basis of this information, the GIU planned a raid on the apartment to seize the
weapons.
58
Shortly thereafter O'Neal told Mitchell that the weapons had been removed from the Monroe
Street apartment. Mitchell relayed this information to Piper who in turn informed Johnson.
Johnson ordered Piper to inform all local agencies which had received the prior information about
the weapons that they had been removed. Piper transmitted this order to Mitchell, who phoned
Officer Bizewski of the GIU. Johnson, on November 24, also phoned Thomas Lyons, director of
the GIU, and told him that the BPP expected the raid and had removed the weapons from the
apartment. Lyons told Johnson that he would cancel the raid.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 281
No. 29of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
10 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
59
Within two days of the cancellation of the GIU raid, Mitchell called Jalovec and told him that the
weapons had been returned to the apartment.12 Mitchell also informed Jalovec that Hampton
and Johnson were living at the apartment, that other members of the BPP frequented the
apartment, and that a variety of weapons, illegally purchased, was kept there. About the first of
December Mitchell told Jalovec that a sawed-off shotgun and a stolen police gun were in the
apartment. Shortly thereafter, according to plaintiffs' evidence, Mitchell met with Jalovec and
Groth and, with Piper's prior approval, showed them the floorplan of the West Monroe Street
apartment. Mitchell also told them that a BPP political education meeting was scheduled for the
evening of December 3 and that the occupants of the apartment likely would be absent then.
60
At trial, Groth did not recall attending the meeting with Mitchell. Groth did claim, however, to have
received a phone call sometime during the late afternoon or evening of December 2 from an
unidentified informant who provided information paralleling the information transmitted by
Mitchell. Groth stated that this unidentified informant who was unpaid was a member of the
BPP.13
61
Groth met with Jalovec on December 3 and had a discussion with him about the information
Groth received from his informant. Jalovec said that he had received essentially the same
information from Mitchell. Groth also told Jalovec that he had surveyed the premises at 2337
West Monroe Street on his way to work that morning. Later that day Groth instructed Davis and
Kelly to survey the premises, and they returned with a street diagram of the surrounding area.
Groth told Davis, Kelly, and a few other officers assigned to the SPU that they would be going to
the apartment at 8:00 p. m. that night to search the premises for illegal weapons.
62
At midday on December 3 Jalovec and Groth met with Hanrahan and recounted the information
they had received from their sources. At this meeting Jalovec told Hanrahan that they intended to
obtain a search warrant for the Monroe Street apartment. Jalovec and Groth drafted the warrant.
The affidavit stated that Jalovec had received information from a reliable informant Mitchell was
not mentioned by name that sawed-off shotguns and other weapons were kept in the apartment.
It also stated that a reliable informant had told Groth that the apartment contained numerous
weapons including three sawed-off shotguns. The warrant and affidavit were shown to Hanrahan
and then taken to a Cook County Circuit judge who was formerly Hanrahan's first assistant when
Hanrahan was United States Attorney. The warrant was issued that afternoon.
63
After the warrant was issued, Jalovec and Groth busied themselves with the final preparations for
its execution. They decided that fourteen men would take part in the mission. Groth described
the plan to some of the police officers who would be accompanying him. Jalovec phoned the
Chicago Police Department to obtain approval to bring certain weapons, including a machine
gun, when they served the search warrant. Jalovec also approved Groth's revised decision to
serve the warrant at 4:00 a. m., rather than in the evening, so that the sleeping occupants in the
apartment could be taken by surprise. At trial Jalovec and Groth indicated that they did not
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 282
No. 30of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
11 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
discuss the use of tear gas, sound equipment, or other means to gain entry to the apartment.
64
Jalovec met with Hanrahan and detailed the final plan for the search of the apartment. He told
him that Groth would be leading twelve to fourteen men. Again the testimony indicated that there
was no discussion of alternative ways of gaining entry to the apartment or of the use of any
equipment besides guns. Hanrahan told Jalovec to tell the men to be careful. Jalovec related his
conversation with Hanrahan to Groth, and told Groth to call him at home after the raid.
65
This same day, on December 3, 1969, Johnson and Piper approved a counterintelligence
memorandum sent to the Director in Washington. The memorandum stated that local police14
planned "a positive course of action" based on the information regarding the West Monroe Street
apartment which the Chicago FBI had provided local law enforcement officials.
B. Raid
66
The fourteen raiders met at the State's Attorney's Office for a briefing at 4:00 a. m. the morning of
the raid. Groth described the apartment's layout and informed the other officers that it was a BPP
dwelling frequented by Fred Hampton. Armed with a machine gun, a sawed-off shotgun, a
semi-automatic .30-caliber carbine, and other weapons, they arrived at the apartment at 4:30 a.
m. Groth instructed seven officers (the nonshooters) to guard the apartment's exterior. Groth,
Jones, Gorman, and Davis approached the front of the apartment while Broderick, Carmody, and
Ciszewski circled to the rear door.
67
Before the raid began, Clark, Truelock, Bell, and Harris were in the living room on chairs and
mattresses scattered around the room. Satchel, Anderson, and Brewer were asleep in the front
bedroom which was located directly south of the living room. The rear bedroom of the apartment,
directly south of the front bedroom, was occupied by Hampton and Johnson. A diagram of the
apartment is shown here:NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT
VIEWABLE
68
A factual dispute exists as to the activity inside the apartment. Plaintiffs' testimony depicts a
violent, well-armed, unprovoked attack on the apartment. Plaintiffs testified that the officers did
not announce their purpose when they arrived at the apartment. After hearing a knock at the
apartment door, Truelock and Bell ran to the rear bedroom to awaken Hampton. Davis burst
through the door into the living room and began firing into the darkened room. Clark, in the
northwest part of the room about three or four feet from the door, was struck in the heart by a
bullet from Davis' rifle. According to Harris, Clark's gun went off as he fell. Groth also began firing
into the living room from the apartment doorway. Harris was shot as she lay in bed. She testified
at trial that she neither fired nor handled a gun during the raid.
69
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 283
No. 31of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
12 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
The attack from the rear of the apartment was precipitated by the sound of a shotgun blast from
within. Carmody broke through the back door and entered the kitchen. Using a .38 revolver, he
fired five times. Corbett, Ciszewski, and Broderick followed him into the kitchen, the latter two
firing into the two bedrooms from the dining room area. Bell, Truelock, and Johnson emerged
from the back bedroom during a pause in the shooting.
70
Meanwhile, Gorman had entered the living room and began firing his machine gun into the south
wall toward the bedrooms. Davis also began firing into the south wall. Carmody entered the back
bedroom and found Hampton lying on his bed.15 Carmody went to the head of the bed clutching
a revolver in his right hand. During the course of the firing, Hampton was shot several times in
the body and the head. The bullets which went through his brain were never found. Carmody
emerged from the bedroom dragging Hampton's body by the left wrist. In Carmody's firearms
report, he indicated that he had critically wounded a suspect. He recorded that his first shot was
fired from a distance of ten feet and noted the distance of his second shot by a question mark.
71
Meanwhile the other shooters were moving toward the front bedroom where Satchel, Anderson,
and Brewer lay huddled on the floor. Broderick, located in the bathroom, and Ciszewski,
positioned in the dining room, fired several blasts from their shotguns into the front bedroom.
Simultaneously, Gorman advanced down the hallway and approached this bedroom. Seeing the
forms of Anderson and Brewer rising between the beds, he aimed and fired his machine gun into
the bedroom. At that point Carmody charged through the front bedroom doorway and the
occupants surrendered. When the guns were stilled, Satchel had been struck four times,
Anderson and Brewer, twice. All three plaintiffs denied firing weapons. While the survivors were
gathered into the kitchen the nonshooters entered the apartment. According to the survivors'
testimony, they were then physically and verbally abused.
72
The evidence introduced by defendants at trial produces a portrait of the incident which barely
resembles the one depicted by plaintiffs. All the officers testified that they were fired on from
within the apartment as they attempted to serve the search warrant. Groth testified that he and
his men announced their purpose to the occupants on the morning of December 4 while standing
on the apartment porch. After receiving no response, Davis struck down the front door of the
apartment. As he lunged into the living room a shotgun blast flashed through the room from
Clark's gun. Seeing Harris' gun directed at the front entrance door, he fired and hit her in the leg.
Fearing for Davis' life, Groth stepped into the living room and was met by the barrel of Harris' gun
aimed in his direction; believing that she had fired a shot at him, Groth responded by firing at her.
Davis noticed Clark rising from his chair, "pumping" his shotgun, and turning toward him. Davis
fired three shots while simultaneously rushing at Clark. A struggle for Clark's gun followed and
the men dropped to the floor. In the meantime, Gorman had entered the living room and grabbed
the shotgun from Harris who was sitting on a bed next to the south wall of the living room. The
officers testified that during the next few seconds they observed flashes of firing exiting from both
bedrooms. Testimony was given that a cease-fire was called, but was broken by two shots, one
from each bedroom.
73
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 284
No. 32of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
13 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
At the same time, Carmody broke through the kitchen door into the rear of the apartment.
Observing flashes of firing exiting from the back bedroom, he lunged into the kitchen. He
advanced to a position in the dining room and fired into the bedroom. Ciszewski and Broderick
followed Carmody's lead. Ciszewski pointed his flashlight into the back bedroom and Bell
surrendered.
74
A second cease-fire was called. It too was broken when flashes were observed again in the rear
of the apartment. When Gorman and Davis fired through the living room wall, their volleys were
returned by more firing from the bedroom.
75
Truelock and Johnson emerged from the back room during a third cease-fire. Carmody then
entered the back bedroom where he saw Hampton's body on the bed. While Carmody dragged
the body from the room, Ciszewski entered to remove weapons. A bullet ripped through the north
wall of the bedroom and struck Ciszewski in the ankle.
76
Having secured the living room and back bedroom, the raiders concentrated their efforts on the
front bedroom. Gorman ran to the bedroom after shooting through the south wall of the living
room. He fired his machine gun into the front bedroom as he saw Anderson rising between the
beds with a shotgun clutched in his hands. Anderson was hit by Gorman's volley. Gorman also
spotted Brewer with an object in her hands, but no shots were exchanged. Carmody and
Broderick also fired into the north bedroom. According to a tape of a radio dispatcher's
communication with the raiders that morning, the apartment was under control within seven
minutes.
77
In addition to the raiders' testimony, the statements of several plaintiffs given to their lawyers
after the incident were presented by the defense at trial. In these statements, both sworn and
unsworn, several plaintiffs said they picked up weapons during the course of the raid and
Truelock said he fired two shots at the raiders. These statements were offered as further proof
that the officers were fired at and that they perceived themselves to be in great danger during the
course of the raid.
78
Countering this defense evidence and in support of their trial testimony in which the survivors
denied firing at the raiders, plaintiffs introduced the expert testimony of Robert Zimmers, a
ballistics examiner with the FBI crime laboratory. Zimmers also was qualified as an expert to
testify regarding the angle a shot entered a surface based on evidence of its impact point.
According to his testimony, he examined the weapons seized from the apartment, the shooters'
weapons and their bullets, bullet fragments, and shotgun casings and cartridges found in the
apartment. He also analyzed impact points on the walls and furniture in the apartment. On the
basis of this examination and his analysis, he concluded that there was no evidence of a shotgun
blast coming from the corner of the living room where Harris was during the raid. He also
concluded that there was no evidence of shotgun shots exiting from the front bedroom where
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 285
No. 33of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
14 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Satchel, Anderson, and Brewer were sleeping, and found no evidence of a shot being fired from
within the rear bedroom where Johnson, Hampton, Truelock, and Bell were located.
79
On the other hand, Zimmers determined that there were forty-two bullet holes created by shots
fired from the living room through its south wall into the front bedroom. Additionally, there were
thirty-three bullet holes of entrance found in the south wall of the front bedroom (the wall between
the front and rear bedrooms), twenty-five of which entered from the living room. There were
fourteen bullet holes of entrance found in the south wall of the back bedroom occupied by
Hampton and Johnson. Six of these bullet holes came from shots that originated in the doorway
of the north bedroom. Zimmers also testified that on the basis of his examination only one shot
shell was identified with the seized weapons and that this shell corresponded with a hole of exit
in the living room door; further, he stated that a bullet removed from the body of Hampton was
fired from the .30-caliber carbine carried on the raid by Davis.C. Post-Raid
80
After the firing ceased, Gorman telephoned Jalovec from the back bedroom to report what
occurred and to inquire whether Jalovec would be directing the evidence collection at the
apartment. Jalovec responded that the men should leave the apartment immediately to avoid
creating a riotous situation and should bring the seized weapons to the State's Attorney's Office.
The other raiders were searching the apartment, overturning furniture and seizing books and files
in the process. The raiders retrieved bullets and other ballistics material but failed to identify the
recovered items. According to Groth, the seized weapons were neither tagged for identification
purposes nor fingerprinted, and the locations were not specifically recorded. Consequently, when
the Mobile Crime Unit of the Chicago Police Department arrived at approximately 5:15 a. m. to
collect evidence, its task was hindered greatly by the raiders' search. The Unit, headed by
Koludrovic, nevertheless recovered a number of ballistics items from throughout the apartment
which were taken to department headquarters for examination by experts in firearms
identification. The officers retained their own weapons, and the weapons found inside the
apartment were taken to the State's Attorney's Office.
81
Immediately after the raid, the four wounded occupants were taken to a hospital and the three
other survivors were incarcerated in Cook County Jail. On the basis of sworn complaints which
stated that the plaintiffs fired at the raiders, charges of attempted murder, aggravated battery,
and unlawful use of weapons were filed against the survivors. Bond was set for each at
$100,000. (Several survivors remained in jail until December 21 when their bond was lowered.)
82
As the day unfolded, an atmosphere of confusion and tension developed in Chicago's black
community. Hanrahan met with the raiders and decided to engage in a series of media activities
because "there were no methods of getting the officers' story to the public as effectively." The
initial phase began around noon on December 4 when he issued a statement to the press in the
presence of Jalovec, Groth, and other raiders. Although aware of conflicting stories, he adopted
the raiders' version of the incident and urged the support of the citizens of Chicago for the
courageous actions of the police officers. He frequently emphasized his words by pointing to a
display of seized weapons and, in particular, to a revolver which he said was "used by Hampton
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 286
No. 34of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
15 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
in the course of the attack on the police."
83
On December 8, amidst the continuing storm of controversy surrounding the raid, Hanrahan
called his second press conference. Reading from a prepared statement, he reiterated the
raiders' account of the incident and summarily dispelled conflicting reports referred to by
reporters. Despite further potential pre-trial prejudice to the survivors' criminal defense, Hanrahan
continued to publicize the incident and decided to employ additional media tactics to promote the
raiders' version of the incident. At his behest the Chicago Tribune published an exclusive
interview with the raiders on December 11. The article stated that the occupants initiated the
firing and contained photographs provided by the State's Attorney's Office which showed holes in
walls and doors of the apartment which purportedly represented shots originating from guns fired
in the bedrooms. At trial a reporter for the newspaper testified that his sole source of material for
the article was the information obtained from Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders during an
interview.
84
The following day a reenactment of the raid was filmed by CBS-TV in Chicago. Hanrahan asked
the broadcasting company to film the story for television without editing by CBS. A set was
constructed at the State's Attorney's Office, and Jalovec assisted the production directors. All the
raiders were present for the event and those who participated in the reenactment were informed
that the film could be cut as the raiders desired. To insure the production's conformity with his
previous press statements, Hanrahan visited the set during portions of the taping. The broadcast
was aired the same evening. Hanrahan held his final press conference the following day. When
confronted with questions from reporters that focused on the photographic misrepresentations
contained in the Chicago Tribune article, Hanrahan again confirmed the accuracy of the officers'
stories without investigating the conflicting reports. At trial Hanrahan testified that he believed his
publicity efforts were necessary to maintain the integrity and reputation of law enforcement in the
community.
85
The role of the federal defendants continued in the post-raid period. Mitchell, Piper, and Johnson
testified that they first learned of the raid through the news media the morning of December 4.
Later that day, they received information from the State's Attorney's Office that Hampton's body
had been positively identified. Johnson then approved the transmission of an "urgent" teletype to
FBI headquarters in Washington reporting the raid. Pursuant to Piper's instructions, Mitchell
spoke with Jalovec and Groth at the State's Attorney's Office to obtain more details. At this
meeting Jalovec asked Mitchell whether he would be concerned if "it got out" that Mitchell was
the source of the preliminary information for the raid.
86
The FBI continued to monitor BPP activities through O'Neal's assistance, and it was during this
early post-raid period that FBI officials wrote a series of memoranda highlighting their
involvement in the raid. Piper sent a memorandum to Bureau headquarters on December 11
which requested a bonus for O'Neal. The request was "justified" on the grounds that the raid was
based on information furnished by O'Neal and that this information was not available from any
other source. Shortly thereafter, a three hundred dollar bonus was approved. On December 12
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 287
No. 35of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
16 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Mitchell wrote a memorandum which stated for the first time that federally illegal weapons had
been present in the apartment a few days prior to the raid. The memorandum also noted that the
FBI communicated with the State's Attorney's Office around the first of December regarding the
illegal weapons. Mitchell's memorandum was not sent to the Washington office of the FBI but
instead was placed in the Chicago FBI's "O'Neal" file which also contained the floorplan that had
been furnished to Mitchell prior to the raid.
87
A series of investigations and inquests followed the December 4 raid. On December 12

Hanrahan requested Chicago Police Superintendent Conlisk to initiate an internal police
investigation. Internal investigations generally were conducted by Ervanian and Kukowinski,
director of the Internal Investigations Division of the Chicago Police Department (IID) and head of
the Excessive Force Unit of the IID, respectively. This investigation, however, was placed under
the direct supervision of Mulchrone, a deputy police superintendent. Meade, a police department
legal advisor, was placed in charge of the investigation by Mulchrone. Meade designed a few
questions based on Groth's official report and typed in answers which, as Mulchrone stated,
"would justify the use of entry and force by the officers." Ervanian and Kukowinski were informed
of the limited nature of the inquiry and of Meade's and Mulchrone's decision that all of the raiders'
statements were to be identical. Although dismayed at the proposed procedures, neither
protested. Copies of Meade's material were distributed to Assistant State's Attorneys Sorosky
and Meltreger who were advising the officers at the December 16 questioning. Jalovec,
Kukowinski, Ervanian, Mulchrone, and Meade also were present at the interviews. Prior to the
commencement of the inquiry, Groth was shown the prearranged questions and answers and
then requested to give his account of the raid. Thereafter the other raiders met privately with
Jalovec and Sorosky and were shown copies of both the Meade material and Groth's statement.
During the interviews each officer was asked substantially the same four questions:
88
Does Groth's statement describe what occurred at the apartment?
89
Did you use excessive force in effecting these arrests?
90
Did other officers use excessive force in effecting these arrests?Is there anything you wish to
add?
91
Each of the raiders answered "yes" to the first question and "no" to the next two. They gave a
varied assortment of immaterial answers to the fourth question.16 The survivors were asked to
participate in the IID investigation by filing complaints, but declined.
92
While the internal investigation was underway, Sadunas, a ballistics analyst for the Chicago
Police Department Crime Laboratory, had been conducting a series of firearms identification
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 288
No. 36of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
17 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
tests based on the materials recovered by the Mobile Crime Laboratory Unit. Sadunas was urged
by the State's Attorney's Office and some of the raiders to complete his report as quickly as
possible. On December 17 he issued his findings which included an identification of two shells
with the gun allegedly fired by Brenda Harris. Sadunas, however, failed to include the raiders'
weapons in his testings. The Sadunas report was sent to the IID for consideration. On December
18, six days after Hanrahan's request for the investigation, the IID submitted its report to Conlisk.
He determined that no disciplinary action was warranted against the fourteen raiders. At trial both
Kukowinski and Ervanian characterized the investigation as less than thorough and admitted that
the irregular nature of the proceeding might be attributed to the involvement of the State's
Attorney's Office. According to Mulchrone, "(the) purpose of the investigation was not to in any
way serve to later destroy (the police officers') testimony before a criminal trial" which the IID
knew was going to take place in Cook County Circuit Court.
93
Additional state investigations during the post-raid period included a January 1970 Cook County
Special Coroner's Inquest into the deaths of Hampton and Clark. Testimony was taken from the
raiders and Crime Laboratory personnel. The survivors refused to testify at the inquest. A finding
of justifiable homicide was made by the Coroner's office. Plaintiffs challenged this finding at trial
with evidence that Groth made several statements at the inquest which he later contradicted,
including testimony in which he denied being aware prior to the raid of the interior design of the
apartment.
94
Also, during the month of January, a Cook County grand jury returned an indictment for
attempted murder and aggravated battery against the seven survivors of the raid. Hanrahan was
responsible for the presentation to the grand jury of evidence consisting mainly of the police
officers' testimony and the Sadunas report.
95
A federal grand jury had been convened in December 1969 to investigate whether the occupants'
civil rights had been violated. Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil
Rights Division, was assigned by the Department of Justice to present evidence to the grand jury,
and Leonard Treviranus served as case agent for the grand jury on behalf of the FBI.17 Johnson
instructed Treviranus that all requests for evidence from the grand jury and Leonard were to be
channelled through Johnson. Additionally, Johnson and Leonard met throughout the
investigations and Leonard revealed to Johnson what information he was seeking for
presentation to the grand jury.
96
The grand jury began to hear evidence in January 1970 and Johnson was requested to appear
before it to testify concerning the June 1969 raid on the BPP headquarters. Treviranus sent a
memorandum to FBI headquarters in Washington which assured that Johnson's testimony would
not relate to "the circumstances" of the December 4 raid, insuring that "no exposure" to the
Bureau would occur. Leonard, however, informed Johnson that the grand jury was interested
additionally in what information the FBI had supplied to local authorities prior to the raid. Johnson
asked a member of his staff to brief him on the information that had been disseminated. Although
Johnson knew Mitchell had provided information about the BPP to local authorities, he asked
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 289
No. 37of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
18 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
neither Mitchell nor Piper about these communications. On February 11, 1970 Johnson testified
before the grand jury. He stated that the Chicago office of the FBI was not aware that illegal
weapons were in the apartment prior to the raid. Additionally, Johnson failed to mention that a
floorplan was furnished by Mitchell to the State's Attorney's Office. On the same day that
Johnson testified, Mitchell wrote the FBI Director on behalf of the Chicago office for authorization
to continue paying O'Neal as an informant. In the letter Mitchell justified the request, as Piper had
justified the earlier bonus for O'Neal, by reminding headquarters that O'Neal had provided a
detailed floorplan of the apartment, as well as other information, which subsequently "saved
injury and possible death to police officers" participating in the December 4 raid.
97
Neither Mitchell nor Piper testified before the grand jury. The Racial Matters Squad, however,
which was under Piper's supervision, regularly provided Treviranus with selective intelligence
information on the BPP and the raid. Included in this information flow were Bureau files on the
survivors, a report on Hampton's activities one week before the raid, and Mitchell's November 21
weapons memorandum listing the legally purchased weapons reported by O'Neal to be in the
apartment. Conspicuously absent was information on the floorplan and Mitchell's December 12
memorandum concerning the presence of illegal weapons in the apartment prior to the raid.
O'Neal was never made available to testify before the grand jury nor to be interviewed by the
prosecutors in charge of the grand jury despite Bureau instructions issued in September 1969
that efforts should be made to convince informants to testify about information they had furnished
concerning the BPP.
98
During the first weeks of February 1970, Zimmers conducted exhaustive tests of the ballistics
evidence and weapons involved in the raid. Zimmers concluded that the spent shells identified in
the Sadunas report as having been fired from Brenda Harris' gun actually had been fired from
Officer Ciszewski's weapon. Sadunas was informed of this discrepancy in mid-February. Upon
receiving the evidence and weapons from the FBI, Sadunas retested the shotshells and test-fired
Ciszewski's gun for the first time. His findings confirmed Zimmers'. Several weeks later Sadunas
appeared before the federal grand jury and testified to his previous error. Hanrahan, who was in
charge of the state prosecution, learned of Sadunas' error in March. He discussed the corrected
findings with the raiders and asked if they wanted to make further statements. Hanrahan and the
raiders decided that the raiders should testify before the federal grand jury to relate their
accounts of the incident. At the same time Hanrahan was considering dismissal of the state
indictments.
99
According to Leonard, Hanrahan, the raiders, and other police officers eventually became
"targets" of the federal grand jury investigation. Hanrahan was warned of this several weeks
before he was requested to testify. Subsequently Leonard discussed the potential indictments
with Johnson and informed him that "an arrangement" had been made between Hanrahan and
him, whereby the raiders' testimony would be given to Hanrahan after they testified and that
Hanrahan would drop the indictments against the survivors within thirty days. Leonard hoped that
the survivors would then testify before the federal grand jury. Shortly after this discussion,
Johnson informed Treviranus of the "arrangement" and, on the basis of this conversation,
Treviranus sent a teletype to FBI headquarters on April 8. The teletype stated that the dismissal
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 290
No. 38of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
19 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
of the local indictments would be based on the change in Sadunas' testimony.18 Enclosed with
the teletype was a draft of the first chapter of the grand jury report.
100
Groth and the other raiders began their testimony before the grand jury on the same day that
Treviranus dispatched the teletype and the report. Groth was not requested to reveal the identity
of his informant even though Leonard's assistants had requested this information from the State's
Attorney's Office and Groth in early February. At that time the State's Attorney's Office informed
the assistants that "Jalovec was informed by a federal employee: (and) Groth may consider
course of action if asked before the Grand Jury." The raiders refused to conform their testimony
to the ballistics evidence and physical evidence shown them by the federal prosecutors prior to
their appearance.
101
On May 4 Hanrahan appeared before the grand jury and testified that it was his intention to
dismiss the indictments based on the revised Sadunas report. Four days after Hanrahan's
appearance, the indictments against the survivors were dropped. The Government sought the
seven survivors' testimony before the grand jury on May 11; however, the plaintiffs refused to
testify. No indictments were returned and the federal grand jury was discharged on May 15.
102
In June 1970 a special prosecutor was appointed by the Chief Judge of the Criminal Division of
the Circuit Court of Cook County to inquire into the police and Black Panther actions on
December 4. A special state grand jury was convened in December 1970 which returned
indictments against Hanrahan, Jalovec, Mulchrone, Meade, Sadunas, Koludrovic, Groth,
Broderick, Carmody, Ciszewski, Corbett, Davis, Gorman, and Jones for conspiring to obstruct
justice. On October 25, 1972 these defendants were found not guilty after a bench trial in the
Criminal Court of Cook County.
103
These facts provide the basis for a determination of the legal issues concerning the directed
verdicts. The plaintiffs' principal claim is that defendants conspired to deprive them of their civil
rights.19 The plaintiffs also assert claims against individual defendants for intentional and
negligent violations of their rights. We now seek to outline generally the governing legal
principles regarding civil conspiracies. This discussion will be followed by an analysis both of
these standards and of the individualized claims as applied to the facts presented in the three
stages of plaintiffs' case.
III. CONSPIRACY CLAIMS
104
A civil conspiracy is "a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to commit an
unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means, the principal element of which is an
agreement between the parties 'to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another,' and 'an overt
act that results in damage.' " Rotermund v. United States Steel Corp., 474 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir.
1973) (citation omitted). In order to prove the existence of a civil conspiracy, a plaintiff is not
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 291
No. 39of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
20 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
required to provide direct evidence of the agreement between the conspirators; "(c)ircumstantial
evidence may provide adequate proof of conspiracy." Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447
F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 1971). See also United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735, 741-42 (7th Cir.
1969). Absent the testimony of a coconspirator, it is unlikely that direct evidence of a
conspiratorial agreement will exist. Thus, the question whether an agreement exists should not
be taken from the jury in a civil conspiracy case so long as there is a possibility that the jury can
"infer from the circumstances (that the alleged conspirators) had a 'meeting of the minds' and
thus reached an understanding" to achieve the conspiracy's objectives. Adickes v. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).
105
A plaintiff seeking redress need not prove that each participant in a conspiracy knew the "exact
limits of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein." Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., supra,
447 F.2d at 875. An express agreement among all the conspirators is not a necessary element of
a civil conspiracy. The participants in the conspiracy must share the general conspiratorial
objective, but they need not know all the details of the plan designed to achieve the objective or
possess the same motives for desiring the intended conspiratorial result. To demonstrate the
existence of a conspiratorial agreement, it simply must be shown that there was "a single plan,
the essential nature and general scope of which (was) known to each person who is to be held
responsible for its consequences." Id.
106
Keeping these standards in mind, when we examine the evidence presented by both sides in this
case in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that the district court erred when it
ruled that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of conspiracy. Our analysis of the
plaintiffs' case leads us to conclude that the plaintiffs did offer sufficient evidence to warrant a jury
determination of whether a conspiracy existed. The fact that "all of the evidence . . . does not
point in one direction and different inferences might reasonably be drawn from it" does not justify
judicial intrusion into the jury's role in determining whether a civil conspiracy existed. Continental
Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 700-01, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 1411, 8 L.Ed.2d
777 (1962). In such a situation, "it is the jury which 'weighs the contradictory evidence and
inferences' and draws 'the ultimate conclusion as to the facts.' " Id. (citation omitted). When a
plaintiff alleges a conspiracy to violate civil rights, "(t)he existence or nonexistence of a
conspiracy is essentially a factual issue that the jury, not the trial judge, should decide." Adickes,
supra, 398 U.S. at 176, 90 S.Ct. at 1618 (Black, J., concurring.)
107
We do wish, however, to make one observation about the nature of the conspiracy described by
plaintiffs' evidence in this case.20 We believe that plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case,
not of a single conspiracy, but of two conspiracies designed to violate their rights in distinct ways.
These conspiracies share many of the same participants who form "the common nucleus of
separate conspiracies," Varelli, supra, 407 F.2d at 743, but they are not identical conspiracies.
The first conspiracy, as we view the evidence, involves the state and federal defendants who
participated in the pre-raid preparations and planning, and the raid itself. The second conspiracy,
involving many of these same defendants, was the alleged coverup of evidence regarding the
instigation, preparation and execution of the raid, and the post-raid legal harassment of the
plaintiffs. These two conspiracies required entirely different kinds of activities, both legal and
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 292
No. 40of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
21 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
illegal, to achieve their ends. But more importantly, these two conspiracies had distinct
objectives. The first conspiracy was designed to subvert and eliminate the Black Panther Party
and its members, thereby suppressing both a potential source of unrest, turmoil, and even
violence in the black community, and a vital, radical-black political organization. The second
conspiracy harassed the survivors of the raid. Moreover, the post-raid conspiracy was intended
to frustrate any redress the plaintiffs might seek and, more importantly, to conceal the true
character of the pre-raid and raid activities of the defendants involved in the first conspiracy.
108
Reference to the law of criminal conspiracy suggests that this distinction between the substantive
criminal conspiracy and the subsequent concealment of the crime is important. The Supreme
Court stated in Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 77 S.Ct. 963, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957):
"Acts of covering up, even though done in the context of a mutually understood need for secrecy,
cannot themselves constitute proof that concealment of the crime after its commission was part
of the initial agreement among the conspirators." Id. at 401-02, 77 S.Ct. at 972. Thus, in order to
prove that acts of concealment constitute a part of the initial conspiracy, the prosecution must
present "direct evidence (of) an express original agreement among the conspirators to continue
to act in concert in order to cover up, for their own self-protection, traces of the crime after its
commission." Id. at 404, 77 S.Ct. at 973-74. Absent such evidence, the concealment is
independent of the original conspiracy; the original conspiracy is not considered ongoing simply
because concealment of the conspiracy continues. Thus, persons who participate in the
concealment are not Ipso facto participants in the original conspiracy.
109
These principles are instructive in analyzing the case presented by plaintiffs. Many of the state
defendants are named in plaintiffs' complaint only for their participation in the post-raid coverup.
Without direct proof that an agreement to conceal was part of the original conspiracy, these
defendants should be liable only for damages arising out of the post-raid conspiracy. Defendants
who are proved to have participated in both the pre-raid and post-raid conspiracies are liable, of
course, for damages arising out of both conspiracies.
110
We do not decide now that plaintiffs' case involves two conspiracies and that liability must be
determined on the basis of that conclusion. Plaintiffs' discovery was hampered unduly by the trial
court, See infra, pp. 639-642, and we cannot be certain that the plaintiffs, given full discovery,
would be unable to prove that an agreement to conceal the facts concerning the preparation and
execution of the raid existed as part of the original conspiracy. And, as we have noted before,
111
(s)ince the existence of multiple conspiracies is really a fact question as to the nature of the
agreement, it is for the jury to decide whether there is one agreement or several. United States v.
Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964);
United States v. American Honda Motor Co., 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
112
Varelli, supra, 407 F.2d at 746. Thus the trial court upon remand should provide jury instructions
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 293
No. 41of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
22 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
that will insure that the jury is aware of the alternatives of finding single or multiple conspiracies
in the evidence presented by plaintiffs.
113
The defendants raise several questions about the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' conspiracy claims
which must be discussed. First, defendants contend that in order to have an adequate claim for
relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove both a conspiracy and an actual
deprivation of rights; mere proof of a conspiracy is insufficient to establish a section 1983 claim.
This statement of the law is correct, See Lesser v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 518 F.2d 538, 540 n.2
(7th Cir. 1975), but we do not see how this affects the viability of plaintiffs' claims in the instant
case. Plaintiffs' prima facie case offers a number of constitutional deprivations to accompany
their conspiracy allegations; clearly, the evidence would support a finding of injury which would
constitute deprivation of constitutional rights. Thus, this requirement of a section 1983 claim has
been satisfied.
114
The federal defendants also contend that section 1983 is inapplicable to them since its
prohibitions are directed only against state actors. Yet when federal officials are engaged in a
conspiracy with state officials to deprive constitutional rights, the state officials provide the
requisite state action to make the entire conspiracy actionable under section 1983. The Second
Circuit has stated: "When the violation is the joint product of the exercise of a State power and of
a non-State power then the test under the Fourteenth Amendment and 1983 is whether the
state or its officials played a 'significant' role in the result." Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436, 449
(2d Cir. 1969) (citation omitted.) Our recent decision in Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.
1976), is not to the contrary. In Askew the state officials did not play a significant role in the
conspiracy: "(B)oth the impetus for and the execution of" the conspiratorial plan derived from the
federal officials. Id. at 678. Plaintiffs' evidence in the instant case indicates that the federal and
state defendants shared in instigating and preparing for the raid. There can be no question that
the state defendants "played a 'significant' role in the result." Kletschka, supra, 411 F.2d at 449.
115
Defendants also contend that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under section 1985(3)
because they have not proved that a racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory
animus was behind the conspirators' actions.21 Proof of a class-based animus underlying the
conspiracy is, of course, a requirement of a section 1985(3) claim. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403
U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). Griffin itself held that race was such a
class-based animus, but did not establish what other types of class-based animi were sufficient
to state a claim. The conspiracy alleged in this case, however, does not require an intensive
analysis into either the meaning of Griffin or Congress' intent in drafting section 1985(3) to
determine whether the class-based animus requirement was satisfied. The statute was intended,
perhaps more than anything else, to provide redress for victims of conspiracies impelled by a
commingling of racial and political motives.22 And this is precisely the sort of conspiracy alleged
by plaintiffs in this case.
116
A brief recital of some of the evidence presented by plaintiffs substantiates this conclusion.23
The BPP was a black organization with a distinct political ideology and a variety of politically-
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 294
No. 42of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
23 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
oriented programs. FBI documents offered by plaintiffs demonstrate that certain FBI activities
directed against the BPP transcended mere "law enforcement," and were designed to
"neutralize" the BPP as a political voice on racial issues. Hanrahan testified that two of the
principal goals of the unit his office assigned to investigate the BPP were to combat the
anti-police propaganda the BPP had been disseminating in the black community and to mobilize
support among blacks for police. And one of the purposes of the post-raid coverup was to
prevent the development of widespread sympathy for the BPP cause which might have arisen
out of a full disclosure of the facts surrounding the raid and the deaths of Clark and Hampton.
Such purposes, if proven, bespeak of a class-based discriminatory animus which is at the heart
of section 1985(3)'s prohibitions. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs have satisfied this
requirement for proving a section 1985(3) claim.
117
Reviewing the facts presented by plaintiffs in light of these standards, we find that the trial court
erred when it directed verdicts as to plaintiffs' conspiracy claims against Hanrahan, Jalovec, the
raiders, and the federal defendants regarding their participation in the planning and execution of
the raid. Plaintiffs presented considerable evidence, including FBI documents and express
statements by Hanrahan, from which reasonable persons could conclude that these parties
shared a "class-based or otherwise discriminatory" desire to undermine the BPP. These
defendants also engaged in an extensive series of communications which could demonstrate to
a reasonable person the existence of an agreement either tacit or express to act in concert to
achieve their shared objective.24 Plaintiffs need not prove that the individual motives underlying
a common, illegal desire to achieve the conspiratorial objective were identical. The essence of a
conspiracy is the agreement, and a reasonable jury could find that the actions of these
defendants demonstrate that they had agreed at least tacitly to work together to eliminate the
BPP.
118
The state defendants argue that they never heard of a FBI counterintelligence program called
"COINTELPRO" and thus they cannot be liable as coconspirators with the federal defendants.
Similarly, the federal defendants contend that because they never met with any of the raiders in
fact, they had never heard of most of them they cannot be part of a conspiracy which includes
the raid on the BPP apartment. As we stated earlier, however, each participant in a conspiracy
need not know the "exact limits of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein."
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., supra, 447 F.2d at 875.
119
For example, the fact that Special Agent-in-Charge Johnson never spoke to Carmody (one of the
raiders) does not preclude their being conspirators. Johnson closely supervised his subordinate
FBI officials' activities vis-a-vis the BPP. These agents, in turn, had their contacts among the
state defendants. The communications between Jalovec and Mitchell, in particular, were
essential to the planning and successful execution of the raid. Without the information the federal
defendants furnished the state defendants, the state defendants could not have acted in
furtherance of the purpose which plaintiffs contend the state and federal defendants shared
inflicting injury to the BPP. The absence of a sole instigator who personally communicated with
all the participants in the conspiracy and orchestrated each of their actions does not preclude a
jury from concluding that a conspiracy existed. Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 295
No. 43of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
24 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
a reasonable person could find that all the defendants named in the initial conspiracy performed
discreet functions in concert to further a common plan the raid.
120
Liability for civil conspiracy requires proof of more than an agreement among conspirators; a
plaintiff must show that an actual deprivation of his rights resulted from the conspiracy. See
supra, p. 622. The raid and the injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of the raid reasonably
could be found to constitute this actual deprivation of rights. Thus, plaintiffs have established a
prima facie case under sections 1983 and 1985(3) for civil liability: a conspiracy to violate their
civil rights and actual deprivation of those rights arising from the implementation of the
conspiratorial plan.
121
IV. CLAIMS OF INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR ACTS BEFORE AND DURING THE RAID
122
As an alternative to the conspiracy allegations, plaintiffs assert that these defendants are subject
to individual liability under section 1983 or directly under the Constitution. The gist of their claims
is that these defendants are liable for the intentional and negligent deprivation of rights which
occurred during the raid.25
A. Shooters
123
Plaintiffs seek recovery against the shooters on the ground that these defendants, acting under
color of state law, made an illegal entry into the West Monroe Street apartment and used deadly
and excessive force in addition to committing assault, battery, and other abusive acts on its
occupants. Our discussion of the facts concerning the propriety of the search warrant which
defendants assert justified their entry into the apartment is found in our analysis of Groth's
refusal to identify the informant he used to support the affidavit for the warrant. See infra, pp.
635-639. Even if the officers were acting pursuant to a search warrant validly issued, the
question remains for the jury's determination whether the force used by the raiders within the
apartment was reasonable under the circumstances. The officers had a right to use some degree
of force in executing the warrant and defending themselves. As noted in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1, 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1881, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), "it would be unreasonable to require that
police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties." The record is replete
with factual disputes regarding the activities of the shooters on the morning of December 4. For
example, it reasonably could be inferred that Mark Clark's gun fired during his struggle with Groth
rather than when the police officers first broke through the door. Additionally, plaintiffs testified at
trial that none of the survivors fired a gun during the raid. And Zimmers' expert testimony
corroborated these assertions. Numerous other questions of fact are present in the record,
including the issue of whether Fred Hampton was drugged at the time of the raid and shot
deliberately after Johnson, Truelock, and Bell had left the bedroom.
124
Assessing the credibility of witnesses and weighing the evidence are matters within the sole
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 296
No. 44of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
25 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
province of the jury. In granting the directed verdicts, the trial judge repeatedly usurped this
function. For example, the judge concluded in his Summary that "Brenda Harris fired a shot
which went past Groth's shoulder." This finding was made in disregard of Harris' testimony to the
contrary and the physical evidence offered at trial. Additionally, the trial court ignored the
testimony of Johnson and Truelock and determined that "the evidence is conclusive that
(Hampton) was shot three times and that he was dead when Deborah Johnson and Louis
Truelock left the bedroom." The court also weighed the conflicting evidence of the experts and
found that the evidence introduced by plaintiffs' toxologist, Dr. Eleanor Berman, was "in error."
125
In light of the evidence presented by plaintiffs, the question of the seven shooting police officers'
liability should have been submitted to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse the verdicts directed in
favor of these police officers on the individual counts.
B. Nonshooters
126
In addition to their conspiracy allegations, plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case under
section 1983 against the nonshooters on the basis of their nonfeasance at the BPP apartment.
This court previously imposed liability in damages for nonfeasance in Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6
(7th Cir. 1972). The facts in Byrd are strikingly similar to those alleged in the case at bar. In Byrd
Chicago police officers failed to deter other officers who, in their presence, beat the plaintiff with
fists and clubs. Holding that purposeful nonfeasance of such magnitude could serve as the basis
of tort liability under section 1983, we stated that "one who is given the badge of authority of a
police officer may not ignore the duty imposed by his office and fail to stop other officers who
summarily punish a third person in his presence." 466 F.2d at 11.
127
Plaintiffs in this case assert that the nonshooters are liable, under the rule in Byrd, for failing to
assist or protect the wounded occupants. The officers entered the apartment immediately after
the firing ceased and plaintiffs testified that the nonshooters were present during the beatings
and abuse which they said followed the shootout. In light of our decision in Byrd, the fact if found
by a jury determination that these men did not personally participate in the abuse, but instead
callously chose to watch, would not preclude their liability. Accordingly, this issue should have
been submitted to the jury. We hold that the directed verdicts in favor of the nonshooters
regarding their activities in the raid were improperly granted by the trial court.*
C. Hanrahan and Jalovec
128
Plaintiffs contend that the alleged failure of Hanrahan and Jalovec to supervise properly the
officers attached to the SPU creates a cause of action based on section 1983. We agree. In
Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 (7th Cir. 1969), we held that supervisory personnel are
proper party-defendants to a section 1983 action
129
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 297
No. 45of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
26 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
whether the plaintiffs' constitutional rights are violated as a result of police behavior which is the
product of the active encouragement and direction of their superiors or as a result of the
superiors' mere acquiescence in such behavior.
130
Id. at 1086. See also Sims v. Adams, 537 F.2d 829, 831 (5th Cir. 1976). Plaintiffs have
established a prima facie case against Hanrahan and Jalovec on the basis of their roles as
supervisors of the police officers who participated in the raid. They approved Groth's selection of
men and weapons carried on the raid. Additionally, they approved of the early morning timing of
the execution of the search warrant. It was for the jury to determine whether the consequences of
these actions were foreseeable. We believe that the trial court improperly directed verdicts in
favor of these defendants on the nonconspiracy counts.
D. Federal Defendants
131
Finally, we fail to see the distinction which plaintiffs make between "joint activity" under section
1983 and conspiracy under sections 1985(3) and 1983 regarding the federal defendants' liability
for damages resulting from the raid. The same legal standards apply to each form of liability. As
stated by Prosser,
132
joint tortfeasor liability arises when persons "who, in pursuance of a common plan or design to
commit a tortious act, actively take part in it, or further it by cooperation or request, or who lend
aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt his acts done for their benefit are
equally liable with him." Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1971) p. 292.
133
The evidence which plaintiffs presented to support their nonconspiracy theory against these
defendants is identical to that which was aimed at establishing their conspiracy claims.
Accordingly, although we fail to see the need to allege this redundant theory of recovery, we hold
that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to support their joint activity claims.26
V. CLAIMS OF LIABILITY FOR POST-RAID ACTS
134
On the basis of the post-trial facts, plaintiffs claim that defendants conspired to cause the false
arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution of the survivors of the raid. All defendants are named as
participants in the post-raid conspiracy. As a further result of the conspiracy, plaintiffs allege that
the Cook County criminal prosecution against them was prolonged to May 8, 1970 and that they
incurred unnecessary legal expenses and suffered mental anguish and injury to their reputations.
Relief is sought under sections 1983 and 1985(3).
135
A. Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 298
No. 46of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
27 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
136
We hold that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that
Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants participated in a post-raid conspiracy
to harass the survivors of the raid and to conceal the facts surrounding the raid, thereby injuring
plaintiffs.27
137
On the morning of December 4 several raiders met with Hanrahan and Jalovec to discuss the
raid. Mitchell met with Groth and Jalovec the same morning and left immediately prior to
Hanrahan's first press conference. From these conversations emerged an allegedly distorted, if
not false, account of the raid which justified the officers' actions. In the days that followed,
Hanrahan instituted a promotional campaign. Despite their awareness of conflicting stories,
Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders continued to circulate reports to justify the continuation of
plaintiffs' detention. And it was the raiders' testimony which provided much of the basis for the
indictments Hanrahan brought against the survivors.
138
The irregularities in the series of official investigations into the raid also constitute evidence from
which there could be found a concerted effort to suppress facts about the planning and execution
of the raid and to justify the charges filed against the survivors. For example, at the internal
investigation (IID) conducted by the Chicago Police Department, customary procedures were
abandoned. Detailed statements normally taken were never obtained. Jalovec and Sorosky,
present at Hanrahan's direction, met with the raiders immediately before the raiders supplied
their previously prepared, uniform answers to predetermined questions. At the same time, a
ballistics report, compiled under pressure from the State's Attorney's Office and several of the
raiders, was issued by Sadunas of the Chicago Police Department. Despite its lack of
completeness, the report immediately was used to support the raiders' account of the raid, the
IID findings, and the Cook County indictments.
139
The concerted effort to suppress facts is further evidenced by the obstruction of the federal grand
jury investigation, caused by the failure of the federal defendants to turn over materials sought by
the grand jury. The evidence shows that a jury could find that Johnson's testimony before the
grand jury was false and misleading and concealed the involvement of FBI headquarters and the
roles of Piper, Mitchell, and O'Neal in the planning of the raid. Additionally, Johnson participated
in the arrangement between Hanrahan and Leonard whereby Leonard agreed not to obtain
indictments against any state officials for their actions with regard to the raid in exchange for the
dismissal of the state indictments against the survivors. And during the pretrial discovery in this
suit, the federal defendants continued to engage in dilatory and obstructive tactics to conceal
evidence of their involvement in the planning of the raid. See infra, pp. 639-642.
140
A jury reasonably could infer that a conspiracy existed to conceal the facts of the raid and to
continue an unfounded prosecution against plaintiffs.28
B. Purtell, Koludrovic, and Sadunas

COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 299
No. 47of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
28 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
141
We hold that plaintiffs' evidence does not present a prima facie case as to Purtell and Koludrovic.
Purtell was the director of the Chicago Crime Laboratory and the supervisor of Koludrovic and
Sadunas. There is, however, no evidence that he participated in any agreement or effort to distort
the evidence found inside the apartment on December 4. Similarly, plaintiffs' case against
Koludrovic is insufficient. In his official report he stated that more than one shot was fired at the
raiders as they entered the apartment and he reiterated this conclusion at the Coroner's inquest.
There was, however, no evidence of an agreement, either tacit or express, between him and any
other defendant to conceal or distort facts about the raid. His task at the apartment was made
especially difficult by the raiders' disruptive search prior to his arrival and, if his examination of
the premises was less than thorough, the evidence suggests that this was the result, at worst, of
negligent rather than intentional conduct.
142
There is, however, evidence and reasonable inferences pointing to Sadunas' participation in the
post-raid conspiracy. Sadunas' initial ballistics test was incomplete; he compared spent
shotshells from the apartment only with the weapons seized at the apartment and ignored the
weapons which had been used by the raiders. His examination resulted in a crucial
misidentification which would have remained uncorrected absent Zimmers' subsequent tests and
conclusions. When he learned of Zimmers' findings, Sadunas retested the shells comparing them
with all the weapons including those of the raiders. After these tests, Sadunas readily admitted
his mistake. Given this set of events, we think that the determination whether his misidentification
was the result of professional incompetence or conspiratorial conduct should have been left for
the jury.
C. Participants in the IID Investigation
143
Meade and Mulchrone, through their participation in the IID investigation, were not involved in the
dimension of the conspiracy which resulted in the imprisonment and prosecution of the survivors
without legal basis; rather, their actions reasonably could have been found to have encouraged
the continuation of the unfounded prosecution by suppressing the development of inconsistent
evidence against the raiders, Hanrahan, and Jalovec. Police Superintendent Conlisk initiated the
investigation at Hanrahan's request and ordered Mulchrone to supervise the proceedings.
Mulchrone admitted that the purpose of the investigation was not to test the veracity of the
raiders' stories, but to prevent the emergence of contradictory testimony. Meade designed the
perfunctory questions and supplied the uniform answers for the inquiry. Accordingly, the facts
were sufficient to include Meade and Mulchrone in a post-raid conspiracy charge.
144
Plaintiffs did not present a prima facie case for conspiratorial liability against Ervanian,
Kukowinski, Sorosky, and Meltreger. A reasonable jury might find, however, that these
defendants violated 42 U.S.C. 1986. Section 1986 provides:
145
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 300
No. 48of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
29 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or
aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act
be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages
caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented;
and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty
of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action.
146
Ervanian and Kukowinski, who normally conducted IID investigations, were replaced for the
Hampton investigation. They were aware of and later acknowledged the irregular character of the
investigation. Although they were not active participants in the "whitewash," they took no steps to
correct it. Similarly, plaintiffs presented no evidence that Assistant State's Attorneys Sorosky and
Meltreger participated in the preparation for the perfunctory interrogation of the raiders. Prior to
this examination, however, they were shown the questions and answers which had been
prepared for the raiders, and Sorosky, with Jalovec, met with the raiders immediately before their
interviews. And, like Ervanian and Kukowinski, Sorosky and Meltreger made no attempt to
prevent the irregular conduct of the investigation. Thus, although these defendants could not be
liable on the basis of the existing record under plaintiffs' conspiracy claims, there is sufficient
evidence to support the claims brought against them pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1986.
147
Plaintiffs also contend, in addition to their conspiracy claims, that there was no legal basis for the
arrest and imprisonment of the survivors of the raid and therefore that Hanrahan, Jalovec, and
the raiders are liable under section 1983 for the intentional deprivation of civil rights by false
imprisonment. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); Joseph v.
Rowlen, 402 F.2d 367 (7th Cir. 1968). Several survivors were jailed on the basis of the officers'
sworn complaints that the occupants committed attempted murder and aggravated battery
against the raiders. Hanrahan and Jalovec authorized the filing of these charges. As a result of
the charges, the high bond set at the request of the State's Attorney's Office, and the denial of
plaintiffs' demand for a preliminary hearing, these survivors were imprisoned until December 21.
148
Plaintiffs' claim, of course, hinges on the question whether defendants were acting with probable
cause when they filed charges against the survivors. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct.
1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Banish v. Locks, 414 F.2d 638 (7th Cir. 1969). See also pp.
631-635 Infra. The question of whether the facts known to a defendant amounted to probable
cause should be determined by the court when there is no disagreement as to the facts or
circumstances surrounding the detention. Banish v. Locks, supra, 414 F.2d at 641. In light of the
numerous disputes regarding the facts defendants knew or reasonably believed, however, the
trial court should have submitted the issue of probable cause to the jury.
149
Plaintiffs argue that all defendants (except O'Neal) are liable individually under section 1983 for
malicious prosecution. An action for malicious prosecution may be brought under section 1983 if,
acting under color of state law, the defendant has subjected the plaintiff to a deprivation of
constitutional magnitude. Hampton I, supra; Banish v. Locks, supra; Nesmith v. Alford, 318 F.2d
110, 126 (5th Cir. 1963). Plaintiffs contend that the raiders, Hanrahan, and Jalovec instituted an
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 301
No. 49of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
30 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
unfounded prosecution and that they, along with the other defendants, supported its continuation.
Relief is sought for the constitutional deprivations and injuries arising from this prosecution.
150
The absence of probable cause is an essential element of an action for malicious prosecution.
Banish v. Locks, supra, 414 F.2d at 640. Under the general tort principles of malicious
prosecution,
151
The defendant may be liable Either for initiating or for continuing a criminal prosecution without
probable cause. But he cannot be held responsible unless he takes some active part in
instigating or encouraging the prosecution. He is not liable merely because of his approval or
silent acquiescence in the acts of another, nor for appearing as a witness against the accused,
even though his testimony is perjured. . . . On the other hand, if he advises or assists another
person to begin the proceeding, ratifies it when it is begun in his behalf, or takes any active part
in directing or aiding the conduct of the case, he will be responsible (emphasis added).
152
Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1971) pp. 836-37.
153
Plaintiffs referred to essentially the same evidence to support their individual malicious
prosecution claims as they did to substantiate their conspiracy claims regarding malicious
prosecution. We reach the same conclusion here as we did earlier. We hold that plaintiffs failed
to establish a prima facie case against defendants Purtell, Koludrovic, Kukowinski, Ervanian,
Sorosky, and Meltreger. The malicious prosecution claims against the remaining defendants
should have been submitted to the jury and, accordingly, we reverse the trial court's directed
verdicts as to these defendants.29VI. CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY
154
The Supreme Court stated many years ago that the "very essence of civil liberty certainly
consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives
an injury." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). When Congress adopted
section 1983, it decided that "every person" who, under color of state law, deprived another of a
constitutional right, privilege, or immunity was liable to the victim for damages. Since then,
however, the courts have recognized certain exceptions to the unrestricted language of this
provision and have afforded immunity to persons acting in specified official capacities.
155
Both the state and federal defendants claim that they enjoy official immunity for their actions in
connection with the raid on the apartment on West Monroe Street. The entreaties of public
officials for immunity for their official wrongdoing, however, should be treated with
circumspection. Grow v. Fisher, 523 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1975). We should be hesitant to expand
the scope of official activity which, from the perspective of a victim seeking civil redress, stands
beyond the constraints of the Constitution. See generally Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 302
No. 50of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
31 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). For us to hold that all of the actions of the defendants in this
case should be immune from liability as a matter of law would require us to expand radically the
parameters which the Supreme Court has set for the doctrine of official immunity. This we are
unwilling to do.
A. State Defendants: Absolute Immunity
156
State defendants Hanrahan, Jalovec, Meltreger, and Sorosky (the Cook County State's Attorney
and three of his assistants) contend that they cannot be found liable for the damages alleged by
plaintiffs because they enjoy absolute immunity for their actions under the rule of Imbler v.
Pachtman,424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). The other state defendants claim
a qualified immunity. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24
(1978); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). We hold that the four state
prosecutors have absolute immunity from section 1983 liability for some of their post-raid
activities. Most of their allegedly illegal actions, however including all of their pre-raid activities
must be tested by the standards of qualified immunity.
157
The Supreme Court in Imbler did not hold that all official actions of a state prosecutor are
absolutely immune from section 1983 liability. Imbler held only that a prosecutor has absolute
immunity "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case." Imbler, supra 424 U.S. at
431, 96 S.Ct. at 995. See Briggs v. Goodwin, 186 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 569 F.2d 10 (1977), Cert.
denied, 437 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 3089, 57 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1978) (prosecutor's immunity limited to
his "advocacy" functions). The Court left standing circuit decisions which, by focusing on "the
functional nature of the activities" rather than the "status" of the prosecutor, held that certain
official actions by state prosecutors are entitled only to qualified immunity. Imbler, supra, 424 U.S.
at 430, 96 S.Ct. at 995. See, e. g., Guerro v. Mulhearn, 498 F.2d 1249, 1256 (1st Cir. 1974);
Hampton v. City of Chicago, 484 F.2d 602, 608-09 (7th Cir. 1973); Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F.2d
533, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1965). These cases clearly indicate that when a state prosecutor is
performing investigative rather than advocacy functions, he is not wrapped with absolute
immunity.30 See Briggs, supra, 569 F.2d at 16-17.
158
In Hampton I, supra, we examined the claim of Hanrahan and Jalovec to absolute immunity for
their pre-raid conduct. We concluded that their
159
alleged participation in the planning and execution of a raid of this character has no greater claim
to complete immunity than activities of police officers allegedly acting under (their) direction.
160
Hampton I, supra, 484 F.2d at 609. Neither Imbler, supra, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, nor our
fuller consideration of the issue aided by the evidence produced at trial alters that conclusion.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 303
No. 51of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
32 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
161
More difficult questions are presented by the claims of the defendants from the State's Attorney's
Office Hanrahan, Jalovec, Meltreger, and Sorosky to absolute immunity with respect to their
post-raid conduct. Resolution of these claims requires a close analysis of the nature of the
defendants' activities. We hold that while some of their actions fall within the ambit of Imbler's
Protection, others do not.
162
Hanrahan's decision to file charges against the survivors of the raid, his presentation of evidence
before the state grand jury, and his deal with Assistant Attorney General Leonard to drop the
state charges all comprise part of his "quasi-judicial" duties as state prosecutor "initiating a
prosecution and . . . presenting the State's case . . . ." Imbler, supra, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at
995; Butz, supra, 438 U.S. at 512-517, 98 S.Ct. at 2914-2916. Thus, Hanrahan and any
Assistant State's Attorney who aided him in these phases of his post-raid activity are absolutely
immune from civil liability for their conduct.
163
Other post-raid actions of these defendants, however, do not warrant absolute immunity. To the
extent that plaintiffs can both show injuries arising from this conduct and demonstrate that the
defendants' actions were illegal and unprotected by their qualified immunity, the defendants will
be liable for damages. In particular, the State's Attorney's Office's generation of post-raid
publicity, which may have caused pre-trial prejudice to the plaintiffs and encouraged the alleged
coverup of the true facts of the raid, is not protected by absolute immunity. Barr v. Matteo, 360
U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959), said that a federal official who, even maliciously,
issues a false and damaging publication the issuance of which is within the parameters of his
official duties, is absolutely immune from liability for libel. However, the Supreme Court this term
noted that
164
a quite different question would have been presented had the officer ignored an express
statutory or constitutional limitation on his authority.
165
Barr did not, therefore, purport to depart from the general rule, which long prevailed, that a
federal official may not with impunity ignore the limitations which the controlling law has placed
on his powers.
166
Butz, supra, 438 U.S. at 482, 98 S.Ct. at 290. Thus, Barr does not control in this case where the
state officials' post-raid public relations activity allegedly violated specific statutory and
constitutional guarantees.
167
Further, the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Butz and Imbler do not suggest that a state
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 304
No. 52of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
33 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
prosecutor's publicity actions should be absolutely immune from civil liability. In Butz, one of the
actions plaintiff complained of was the defendants' issuance of a deceptive press release. Butz,
supra 438 U.S. at 482, 98 S.Ct. at 2898. And the language in Butz suggests that the defendants
were absolutely immune for most of their conduct vis-a-vis the plaintiff. However, "the task of
applying the foregoing principles" to the particular claims against the defendants in Butz was left
to the district court on remand. Id. 438 U.S. at 517, 98 S.Ct. at 2916. A close reading of Butz
suggests that the boundaries of the absolute immunity afforded prosecutors in administrative
proceedings do not encompass their publicity campaigns. The Court said that "the decision to
initiate or continue a proceeding" and "the role of an agency attorney in conducting a trial and
presenting evidence on the record to the trier of fact" are cloaked in absolute immunity but made
no intimation that a prosecutor's issuance of a press release warrants the same treatment. Id.
438 U.S. at 516-517, 98 S.Ct. at 2916. Significantly, one of the safeguards the Butz Court
persistently referred to in justifying its extension of absolute immunity to certain "quasi-judicial"
actions of administrative prosecutors the scrutiny a prosecutor's discretionary decisions receive
in the adjudicatory process, Id. 438 U.S. at 516-517, 98 S.Ct. at 2916 is absent in the publicity
context.
168
Imbler 's imposition of absolute immunity on the "judicial phase" of a prosecutor's duties likewise
does not protect a prosecutor's publicity campaigns. Imbler 's justification for granting absolute
immunity to all of a state prosecutor's "quasi-judicial" activities has been sharply criticized, See,
e. g., Imbler, supra, 424 U.S. at 432-47, 96 S.Ct. 984 (White, J., concurring); Developments in
the Law: Section 1983, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, at 1200, 1204 (1977), but even on its own terms the
justification does not extend to a prosecutor's decision to publicize his actions or actions taken by
others in the community. Neither the prosecutor's judgment "in deciding which suits to bring and
in conducting them in court," Imbler, supra, 424 U.S. at 424-25, 96 S.Ct. at 992, nor "the
functioning of the criminal justice system," Id. at 426-27, 96 S.Ct. at 993, would be undermined
by maintaining the exposure of a prosecutor's public relations decisions to section 1983 liability,
subject only to a qualified immunity. There is no compelling justification for extending absolute
immunity to these decisions. Thus, we hold that Hanrahan's post-raid press conferences and the
participation of Hanrahan and Jalovec in the exclusive interview with the Chicago Tribune and in
the CBS-TV reenactment of the raid are protected only by a qualified immunity.
169
State defendants Jalovec, Sorosky, and Meltreger contend that they are absolutely immune from
liability for their participation in the IID investigation. In our earlier review of Sorosky's and
Meltreger's claims for absolute immunity, Hampton I, supra, we observed that the plaintiffs
essentially alleged that these defendants had engaged in "the deliberate preparation of perjured
testimony." Id. at 609 n. 9.31 We concluded that such conduct "clearly exceeded the scope of
their quasi-judicial immunity." Id.
170
Since our decision in Hampton I, however, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Imbler v.
Pachtman, supra. Applying that decision, we recently held that prosecutors who with local police
allegedly destroyed and falsified a line-up report and police tapes of incoming phone calls, were
protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity. Heidelberg v. Hammer, 577 F.2d 429, 432 (7th
Cir. 1978). The actions of Jalovec, Sorosky, and Meltreger at the IID investigation constituted
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 305
No. 53of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
34 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
failure to prevent conduct which was essentially indistinguishable from the prosecutorial activity
encapsulated in the allegations in Heidelberg. Thus, we are compelled to conclude that Jalovec,
Sorosky, and Meltreger are absolutely immune from liability for their actions at this hearing.
B. Federal Defendants: Absolute Immunity
171
The federal defendants, Johnson, Piper, Mitchell, and O'Neal, seek absolute or at least qualified
official immunity for their allegedly illegal actions. They rely on Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79
S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959), as the basis for their claim to absolute immunity. But as we
noted earlier, Supra at p. 632, the Supreme Court recently explained that Barr does not afford
protection to a federal official who has exceeded an express statutory or constitutional limitation
on his authority. "(A) federal official may not with impunity ignore the limitations which the
controlling law has placed on his powers." Butz, supra, 438 U.S. at 489, 98 S.Ct. at 2902.
Plaintiffs have presented considerable evidence to support their allegations that the federal
defendants violated both constitutional and statutory limitations on their authority. Thus, the
absolute immunity granted to federal officials pursuant to Barr does not apply to the federal
defendants in this case.
172
Butz made clear that federal officials should receive no more judicial protection from liability for
violating an individual's civil rights than their state counterparts. The Court stated:
173
. . . in the absence of congressional direction to the contrary, there is no basis for according to
federal officials a higher degree of immunity from liability when sued for a constitutional
infringement as authorized by Bivens than is accorded state officials when sued for the identical
violation under 1983.
174
Id. 438 U.S. at 500, 98 S.Ct. at 2907.32 It must be remembered, though, that while Butz
concluded that federal officials exercising discretion generally are protected only by qualified
immunity for their official actions, there are "exceptional situations" where "absolute immunity is
essential for the conduct of public business." Id. 438 U.S. at 507, 98 S.Ct. at 2911. The situation
of these federal defendants is not exceptional. They were, according to their own
characterizations, law enforcement officials investigating potential wrongdoing. It is a firmly
established rule that such activity by state law enforcement officials warrants only qualified
immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). And as the
Supreme Court observed in Butz : "We see no sense . . . in distinguishing between state and
federal police participating in the same investigation." Butz, supra, 438 U.S. at 500, 98 S.Ct. at
2908. Thus we conclude that the federal defendants in this case are not absolutely immune from
liability for their actions and are protected only by the doctrine of qualified official immunity.
C. Qualified Immunity
175
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 306
No. 54of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
35 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
The test for applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to a given defendant was most recently
restated by the Supreme Court in Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 54 L.Ed.2d
24 (1978). See also Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975);
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). The Court in Procunier
described the two circumstances in which an official ordinarily insulated by qualified immunity
would be exposed to section 1983 liability. First, the Court said:
176
(T)he immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly
infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or
should have known of that right, and if they knew or should have known that their conduct
violated the constitutional norm.
177
Procunier, supra, 434 U.S. at 562, 98 S.Ct. at 860. See Wood, supra, 420 U.S. at 322, 95 S.Ct.
992. Alternatively, the Court stated that qualified immunity is not available
178
where the official has acted with "malicious intention" to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional
right or to cause him "other injury." This part of the rule speaks of "intentional injury,"
contemplating that the actor intends the consequences of his conduct. See Restatement
(Second) of Torts 8A (1965).
179
Procunier, supra, 434 U.S. at 566, 98 S.Ct. at 862.
180
The allegations of plaintiffs in this case clearly complain of official misconduct which is outside
the ambit of the doctrine of qualified immunity. If plaintiffs prove their case against the
defendants, the doctrine of qualified immunity will not thwart recovery of damages. The rights
which plaintiffs contend that defendants have violated are clearly established. Plaintiffs have
presented evidence which could suggest that the defendants both as part of a conspiracy and
individually violated, among others, their clearly established First,33 Fourth,34 and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.35 And defendants have not shown as a matter of law that they should not
have known either that these rights existed or that their alleged conduct violated them. See
Procunier, supra, 434 U.S. at 562, 98 S.Ct. 855. Thus, we hold that the question whether
defendants reasonably believed that their conduct did not violate a constitutional right, given the
evidence presented at trial, should have been submitted to the jury.36
181
In summary, Hanrahan's decision to file criminal charges against the survivors, his presentation
of evidence to the grand jury, and his eventual decision to drop these charges, are absolutely
immune from civil liability under the Imbler doctrine. Similarly, the activities of Jalovec, Sorosky,
and Meltreger at the IID hearing are absolutely immune. All the remaining activities of the
defendants in this controversy are protected only by a qualified immunity, and a determination of
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 307
No. 55of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
36 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
whether their actions satisfy the conditions for this defense must await the retrial.
VII. VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT
182
The police officers who went to 2337 West Monroe Street on December 4, 1969 were acting
pursuant to a warrant issued by a Cook County circuit judge. The warrant was supported by an
affidavit in which Groth stated that a reliable informant had provided information that illegal
weapons were present in the Monroe Street apartment. Groth's complaint for the search warrant
further stated that Jalovec told Groth that he too had a conversation with a reliable informant who
told him that illegal weapons were stored in the apartment.
183
The plaintiffs seek disclosure of the identity of Groth's informant.37 The plaintiffs contend that
only disclosure of the identity of Groth's informant if, in fact, one exists will permit a full inquiry
into whether probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant. If Groth did not have an
informant, or his informant did not provide the information contained in the affidavit, or the
informant was unreliable, the validity of the warrant would be in jeopardy and plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment violation claims would be strengthened.38 Further, plaintiffs contend that the search
warrant was merely a pretext for the raid and that misrepresentations in the affidavit would
constitute evidence of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the plaintiffs. If Groth did not
receive the information contained in his affidavit from a reliable informant, this contention would
be strengthened.
184
In his complaint for the search warrant, Groth stated that his informant had been inside the
Hampton apartment on December 1 and had seen illegal weapons. The complaint also stated
that this informant had provided reliable information which led to two prior, successful raids for
illegal weapons and information which led to several convictions. At his deposition five years
later, Groth said that this informant had told him about illegal weapons, persons who frequented
the apartment, and the layout of the apartment. When asked about the informant's identity and
reliability, however, Groth refused to elaborate further upon the information contained in the
affidavit, saying that to do so would endanger the lives of other persons.
185
At trial Groth persisted in his refusal to answer questions which related to the identity of the
informant. Plaintiffs moved to compel his testimony. The trial judge then held a private, In
camera, off-the-record meeting with Groth in which he asked him only one question the identity
of his informant. Groth refused to answer, saying that he would maintain his silence even if it
would lead to "consequences" for him. On the record the court repeated the question and
received the same answer. The court then denied plaintiffs' motion to compel Groth's testimony.
186
The trial court did not permit the development of a record on the questions of Groth's credibility
regarding the existence and reliability of his informant and the danger the informant might be
subjected to if his identity were disclosed. The court concluded that the reliability of Groth's
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 308
No. 56of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
37 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
informant was established by the results of the raid and, therefore, inquiry into his identity was
irrelevant. At the end of trial, the judge refused to give instructions to the jury which would have
allowed it to decide whether the informant existed and whether information about the informant
was relevant to the conspiracy and Fourth Amendment claims of plaintiffs.
187
Since Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), it has been
clear that the so-called informer's privilege (the privilege that protects the identity of a person
which otherwise would be required to be disclosed during the course of litigation) is not
absolute.39 In Roviaro the Court said, "Where the disclosure of an informer's identity . . . is
relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a
cause, the privilege must give way." Id. at 60-61, 77 S.Ct. at 628. The Court went on to explain
the test to be applied to determine when disclosure is required:
188
We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls
for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right
to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must
depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime
charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other
relevant factors.
189
The Roviaro test has been applied in the context of civil litigation in a variety of cases, See e. g.,
Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 565 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1977) Cert. denied, 436 U.S.
962, 98 S.Ct. 3082, 57 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1978); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. City of Burlington, 122
U.S.App.D.C. 65, 351 F.2d 762 (1965), and we see no reason to depart from this
well-established rule. The language employed by the Court in Roviaro encompasses civil
litigation as well as criminal litigation, and the competing interests underlying the privilege and its
exceptions are essentially the same in both contexts.40 See Westinghouse, supra, 122
U.S.App.D.C. at 72, 351 F.2d at 769. As the Westinghouse court concluded, "The Roviaro
balance should be struck in each case, civil and criminal, in deciding whether disclosure 'is
essential to a fair determination of a cause.' 353 U.S. at 61, 77 S.Ct. at 628." Id. And in striking
this balance, the court should examine the "relevance" of the informer's information to "possible
defenses,"41 the "possible significance" of the information, and "the seriousness of the litigation."
Id. 122 U.S.App.D.C. at 74, 351 F.2d at 771.
190
The trial judge never attempted to apply the Roviaro balancing test or to determine whether
disclosure was essential to a fair determination of plaintiffs' cause of action. The judge, in fact,
resisted plaintiffs' efforts to develop a record on these issues. Ordinarily, we would remand the
disclosure issue to the trial court for adjudication under the appropriate legal standards. In this
case, however, enough evidence relevant to the validity of Groth's assertion of informer's
privilege has been amassed throughout the trial to make such a remand unnecessary.
191
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 309
No. 57of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
38 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
A considerable amount of evidence was introduced leading to the conclusion that either Groth
did not have an informant and merely repeated information he had received from Jalovec in the
affidavit for the warrant or that O'Neal was Groth's informant as well as the ultimate source for
Jalovec's information. First, Groth had no record of payments to his informant since, according to
Groth, the informant's information was provided for advancement in other areas. Groth never
elaborated what these incentives were. Further, the similarity of the content and the timing of the
information received by Jalovec and Groth is striking: Each said that on December 2 his
informant told him about the weapons, inhabitants and visitors to the apartment, the apartment's
layout, and the BPP meeting on December 3. And while, as the state defendants correctly
indicate, this could mean simply that the reports provided by two different sources were
corroborated, the fact that each report was similarly incorrect about the number of sawed-off
shotguns in the apartment casts doubt on this explanation. Groth's destruction of all the
information he received from his informant, including the floorplan he allegedly constructed
based on his informant's description of the apartment, also undermines Groth's claim that he had
an independent source. More importantly, Jalovec asked Mitchell after the raid if he cared
whether it was disclosed that he was "the source" for the information leading to the raid. And
both Piper and Mitchell sent memoranda to the FBI in Washington which said that O'Neal was
the only source for the preraid information about the weapons and the apartment.42
192
A determination that Groth's informant did not exist would have significant ramifications for
plaintiffs' case. The warrant used to gain entry to the apartment would be supported only by the
misrepresented, triple hearsay Groth received from Jalovec, and Groth's own perjured statement.
Perhaps more importantly, such a conclusion would bolster plaintiffs' conspiracy claims. It would
be powerful evidence of Groth's bad faith vis-a-vis plaintiffs. And it would highlight the importance
of the federal defendants in the alleged conspiracy. If O'Neal was the only eyewitness informant
able to provide the crucial pre-raid information about the apartment, there could be no question
that he and his conduit to the state defendants, Mitchell, were indispensable to the entire
operation.
193
Even if Groth did have an informant, disclosure of his identity would be important to a resolution
of the case since that informant might be a critical figure in the conspiracy alleged by plaintiffs. If
O'Neal, who was being paid for his work by the federal defendants, was also the informant Groth
relied on in his affidavit, plaintiffs would have additional evidence of the federal involvement in the
raid itself. Further, the person described by Groth as his informant according to Groth a member
of the BPP could be a coconspirator. Groth said that his informant asked when he was going to
"move on the crib," and provided information about the weapons when told that the presence of
weapons in the apartment would precipitate a raid. Also, as a member of the BPP, Groth's
informant may have been in the apartment or at least with Hampton the night before the raid an
important fact given the testimonial and scientific evidence introduced by plaintiffs suggesting
that Hampton had been drugged prior to the raid.
194
Disclosure of Groth's informant's identity is "essential to a fair determination" of this case.

Roviaro, supra, 353 U.S. at 61, 77 S.Ct. 623. The plaintiffs' request for disclosure is based
neither on mere speculation about the informant's identity, See United States v. Prueitt, 540 F.2d
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 310
No. 58of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
39 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
995 (9th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1063, 97 S.Ct. 790, 50 L.Ed.2d 780 (1977), nor on a
desire to extract punitive damages from an additional defendant. See Black v. Sheraton Corp. of
America, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 564 F.2d 550 (1977). We are mindful of "the public interest in
protecting the flow of information," Roviaro, supra, 353 U.S. at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 629, but we also
are aware of the need to maintain the integrity of and confidence in the criminal justice system.
The assertion of informer's privilege by a law enforcement official defending against a civil suit for
damages based on his own alleged official misconduct should be scrutinized closely.
195
This case, in which plaintiffs have alleged gross misconduct by federal and state law
enforcement officials and have presented serious evidence to support these claims, is of
paramount significance. There is a serious factual controversy focusing on the existence or
identity of Groth's informant, and a resolution of this controversy is essential to a just adjudication
of plaintiffs' claims. Thus, we conclude that the public's interest in encouraging the flow of
information to law enforcement officials cannot prevail in this case, and that Groth must disclose
the identity of his informant. In order to minimize both the risks to this particular informant and
any adverse effects on law enforcement generally, we suggest that the appropriate parties move
at the retrial for a protective order to set the terms of this disclosure.
VIII. CHALLENGED DISCOVERY RULINGS
196
Even though the judgments for the defendants must be vacated and the cause remanded for a
new trial because of the trial judge's errors in directing verdicts for the defendants, we deem it
necessary to discuss a separate issue: the delaying and obstructive tactics of the federal
defendants and their counsel in matters of discovery. To demonstrate the importance of the delay
and its crippling effect on plaintiffs' case, a full summary must be undertaken. Only for the sake of
brevity do we refrain from reciting all the details.
A. Pre-Trial Discovery
197
In March 1974 a subpoena duces tecum was issued for FBI Agent Roy Mitchell's deposition
calling for all information furnished by O'Neal on plaintiffs and the BPP from 1968 through 1970.
In April 1974 thirty-four documents were turned over by the defendants. By affidavit the FBI
represented that these were the only ones within the scope of the subpoena. Government
counsel affirmed this in open court.
198
In July 1974 a subpoena duces tecum was served on Marlin Johnson for FBI files on plaintiffs
and the BPP. No documents were produced, and Johnson refused to answer questions on
deposition about the FBI's counterintelligence program and the federal grand jury proceedings.
199
In the latter part of 1974 plaintiffs subpoenaed FBI Agent Robert Piper and the Special Agent-
in-Charge of the Chicago FBI office, Richard Held, for depositions duces tecum. No documents
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 311
No. 59of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
40 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
were furnished. Assistant United States Attorney Arnold Kanter informed the court that he had
reviewed the FBI files and found the thirty-four documents already furnished were the only ones
that were relevant. Piper refused to answer deposition questions on matters such as the
counterintelligence program, wiretaps, and informants.
200
In response to the Held subpoena, Government counsel, in February 1975, delivered a packet of
counterintelligence documents to the trial judge for an In camera inspection on the representation
that the documents were "irrelevant." Over plaintiffs' protest the judge examined the documents
before plaintiffs could be heard on the propriety of the submission. The judge ruled that the
counterintelligence information which he had examined In camera was "irrelevant and
immaterial." Later it was discovered that among the documents submitted were the Jeff Fort "hit
letter;" a memo which applauded the December 4, 1969 raid as a counterintelligence
achievement; documents which showed O'Neal to be implementing counterintelligence
operations and acting as a provocateur; and a directive from the FBI headquarters in Washington
which called for measures to "cripple" the BPP.
201
In March 1975 the trial judge entered an order at plaintiffs' request requiring the production of
documents that contained information relating to plaintiffs or the raid. In June 1975 plaintiffs
received 193 documents in response to this order.
202
The FBI witnesses continued to refuse to answer any questions on deposition that related to their
counterintelligence activities on the BPP. In August 1975 plaintiffs renewed their attempts to
subpoena documents from the FBI files. Government counsel resisted and made representations
to the effect that plaintiffs had received all pertinent documentary material. The subpoena was
denied by the trial judge. Three additional attempts made by plaintiffs prior to trial brought similar
results. In fact, the last effort to obtain relevant documents was denied by the judge before
Government counsel filed their response.
B. Trial Discovery
203
When the trial started in January 1976 plaintiffs had received over 200 extensively excised
documents from the FBI. On the opening day of trial, plaintiffs issued trial subpoenas on Held,
Mitchell, Piper, and Johnson calling for relevant counterintelligence documents. After the jury was
selected, the judge admitted that he had made a "mistake" in allowing the federal defendants to
determine the relevancy of the documents. He thereupon ordered the complete O'Neal and
plaintiffs' files maintained by the FBI to be turned over to plaintiffs as well as the
counterintelligence documents which plaintiffs had previously sought. In response to the order,
Government counsel turned over approximately 100 documents which contained many deletions.
Hearings were held to determine the propriety of the deletions. The court sustained all deletions
which did not mention the BPP directly.
204
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 312
No. 60of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
41 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
On February 2 plaintiffs moved to reopen discovery in order to depose the FBI defendants and
other agents. Three days later plaintiffs again issued a trial subpoena on Held, this time
requesting certain documents relating to the case, including those concerning the Racial Matters
Squad and payments to O'Neal. Government counsel moved to quash the subpoena and
Assistant United States Attorney Kanter represented to the court that the plaintiffs would be
furnished the entire O'Neal file, including all information concerning payments to him. On
February 26 the FBI completed its turnover of the O'Neal documentary material, and again it was
represented that this constituted the complete file.
205
At a later date Mitchell was called to the stand. Prior to his testimony, plaintiffs asked for a
hearing to review the Government's deletions in certain documents which had been furnished.
During the hearings relevant documents which had not been produced were discovered to exist
in the Government's files. Moreover, after Mitchell took the stand he volunteered certain
information allegedly supplied by O'Neal that was not contained in any document which had
been produced by the Government. The court ordered Mitchell to search for the document.
Kanter again represented that the complete O'Neal file had been furnished. While Mitchell was
still on the stand, he reported that he had found the document in a FBI file relating to a BPP
member who lived in Rockford, Illinois. Mitchell conceded that the document should have been
placed in the Hampton or O'Neal files but that it had not been located there. Plaintiffs then moved
for the complete Hampton and O'Neal files to be brought into open court. The court granted the
request. Although Kanter admitted that the O'Neal documents were indeed located in the
Hampton and O'Neal files, he excused the nonproduction as an oversight.
206
Despite the court's order, Kanter produced only one volume of the O'Neal file. Thereupon the
judge ordered that the entire files on Hampton, O'Neal, the plaintiffs, and the BPP be brought into
the courtroom. The Government responded that there were 135 volumes of files which
responded to the court's order. The next morning the Government produced nearly 200 volumes
of files in open court. Although acknowledging that the documents should have been produced
earlier, the judge stated that he deemed it a mistake or negligence on the part of the FBI in failing
to comply with his order. He informed the jury that they were to "blame him" rather than the
parties or their attorneys. Plaintiffs moved for sanctions, including holding the Government
attorneys in contempt. The judge refused to hear the motions, indicating that he would defer any
hearings until after the trial. The judge, however, said that he would allow plaintiffs to recall the
federal defendants to the witness stand in order to examine them on documents which plaintiffs
did not have at the time of the witnesses' examinations.43 Plaintiffs asked that the trial be
suspended until all the documents had been produced. The judge denied the request.
207
On April 8, three months after the trial began, Government counsel completed the turnover to
plaintiffs of the twelve volumes of Hampton files and sixteen volumes of O'Neal files. One of the
O'Neal files contained a document written by Piper claiming FBI credit for the December 4 raid
and asking that the FBI pay a bonus to O'Neal for his furnishing the floorplan of the apartment
and setting up the raid. At that point the Government's entire turnover consisted of fifty volumes
of documents, of which plaintiffs had received about six percent before Mitchell's inadvertent
reference to the O'Neal document.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 313
No. 61of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
42 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
208
On April 16, 1976 the FBI revealed to the court and plaintiffs' counsel the existence of 45
additional files in its possession pertaining to the case. On May 6 the Government furnished two
volumes of documents relating to plaintiffs. Among these documents were instructions from the
FBI's headquarters in Washington "to destroy what the BPP stood for," to engage informants in
thefts of BPP records and documents, to escalate actions against the Panther Breakfast Program
for Children and other similar activities, and to combat the adverse publicity of the December 4
raid. Many of these instructions had Piper's and Johnson's initials on them.
209
On May 11, 1976, four months into the trial, the court ordered the production of other FBI files,
including the balance of its counterintelligence program file. In response the Government
furnished thirteen additional files. These included three volumes of counterintelligence, three
volumes relating to federal grand jury proceedings, two volumes relating to the Breakfast
Program, and one volume concerning the June 4, 1969 search of the BPP headquarters. In
these files were counterintelligence documents which called for the destruction of the Breakfast
Program and for the use of local police to harass the BPP for possession of guns. Many of these
documents were approved by Johnson, Piper, and Mitchell. On June 14, 1976 the Government
furnished the plaintiffs two more volumes of documents; these related to wiretaps on the BPP.
210
On June 30, 1976 the court finally denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its February 26 order
which quashed the second Held trial subpoena duces tecum. The court also denied plaintiffs'
request for production of other files relating to the case, finding that their production would be
duplicative of the files already produced. The court also found that the Government's deletions
and withholdings were proper.
211
It is clear that federal defendants, Johnson, Piper, and Mitchell, and their counsel, rather than
promptly furnishing relevant documents as requested, deliberately impeded discovery and
actively obstructed the judicial process, thus denying plaintiffs the fair trial to which they were
entitled.44 Regrettably, the trial judge permitted these tactics. Moreover, he repeatedly
exonerated the federal defendants for their derelictions. Instead of applying sanctions on these
defendants and their counsel, the court assessed costs against plaintiffs in excess of $26,000 for
the Government's time in reproducing the documents which were finally furnished to plaintiffs
only under the orders of the court.
212
If there were any doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence when considered under the
applicable standard constituting a jury question on liability, the delay of the federal defendants in
meeting their obligations to produce relevant documentary material would supply a basis for an
inference that plaintiffs were unable to present all the available evidence and thus were denied
the opportunity to prove their case. On retrial the court should consider plaintiffs' contention that
they ultimately were denied full discovery. Moreover, sanctions should be imposed, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), against the federal defendants and counsel representing them at the first
trial for repeatedly disobeying court orders to produce documentary material.45
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 314
No. 62of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
43 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
IX. DISMISSAL OF BREWER'S DIVERSITY COUNTS
213
The state defendants challenge the appealability of the trial court's dismissal of Counts 15, 16,
and 17 of the amended complaint. Plaintiff Verlina Brewer originally filed a separate complaint
against the state defendants, including the City of Chicago and Cook County, Illinois. The
complaint alleged common law torts of assault and battery, false imprisonment, and malicious
prosecution. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 1332. In the
consolidated amended complaint the three counts of the original complaint became Counts 15,
16, and 17, respectively.
214
Prior to trial, state defendants moved to dismiss the Brewer counts for lack of diversity or, in the
alternative, to sever them for trial. The district court granted severance, and took under
advisement the dismissal aspect of the motion. At the conclusion of trial and after the state
defendants had again moved to dismiss the Brewer counts, the district court on June 30, 1977
filed an order which read in pertinent part:
215
For the reasons set forth in the State defendants' original motion, their recent motion and in the
arguments of counsel for the State defendants and based upon the entire record of this case, the
court finds that said counts 15, 16 and 17 should be dismissed.
216
The actual dismissal order was entered July 1, 1977.
217
Prior to the events just described, the district court on April 15, 1977 granted motions for directed
verdicts in favor of all defendants except the seven shooters. Later, on June 20, 1977, the court
granted directed verdicts in favor of these seven and entered judgment for all the defendants on
the basis of the directed verdicts. The court's order reads:
218
It is Ordered and Adjudged that the Court finds as a matter of law that the plaintiffs and each of
them have failed to sustain their burden of proof on the issues of each and every count remaining
in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, accordingly the defendants' motion for a directed verdict in
favor of each and every defendant and against each and every plaintiff is granted and judgment
is entered herein together with costs against each and every plaintiff and in favor of each and
every defendant.
219
On June 22, 1977 plaintiffs, including Brewer, filed a notice of appeal from the orders of April 15,
1977 and June 20, 1977.
220
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 315
No. 63of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
44 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
It is apparent from this sequence of events that the notice of appeal filed June 22, 1977 did not
encompass the dismissal of Counts 15, 16, and 17 which occurred on July 1, 1977. No notice of
appeal was filed with respect to these specific counts. Brewer's argument is that this defect in the
notice of appeal should not be fatal because an intent to appeal the district court's ruling
regarding her common law counts can be implied. The argument is unpersuasive. Although
courts generally have held that an error in designating the judgment appealed from is not per se
fatal if an intent to appeal from a specific judgment can be inferred, Daily Mirror, Inc. v. New York
News, Inc., 533 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862, 97 S.Ct. 166, 50 L.Ed.2d 140
(1976), that rule has no application here. Because of the severance, the judgment for the
defendants based on the directed verdicts did not affect the viability of Brewer's common law
counts. Therefore no inference of inclusion in the only notice of appeal can be made.
221
Accordingly, the dismissal of the Brewer common law counts is not properly before us.
X. ATTORNEYS' FEES
222
Plaintiffs seek, in addition to a reversal of the district court judgments and a remand for a new
trial, an award of attorneys' fees for "their efforts to date." The request is based on the Civil
Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 (the Act), Pub.L. No. 94-559 (Oct. 19, 1976), codified
in42 U.S.C. 1988. We grant the request for an award of attorneys' fees for their appellate work,
but hold that plaintiffs presently are not eligible to receive an award for their trial endeavors.
Section 1988 as amended reads:
223
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986
of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United
States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
224
This court has recently held in Davis v. Murphy, 587 F.2d 362 (7th Cir. 1978), that the Act permits
a prevailing plaintiff on appeal to receive fees for appellate work. Accordingly, we have the
discretion to award a reasonable fee to plaintiffs as part of their appellate costs unless special
circumstances render such recovery unjust. Fed.R.App.P. 39. See also Wharton v. Knefel, 562
F.2d 550 (8th Cir. 1977). A review of the record fails to disclose any special circumstances which
would render an award inequitable.46 No affidavits have been submitted by plaintiffs, however, to
support their request. Therefore, plaintiffs should submit to this Court a statement of the fees
requested supported by any relevant material and in affidavit form. Defendants shall be afforded
an opportunity to respond. Employing the standard expressed in Johnson v. Georgia Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), factors bearing on the amount of the award will
include
225
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question presented; (3) the
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 316
No. 64of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
45 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
skill required to perform the legal services; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the
attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the
fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by client or circumstances; (8) the amount
involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10)
the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
client; (12) awards in similar cases.
226
Id. at 717-19, as cited in King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1026-27 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied,
438 U.S. 916, 98 S.Ct. 3146, 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978).
227
Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for their trial work. The language of the Act precludes an
award to the unsuccessful party in a civil rights trial. In the case at bar, plaintiffs were not "the
prevailing party" at the trial level and therefore are not permitted to receive fees for that effort
under section 1988. In light of our decision today, however, we hold that if plaintiffs ultimately
prevail, the district court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees for the district court phase of the
case preceding this appeal in addition to any further attorneys' fees the trial court may deem
appropriate after retrial.
XI. CONTEMPT JUDGMENTS
228
In separate appeals Jeffrey H. Haas and G. Flint Taylor, attorneys for plaintiffs, asked that the
contempt judgments entered against them be reversed. These appeals have been consolidated
with the main appeal. In order to appraise fully these contempt matters, it is necessary to present
the facts in detail.
TAYLOR
229
In the last days of October 1976 plaintiffs called Robert Zimmers, the FBI firearms expert, as a
witness. On November 1, while Zimmers was on the stand, the following took place:
230
Mr. Haas (attorney for plaintiffs): I now show you what I will mark as RZ51 and ask you what type
of weapon is this, sir?
231
Mr. Zimmers: A double-barrelled Stevens shotgun, which bears serial number 43312 . . . .
232
Mr. Haas: Could we have a stipulation, your Honor, that this weapon was taken on the raid by
George Jones?
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 317
No. 65of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
46 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
233
Mr. Witkowski (attorney for defendants): Yes.
234
The Court: So stipulated . . . Let the record show that counsel has so agreed.
235
Mr. Witkowski: Yes, your Honor.
236
Several days later Haas again presented the Jones shotgun to Zimmers on the witness stand.
237
Mr. Haas: And is that the item, RZ51, the double standard sawed-off shotgun which we have
shown you earlier, sir?
238
Mr. Zimmers: . . . Yes, this is the one.
239
Mr. Haas: And it has been stipulated that this is the weapon that was carried by Officer Jones on
the raid of December 4, 1969.
240
At that point defense counsel objected. The judge said he would hear the objection outside the
presence of the jury. Attorney John P. Coghlan, defense counsel, then argued that the
defendants had never entered into a stipulation using the word "raid." He accused Haas of a
"deliberate, wilful and intentional attempt to prejudice the jury." Haas said that his statement
about the stipulation was accurate. At that point Taylor asked for a recess so that the transcript
could be inspected. The judge denied the request.
241
When the jury returned to the courtroom, the judge announced: "Mr. Haas has deliberately and
wilfully misread a statement. I direct you (Haas) to read that statement, that stipulation,
corrected." Haas said he had stated the stipulation correctly. The judge then asked Coghlan to
"state the stipulation correctly." Coghlan extemporized:
242
Mr. Coghlan: The stipulation is that the weapon that was shown to the witness was one of the
weapons carried by the officers serving a search warrant at 2337 W. Monroe.
243
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 318
No. 66of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
47 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
The Court: Now that is it . . . .
244
During the next two days plaintiffs' counsel repeated their requests on several occasions to
review the court's transcript because they had none of their own. Finally, on November 10, the
judge permitted the inspection.
245
The next day plaintiffs' counsel presented a motion to "Correct Prejudicial Remarks Made by the
Court to the Jury and For Mistrial," supported by the transcript showing Haas' statement was not
a misrepresentation. The judge summarily said he was taking the motion under advisement, and
gave defense counsel ten days to respond. Haas argued that the prejudice should be cured as
soon as possible. The judge refused to reconsider. At that point counsel for plaintiffs returned to
their table flinging down their papers. Taylor's hand struck a pitcher of water on the table. The
pitcher slid along the table top and fell to the floor near the jury box. The glass lining broke and
water spilled on the rug. All of this took place while the court was in recess and the jury out of the
courtroom. The transcript reads as follows:The Court: I have entered my order.
246
Now, there is one juror who has not arrived yet. We will now recess until
247
All right. Let the record show the conduct of both counsel in throwing papers around and one of
them what is it that is broken over there?
248
Mr. Coghlan: Sir, there is broken a glass water pitcher.
249
The Court: All right. Mr. Taylor, you did that, and you are now held in contempt of court, and the
Court now orders you committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a
period of 24 hours, and orders the Marshal to take you into custody forthwith.
250
Mr. Taylor: May I be heard, your Honor?
251
The Court: No, sir.
252
Mr. Taylor: I have the right to speak before I am summarily sentenced, and I want to say
253
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 319
No. 67of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
48 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
The Marshal: This court will stand in recess.
254
After a brief recess, the trial resumed. The judge ordered that the pitcher and debris be left
before the jury box. Haas made several requests to be heard out of the presence of the jury
concerning the incident. The requests were denied. The judge, however, did grant a request of
Special Corporation Counsel Camillo F. Volini that Volini's photographer take pictures of the
broken pitcher. Although the judge refused to permit the press to take photographs, he told Volini
that "they (the press) may have a copy of the picture that is taken." He also told defense counsel
to have the press "pay you whatever it costs," if they desired a copy.
255
After the incident, an attorney appeared on behalf of Taylor and attempted to be heard. The
judge refused the request telling the attorney to return later in the day. Near the close of the
afternoon session, the judge, without hearing argument on behalf of Taylor, entered the following
order:
256
The Court finds that a motion was made by counsel for plaintiffs herein, and the Court ordered
counsel for defendants to answer the same within 10 days. Both Jeffrey Haas and G. Flint Taylor,
two of the attorneys for plaintiffs, demanded an oral hearing, which the Court denied.
Immediately after the Court refused to hear them orally, Attorney G. Flint Taylor, In a fit of anger,
threw paper, books and other objects on the table for counsel, including a decanter with an inside
glass lining, which was broken. Water and glass were sprayed over the floor in front of the jury
box. Present in the Court were a number of spectators and representatives of the press.
257
The Court finds that such action was a contemptuous and constituted willful and deliberate
contempt of this Court in its presence at 10:30 a. m., November 11, 1976. The Court does hereby
find Attorney G. Flint Taylor in contempt of Court, and does hereby order and direct that he be
and is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period
of 24 hours, ending at 10:35 a. m. on November 12, 1976.
258
The Court further orders and directs the United States Marshal to immediately execute this order
and take Attorney G. Flint Taylor into custody forthwith.
259
The judge immediately amended the order by substituting the words "in the presence of the
Court" for "in a fit of anger." He also commuted the time to be served.
HAAS
260
On February 22, 1977 Hanrahan was recalled as a witness after a four-day interval during which
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 320
No. 68of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
49 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Treviranus had testified regarding the federal grand jury investigation. Treviranus identified a
memo he had written which outlined the arrangement between Hanrahan and Assistant Attorney
General Leonard whereby the raiders would not be indicted by the grand jury and Hanrahan
would terminate the prosecution in the state court against the survivors of the raid. The court had
deferred a request to introduce the document while Johnson and Treviranus were under
examination. With Hanrahan back on the stand the transcript reads:
261
Mr. Haas: Sir, were you present at a meeting with Marlin Johnson in late March or early April of
1970 in which he indicated that there would be no indictments of police officers or yourself?
262
Mr. Hanrahan: No, sir.
263
Q: Well now, didn't Mr. Hanrahan, didn't you tell the Federal prosecutors on or about April 8 that
you were going to drop the indictments against the occupants of the apartment?
264
A: My recollection is that on the second date that I appeared before the Grand Jury I indicated
that they would review the indictments that are pending and probably dismiss them.
265
Q: You are referring to May 5th of 1970?
266
A: I am referring to the second occasion that I appeared before the Federal Grand Jury. It was
early in the year and I believe it was in May.
267
Q: But prior to that you had entered an agreement with the Federal prosecutors to drop the
charges, had you not?
268
A: No, sir.
269
Q: And hadn't you told them that the reason that
270
Defense counsel Volini objected and asked for a hearing outside the presence of the jury. After
the jury had left the courtroom, Volini asked that Haas be instructed to cease asking questions
concerning the agreement and that the jury be "instructed to disregard it." Arnold Kanter, counsel
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 321
No. 69of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
50 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
for the defendants, asserted that Haas should be denied the opportunity to ask more questions
concerning such agreements because the witness had already asserted there were none. The
judge did not rule on these motions, nor did he wait to hear from plaintiffs' counsel. He called the
jury back and said, "The last question is stricken. You will disregard it." Haas then resumed his
questioning of Hanrahan:
271
Mr. Haas: Mr. Hanrahan, do you know how it was that Leonard Treviranus knew on April 8th that
the Grand Jury
272
Mr. Kanter: Objection.
The Court: Now, Mr. Haas
273
Mr. Haas: Wait a minute.
274
The Court: we just got through out of the presence of the jury. You will not go into that subject
matter any further.
275
Mr. Haas: I didn't even get to argue it. Well, Judge, the deal
276
The Court: I said you will not go into it any further.
277
Mr. Haas: Judge, we can't cover up the coverup.
278
Mr. Witkowski (attorney for defendants): Your Honor
279
Mr. Haas: That is part of our complaint, that they covered up, Judge.
Mr. Coghlan: If the court please
280
The Court: Mr. Haas, you are now held in contempt of court for the last remark directed to the
Court, and I will prepare an order accordingly.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 322
No. 70of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
51 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Mr. Taylor: May the jury be excused
281
The Court: The Court will take a recess, and we will prepare an order holding you in contempt.
282
Mr. Haas: All right, Judge. I think all the people who have spoken the truth have always ended up
in contempt, and the coverup goes on and on and on.
283
Mr. Taylor: And Mr. Treviranus testified on Friday, Judge.
284
The Court: I will hold you in contempt and I will now turn you over to the custody
285
Mr. Haas: O.K., Judge.
286
The Court: of the U. S. Marshal for contempt, and hold you in custody until tomorrow morning at
9:00 o'clock.
Mr. Haas: All right, Judge, I would just
287
Mr. Taylor: There is a document right here that says there was
288
The Court: Court now stands in recess.
289
Haas was taken into custody by the United States Marshal and ordered held until the following
morning. An order was entered by the judge that day finding that Haas' "statements and actions
in the presence of the Court are serious and that it resulted in the obstruction of the
administration of justice . . . ." The judge referred to no specific language, but did recite "certain
statements in open court in the presence of the jury as set forth in the transcript of the Court
proceedings certified by the court reporter and attached hereto made a part hereof." The court
denied a motion for appeal bond, and Haas remained in jail until the next morning. On the
following day the judge reversed his ruling and heard extensive testimony from Hanrahan about
the alleged arrangement.
290
Unquestionably, a court has the power to punish summarily contemptuous conduct which occurs
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 323
No. 71of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
52 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
in the presence, sight, or hearing of a presiding judge. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302-04, 9
S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888). For example, that the contumacious refusal of a witness to testify,
"may so directly obstruct a court in the performance of its duty as to justify punishment for
contempt is so well settled as to need only statement." Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 382, 39
S.Ct. 337, 339, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919).
291
The power of a federal court to punish immediately and summarily for "direct contempt" is
codified in 18 U.S.C. 401 which provides that:
292
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion,
such contempt of its authority, and none other, as
293
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration
of justice . . . .
294
The Supreme Court, commenting on this statute in In re McConnell, 370 U.S. 230, 233-34, 82
S.Ct. 1288, 1291, 8 L.Ed.2d 434 (1962), explained that this provision was enacted by Congress
"in order to correct serious abuses of the summary contempt power that had grown up . . .
revealing 'a Congressional intent to safeguard Constitutional procedures by limiting courts . . . to
"the least possible power adequate to the end proposed." ' " The Court in McConnell then
defined the issue:
295
Thus the question in this case comes down to whether it can "clearly be shown" on this record
that the petitioner's statements while attempting to make his offers of proof actually obstructed
the district judge in "the performance of judicial duty."
296
Id. at 234, 82 S.Ct. at 1291.
297
In the case before us, paraphrasing the above-quoted language, the question comes down to
whether it can "clearly be shown" on the record that the respective conduct of Haas and Taylor
actually obstructed the district judge in the "performance of judicial duty." We are convinced that
their conduct cannot be so characterized.
298
The Taylor episode must be viewed against the background of the events leading up to it: The
trial judge's erroneous accusation before the jury that Haas had deliberately and wilfully misread
the statement about the stipulation; the judge's repeated denials to permit the inspection of the
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 324
No. 72of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
53 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
court's transcript for verification that Haas had not "misread the statement"; the judge's refusal to
correct the record immediately, but in lieu thereof giving the defendants ten days to respond.
These combined circumstances apparently caused Taylor to reach the "breaking point" of his
patience and forbearance. We also must take into consideration that the episode occurred while
the court was recessed, and that the judge permitted the fallen pitcher and broken glass to
remain on the floor after the jury returned to the courtroom.
299
While we do not intend to condone Taylor's gesture of anger, we are convinced, in the words of
Judge Duffy in his dissent in McConnell, ". . . there was no interference with the conduct of the
trial. There was no obstruction in the administration of justice." Parmelee Transp. Co. v. Keeshin,
294 F.2d 310, 318 (7th Cir. 1961). And the Supreme Court agreed with Judge Duffy's appraisal in
that case.
300
What we have said about Taylor's complained-of conduct applies to Haas' conduct as well. Haas
was held in contempt for saying "we can't cover up the coverup." After saying this, he tried to
explain: "That is part of our complaint, that they covered up, Judge." The judge, however, took
the remark as personally directed at him. In the context of what had happened before, the judge,
in our opinion, had no reason to interpret the remark in that manner, and should have given Haas
the benefit of every doubt. This court's statement in In re Dellinger is pertinent:
301
While McConnell cannot be read as an immunization for all conduct undertaken by an attorney in
good faith representation of his client, it does require that attorneys be given great latitude in the
area of vigorous advocacy. Appellate courts must ensure that trial judges (or the jury on remand)
are not left free to manipulate the balance between vigorous advocacy and obstructions so as to
chill effective advocacy when deciding lawyer contempts. Admittedly, the line defies strict
delineation (Goldfarb, The Contempt Power, 172 (1971)), but by our resolving doubts in favor of
advocacy, an independent and unintimidated bar can be maintained while actual obstruction is
dealt with appropriately.
302
Attorneys have a right to be persistent, vociferous, contentious, and imposing, even to the point
of appearing obnoxious, when acting on their client's behalf. An attorney may with impunity take
full advantage of the range of conduct that our adversary system allows.
303
461 F.2d 389, 398, 400 (7th Cir. 1972). Accordingly, we find that the contempt citations are
unwarranted when considered in their factual setting.
XII. CONCLUSION
304
The contempt judgments are reversed. In addition, the directed verdicts are reversed and the
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 325
No. 73of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
54 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
judgments of dismissal vacated, except for the claims against Purtell, Koludrovic, Sorosky, and
Meltreger and all but the section 1986 claims against Ervanian and Kukowinski. The judgments
of dismissal with respect to these claims are affirmed. The judgments for costs against plaintiffs
are reversed. Costs on appeal and attorneys' fees are awarded to plaintiffs against all
nonprevailing defendants.
305
The cause is remanded to the district court for a new trial. As an administrative matter, the district
court is directed to reassign this case under the provisions of Circuit Rule 18 and, because of its
age, to direct the judge to whom it is assigned to give the retrial high priority.
306
FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, concurring.
307
I concur in the opinion written by Judge Swygert except as qualified by the following
observations.
308
I agree that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and drawing all
reasonable inferences in their favor, a jury verdict for them on one or more theories of liability
could be sustained. I am sure that no more is meant by the frequent references in the opinion to
a "prima facie" case. Because so much depends upon the fact-finder's choice among inferences,
there was never any stage of this case (with the possible exception of the case against the
shooters) at which the evidence compelled a verdict for plaintiffs unless rebutted.
309
I have some problem in analyzing the impact on plaintiffs' case of the several possible findings
with respect to a conspiracy. The main objective of plaintiffs appears to be recovery of damages
arising from the events of the raid. Undeniably there was loss of life, loss of liberty (including
bodily injury), and invasion of privacy. The 1983 claim for those damages must rest upon
establishing that life and liberty were taken without due process of law in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment (or that privacy was invaded in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments). If the search warrant was valid and if the force used was not excessive under the
circumstances, that 1983 claim (and any corresponding 1985(3) claim) must fail.
310
I agree that the jury could properly find a conspiracy by federal and state defendants to discredit
and hamper BPP in its political activity and thus impair First Amendment rights. But it would not
follow, without more, that the search, if found to be unconstitutional, or the use of force, if found
to be excessive, was within the objects of that conspiracy. The activity of the federal defendants
in surveillance of a group from whom violent, unlawful conduct was expected, and in informing
state officers of the floor plan and possession of weapons could be found to have been legitimate
activity and cooperation in law enforcement, and not wrongful acts pursuant to a conspiracy,
even though the jury also found a conspiracy to disrupt or discredit BPP politically. In my view,
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 326
No. 74of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
55 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
there could be no recovery of damages, arising from the raid, based solely on a conspiracy
theory, unless the jury was satisfied that the unlawful raid or the use of excessive force in
carrying out a lawful raid was within the objects of the conspiracy.
311
In the discussion of immunity, Judge Swygert suggests that certain defendants may be liable for
damages resulting from the generation of post-raid publicity misrepresenting the facts. Whatever
course may be followed on retrial with respect to such a claim, it seems clear that plaintiffs
cannot recover damages for injury to reputation, without more. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693,
712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).
312
I do not join in directing the imposition of sanctions under F.R.Civ.P. 37(b) (2), although I would
favor directing the district court to give consideration to doing so, on remand.
313
I would limit the holding that a prosecutor is not entitled to full immunity while performing
"investigative" functions to the investigative functions of the prosecutor defendants described in
this case.
314
PELL, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part, concurring in part.
315
It has been difficult for me to place this case in a proper perspective, but following the effort to do
so I am convinced that the opinion written by Judge Swygert reaches an incorrect result in a
substantial number of instances. Therefore while concurring in that opinion wherein it affirms the
district court's judgment and with regard to the reversal as to one group of defendants on one
issue, I otherwise respectfully dissent, all as set forth hereinafter.
316
The initial difficulty in acquiring a proper perspective, indeed any kind of an overall view, of the
case comes from the sheer volume of material it has generated. To begin with, the mass of
documents, which is what this court basically has to go on to make its decision, includes some
37,000 pages of evidence, plus exhibits which we can only view visually as a cold record but
which was presented audibly to the district court bit by bit, painstakingly and tediously, over the
approximate eighteen months that this civil case jury trial took. Next we have before us the
contentions of the parties in the so-called briefs, occupying more than 800 pages. At this point,
the accumulation of additional paper might appear to be drawing to a welcome close. There is
virtually no dispute as to the basic law applicable to the appellate treatment of directed verdicts.
At the risk of over-simplification, they are not favored by the law and the judgments based
thereon will be reversed when the evidence reflects that reasonable persons in a fair and
impartial exercise of their judgment may draw different conclusions therefrom. Thus it would
seem that if the 37,000 pages reasonably exhibited a basis for different conclusions, the resulting
decisional opinion, unless it were designed to serve some other purpose than its primary one of
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 327
No. 75of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
56 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
disposing of the case, could be of fairly short length. Alternatively, of course, if there is difficulty in
finding a solid base in the monumental record we have here for different conclusions under the
applicable law, the effort to reverse might necessarily achieve extensive proportions. In any
event, Judge Swygert's opinion has added to the bulk more than 125 typed pages.
317
The matter of a proper perspective is further made difficult by the diverse approaches of the
parties which I might have assumed before becoming involved in the case was to recover
monetary damages for claimed wrongs visited upon them by the state and federal defendants.
From my evaluation of their briefs and oral arguments, however, there is not this singleminded
pursuit. One group of plaintiffs, whom for convenience of reference I will call the Hampton
plaintiffs, consists of the Administratrix of the Fred Hampton estate, Hampton's girlfriend and the
mother of his posthumously born child, and two other persons. Of the four Hampton plaintiffs,
three were present in the apartment at the time the raid occurred and two of the three were
wounded. The fourth Hampton plaintiff is the personal representative of one of the two persons
killed in the raid.
318
While the compact original brief filed by the attorney for the Hampton plaintiffs does purport to
incorporate by reference most of the issues and supporting arguments advanced by the
remaining plaintiffs (with the exception of those dealing with the bias and prejudice of the trial
judge and his failure to recuse himself), this brief "relates to the directed verdict granted,
following the dismissal of the jury as distinguished from the (earlier) directed verdict regarding the
Federal and certain State defendants." While the reply brief of the Hampton plaintiffs does
advance some argument as to the conspiracy and liability vis-a-vis the federal defendants, it
appears abundantly clear to me that the prime thrust of the Hampton plaintiffs both in briefing
and oral argument is toward the most vulnerable underside of this litigation, the directed verdict
as to the defendant raiders who engaged in shooting in the apartment. This appears to me to be
a realistic evaluation of this civil damage case and one best designed to achieve the purpose of
the case, that of expeditiously collecting damages from claimed wrongdoers without undertaking
once again the agonizingly extended trial of extraneous political issues. I can only assume that
the Hampton plaintiffs' attorney is pursuing that which his clients most desire, compensation for
the wrong which they feel they suffered.
319
The remaining five plaintiffs, designated for convenience as the Anderson plaintiffs, includes the
Administratrix of the Estate of Mark Clark and two more of those who were wounded. While all of
these people no doubt will not spurn any recovery that might be made in their behalf, I come
away from an examination of this case with the distinct sensation that the Anderson plaintiffs'
lawyers, although equally willing for and desirous of a substantial money recovery, are fervently
bent on attempting to demonstrate the existence of a widespread and sinister conspiracy among
top law enforcement officials, state and federal, serving in the Chicago area in 1969, to kill Fred
Hampton and other functionaries of the Black Panther Party. Their wide-ranging and vociferous
charges indicate that the conspiracy was racially motivated to put down and destroy people
associated with a political movement. But, the tenor and scope of their assertions is best
illustrated by these quotations from their brief's Introduction and Statement of the Case:
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 328
No. 76of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
57 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
320
In response to this challenge to white supremacy, the F.B.I. mobilized to stop this political
movement. They implemented and refined illegal, unconstitutional counterintelligence tactics
designed to neutralize and destroy these organizations with special, violent emphasis on those
leaders and organizations such as the B.P.P. who sought the liberation of black people. This
program, implemented and run in Chicago by the F.B.I. Defendants, solicited and obtained the
willing assistance of State's Attorney EDWARD HANRAHAN who was himself anxious to gain
political prominence by exploiting racism. HANRAHAN and his special political police force, in
conspiracy with these F.B.I. Defendants, planned and executed the murderous December 4th
raid at the apartment of the Plaintiffs. . . . After Hampton and Mark Clark were killed, a
concentrated effort was launched by City, County and Federal officials to cover up both the true
nature of the political assassination as well as their involvement in it. They manipulated the
judicial system at every turn to accomplish this end. HANRAHAN used his power as State's
Attorney to falsely charge the survivors, and to prosecute them for six months to mask his
culpability and that of his police. Richard Nixon's Justice Department, in cooperation with the
F.B.I., used a Federal Grand Jury investigation to cover up the F.B.I. involvement in the raid and
subsequently entered into an agreement with HANRAHAN which saved him from indictment in
exchange for HANRAHAN's continued silence concerning the F.B.I. involvement. The Justice
Department then attempted to put the controversy to rest in the public eye by releasing a report
which was critical of both the police and the Panthers. . . . By the fall of 1975, pretrial discovery,
because of Defendants' obstructions, served little purpose except to frustrate the search for truth,
the Court's prejudice having similarly frustrated this search. . . . January 1976, the Plaintiffs went
to trial in front of a Judge determined to defeat their claims and with much of the evidence which
proved the F.B.I. Defendants' involvement in the raid still being concealed by the Defendants and
their attorneys. . . . After 15 months of treachery to the Plaintiffs' claims the District Court, four
days before the mayoral primary in which HANRAHAN was a candidate, directed verdicts for all
the Defendants except those seven raiders who admitted to firing their weapons at the
apartment. . . . Plaintiffs appeal, but they seek not only reversal of these grossly unfair and illegal
verdicts, but sanctions and fees against the parties and their attorneys who knowingly obstructed
justice in the Court below, and appropriate orders to assist them to finally obtain the discovery to
which they are entitled, and strong rebuke to the trial Court who completely abused his power,
trammelled the Constitution and nullified the Civil Rights Act.
321
Thus it seems although they are not charged as unindicted co-conspirators that the entire
officialdom of government from the President to the federal district judge were intent upon
bringing about the elimination of a small group of people who simply desired to achieve the
desirable and constitutionally required status of racial equality.
322
The Introduction and Statement of the Case of the Anderson plaintiffs' brief set the tone which
was followed through their 247 pages of overstated characterizations. Thus, initially, supposedly
by way of background they move on the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an endeavor to
demonstrate that the FBI's counterintelligence program insofar as it was directed toward the
Black Panther Party was a basis for a reasonable inference that FBI officials in reality were
conspiring to implement the program by resorting to homicide of the local Black Panther leader.
Conspicuously absent in the development is any reference to the fact that the program was
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 329
No. 77of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
58 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
directed toward an organization which had announced it would achieve its objectives by violent
means.
323
The intemperance of the Anderson plaintiffs' approach is particularly demonstrated in the some
75 or more pages devoted to denigrating the district court judge. Thus, typically:
324
. . . the Court, ignoring the merits of Plaintiffs' claim, denied the Motion "as not well taken." . . .
The Court refused to declare them hostile witnesses or allow them to be impeached or cross
examined by Plaintiffs' counsel. . . . The Court repeatedly refused to hear the motions, and
angrily postponed hearing the contempt and sanctions motions until after the trial. . . . the court
(in sustaining a specious objection by Defendant . . . the Court grasped at various straws in
attempting to justify his baseless and punitive ruling. . . . The Court's arbitrary refusal to allow
discovery concerning GROTH's alleged informant and his obstruction of meaningful cross-
examination. . . . The Court, in essence, scuttled the entire Plaintiffs' rebuttal case . . . . The
entire record demonstrates that the trial judge was not an impartial judge representing the
impersonal authority of the law, but was both an advocate from the bench for the Defendants'
cause, and an "activist seeking combat" with Plaintiffs' counsel . . . Despite this powerful
evidence of racism and prejudice against the Plaintiffs, the Court refused to allow lawyer voir
dire. . . . The Court tightly controlled the voir dire, and attempted to select a jury which he could
manipulate to agree with his view of the case and return a verdict for the Defendants . . . In stark
contrast to the treatment afforded the Plaintiffs and their evidence, the trial court aided the
Defendants and supported their cause throughout the trial, in its rulings and remarks from the
bench . . . unduly restricted questioning in key areas . . . using the pretext that they hadn't been
questioned with the sketch on direct . . . The Court, on its own added to the prejudicial
information imparted to the jury during the course of the trial. . . . He (the judge) repeatedly
threatened contempt in order to discourage Plaintiffs' right to be heard and to make a record. . . .
Defendants' lawyers were allowed almost free reign in the Courtroom. . . . Constant interruption
from the Bench, and frivolous objections from the Defense counsel (encouraged by the Court's
obvious attitudes) diluted the strength of Plaintiffs' evidence. The atmosphere of intimidation
generated from the bench made an effective presentation of the evidence against Defendants
difficult, if not impossible. The Court's arbitrary and ever-shifting rules made cross-examination of
Defendants a perilous task, with Summary Contempt lurking behind each question. Merely rising
to object was fraught with danger and likely to evoke a strong rebuke from the Court. Plaintiffs'
counsel were confronted with a hostile, powerful adversary in the District Court; the damage
inflicted on Plaintiffs as a result of the intimidation and belittlement of Plaintiffs' counsel by the
District Court of itself requires reversal. . . . Both in specific instances, and as a whole, the court's
charge to the jury revealed its bias in favor of the defendants, and constituted reversible error. . .
. He (the judge) used his judicial power as well as the resources and bullying of defense counsel
to harass and attack the Plaintiffs when they attempted to recuse him. (Footnotes omitted.)
325
I do not mean to suggest that the multi-page portions of the brief from which the above extracts
were taken is not replete with specific instances purporting to show the asserted unbridled bias
and prejudice of the trial judge. A close analysis of these supportive instances reflects, however,
that many of them pertained to rulings in evidentiary matters as to which the trial judge is
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 330
No. 78of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
59 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
accorded substantial discretion. Any trial lawyer of any competence is aware that he doesn't
prevail on every ruling of the court but that his failure to do so is no ground for a legitimate claim
of bias and prejudice. Such a lawyer also is sufficiently perceptive to realize the scope of the
judge's rulings and that to attempt another tack on the same forbidden subject may well occasion
a rebuke. Nevertheless, the Anderson plaintiffs' trial counsel pursued such a course and then
when rebuked claimed this to be another example of the unfairness of the judge. I find the claim
of unfair limitation of the presentation of their case to be virtually frivolous. A year and a half of
trial and 37,000 pages of testimony scarcely is supportive of a restrictive evidentiary limitation.
Nor can I find any real indication in this record that the ebullient trial counsel were intimidated by
the judge. In this circuit, voir dire of the jury is conducted by the trial judge. Yet in this civil case,
failing to get special treatment, the plaintiffs claim they were treated unfairly.
326
If there is merit in claims of incorrect judicial rulings, those rulings should speak for themselves in
requiring reversal and they do not need to be sandwiched in a desperate collage of conclusory
overstated characterizations. Even though it often might seem that heaping abuse on public
officials is now a favorite public pastime, it does appear to me that the proper place for this
steam-venting is other than in the area of appellate review. We have here the matter of the
propriety of directed verdicts. I should think that while hyperbolic and cynical character
castigations might create an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, even though unfounded, it
does not upon examination provide a case or controversy to go to a jury. I do not, I hasten to
add, mean to suggest that history has not recorded corrupt governments, or public officials who
have intentionally deprived citizens of those rights which are given to them by our constitution.
When, however, the charge is a broadside condemnation of the entire fabric of law enforcement
in a large metropolis, we at the very least ought to examine most carefully the underlying facts to
see if the charges are reasonably inferable or are nothing more than fanciful conjectures.
327
Chief Judge Fairchild observes in his concurring opinion that the main objective of the plaintiffs
appears to be the recovery of damages arising from the events of the raid. I agree with him
insofar as the Hampton plaintiffs are concerned but, as I have already indicated, it appears to me
that the Anderson plaintiffs have a secondary objective, indeed, one which may well be a primary
objective in view of their emphasis on it, and that is to use this litigation as an exposition ground
for political philosophy and the courtroom as a political forum. If law enforcement or other
government officials are demonstrated by evidence as having deprived citizens of their
constitutional rights and in the process of such litigation those officials get smeared with the
brush of villainy then it must be so; it is simply that I think the process should not go in reverse.
328
I regret to do so, but feel compelled in candor to add, that it appears to me that Judge Swygert's
opinion, although I would question whether it was so intended, lends aid and succor to the
political espousal objective of the Anderson plaintiffs. I come away from each reading of the
opinion, despite occasional references therein to the requirement that plaintiffs to recover must
prove their case to the trier of fact, with the feeling that the author of the opinion thinks that the
case has already been convincingly proven in many respects.
Thus, on a random basis, I note:
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 331
No. 79of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
60 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
329
Plaintiffs' prima facie case offers a number of constitutional deprivations to accompany their
conspiracy allegations . . . Plaintiffs' evidence in the instant case indicates that the federal and
state defendants share in instigating and preparing for the raid . . . The BPP was a black
organization with a distinct political ideology and a variety of politically-oriented programs. FBI
documents offered by plaintiffs demonstrate that certain FBI activities directed against the BPP
transcended mere "law enforcement." . . . Without the information the federal defendants
furnished the state defendants, the state defendants could not have acted in furtherance of the
purpose which plaintiffs contend the state and federal defendants share inflicting injury to the
BPP. . . . In granting the directed verdicts, the trial judge repeatedly usurped this (the jury's)
function. . . . Despite their awareness of conflicting stories, Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders
continued to circulate reports to justify the continuation of plaintiffs' detention. . . . The evidence
shows that a jury could find that Johnson's testimony before the grand jury was false and
misleading and concealed the involvement of FBI headquarters and the roles of Piper, Mitchell,
and O'Neal in the planning of the raid. . . . And during the pretrial discovery in this suit, the
federal defendants continued to engage in dilatory and obstructive tactics to conceal evidence of
their involvement in the planning of the raid. . . . His (Sadunas') examination resulted in a crucial
misidentification which would have remained uncorrected absent Zimmers' subsequent tests and
conclusions. . . .
330
Because of the high esteem in which I hold my brother Swygert, it is with considerable regret that
I feel compelled to observe that had I not had an acquaintanceship with the case as a member of
the panel prior to reading Judge Swygert's opinion I could, upon the completion of the lengthy
process of reading it, well have entertained the idea that the case involved a group of political
idealists who had been subjected to a cleverly orchestrated governmental persecution designed
not just to neutralize their effectiveness1 but to remove them from the American scene physically.
It is time, it seems to me, to look realistically at the group to which the local authorities directed
their activities pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant.
331
The state defendants have summarized from the record of this case the matters pertaining to the
Black Panther Party which undoubtedly engaged the attention of law enforcement agencies.
Because this factual information does not appear to be subject to challenge as to accuracy I note
some of the salient aspects thereof.
332
The Black Panther Party was a militant, black, extremist, paramilitary, uniformed organization
formed in Oakland, California in 1966. It was a violent, revolutionary organization, which by party
edict required its members to own and know how to use weapons and to have access to more
than one weapon. The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party proclaimed that a class
struggle in this country required the leadership of an armed revolutionary party, and that the
Black Panther Party was simultaneously a military organization and political organization with
leaders holding both military and political rank.
333
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 332
No. 80of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
61 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Black Panther publications called for killing policemen. The party's policy was that if at least one
shot was not fired by a member being arrested, then the party would not stand behind that
member. Black Panthers were called on to "revolt," "to arm themselves," to "dynamite," to "kill the
pigs everywhere," to "not dissent from American government, we will overthrow it," and were
admonished that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Black Panthers published a
"Destruction Kit" which described how to make and use incendiary bombs and other similar
devices.
334
Much emphasis is placed in the record on the social service to the community provided by the
Black Panther Party particularly with regard to their "Breakfast for Children Program." However,
the record also reflects that drawings were made on blackboards instructing children to "Kill the
Pigs." At these breakfasts there was distributed a "Black Panther Coloring Book" depicting in
cartoons pictures of children killing policemen. At one similar Black Panther Breakfast program
the children were given revolutionary posters entitled "Free Huey, In Revolution One Lives and
One Dies, and Off The Pig." A report concerning the FBI raid of Panther headquarters on
Madison Street on June 4, 1969 reflects that the material seized therein included posters which
advocated violent overthrow of the government, numerous weapons, both handguns and long
guns including stolen weapons, and press releases promoting Panther propaganda. The Black
Panther Publications during 1969 contained quotations of various of their leaders such as
335
Huey P. Newton When the people move for liberation, they must have the basic tool of liberation
the gun . . . The blood, sweat, tears and suffering of Black people are the foundation of the
wealth and power of the United States of America. We were forced to build America, and if
forced to we will tear it down. The immediate result of this destruction will be suffering and
bloodshed. But the end result will be perpetual peace for all mankind.
336
In one exhibit there appears a description of a "Plan for the Complete Breakdown of the State of
Illinois Power Structure." This plan documents the Panthers advocating the bombing and
destruction of buildings and public systems as well as the killing of government leaders.
337
There had been numerous shooting confrontations and clashes between the Black Panthers and
police prior to December 4, 1969, both nationally and locally. Several policemen had been
wounded and there had been shooting with Chicago police at the Black Panther Party
headquarters a block from the apartment in question on July 31, 1969, and October 4, 1969. On
November 13, 1969, two Chicago police officers were killed in a shootout with Spurgeon Jake
Winters. Winters was killed in the incident and seven other Chicago police officers were
wounded. The Black Panthers boasted of the killing of these police officers by Winters and
claimed Winters as a member.
338
Hampton's own propensities as a leader in the Black Panther Party were evident from his
proposal to murder a state trooper who was approaching his car stalled on a highway on a trip to
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 333
No. 81of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
62 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Rockford, his conviction by a jury for robbery in May 1969, his kidnapping and torturing of a party
member who is accused of stealing a Panther weapon, his use of weapons during a shootout of
the Panthers with the Blackstone Rangers in Robbins, Illinois, and his often-quoted statement, "If
you kill one pig, you get a little satisfaction, if you kill some more pigs you get more satisfaction, if
you kill all the pigs, you get complete satisfaction." Others of the plaintiffs who were at the
apartment in question had criminal records and all had familiarity with handling firearms.
339
Finally, on the matter of the Black Panthers being a political party it must be remembered that the
nine people who occupied this relatively small apartment on the morning in question were in the
midst of a private arsenal consisting of 19 unregistered weapons, including 12 shotguns and
rifles, among which were a stolen Chicago Police Department riot gun and 2 sawed-off shotguns,
7 handguns and several hundred rounds of ammunition. The occupants were not without
knowledge in the use of the weapons and were members of an organization that advocated use
of the weapons when a confrontation with police was involved.
340
This brings me to a final difficulty in placing this case in a proper perspective and that is the role
of martyrdom in which many now regard Hampton and Clark. Irrespective of whether that shroud
of martyrdom is misconceived, I cannot imagine that prior to December 4, 1969, this
posthumously acquired respectability would have been accorded by many persons, either black
or white, other than those subscribing to ochlocracy even though many persons, both black and
white supported the goal of equal recognition and treatment for black people. The emotionalism
of the plaintiffs' sinister conspiracy presentation should not obliterate the fact that there were
ample grounds for regarding Hampton and those in the apartment with him as law violators.
341
Perhaps this is not in keeping with the time in which we live, but I cannot believe simply because
a minority group, even one composed of people who have been rather consistently repressed
and denied equal treatment before the law, calls itself a political party and espouses a
commendable purpose, that there is created some sort of an irrebuttable presumption that it is
above the law, or that it can accomplish its goals by violence or other illegal means.
342
In saying the above I am not ignoring the fact that in our system of jurisprudence every law
violator is guaranteed the full scale of rights provided for by law, including the constitution,
statutes, and case law. I am simply endeavoring to put this case into the perspective in which it
clearly was viewed by law enforcement officials in 1969, that there was a group of people who
were dangerous to the law-abiding citizens of the community. Also, this case concerns itself with
the Black Panther Party as it existed and functioned in 1969 and what its subsequent direction or
conduct may have been is immaterial.
343
Turning then to my views on the disposition of the various components of this case, as I have
already indicated, I concur in the relatively limited portions of Judge Swygert's opinion in which
the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 334
No. 82of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
63 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
344
Judge Swygert's opinion directs that sanctions should be imposed, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(b)(2), against the federal defendants and counsel representing them at the first trial for
repeatedly disobeying court orders to produce documentary material. I do not agree with the
premise. This was a trial in which the judge told the jury on the first day that it would last many
weeks, "possibly as much as three months," but which in fact continued some six times that long.
The district judge was on a day-by-day basis aware of the extreme difficulties of complying with
the every-nook-and-cranny discovery demands of the plaintiffs, was in an excellent position to
gauge the good faith of the defense efforts to comply with those orders, and also knew that these
government files were not at the beck and call of former employees, were monumental in nature,
contained much information not pertinent to the present lawsuit but which involved national
security and which in any event was duplicative of that which had already been furnished. I
cannot believe that this respected trial judge, who for the most part patiently continued presiding
over a trial that was stretching beyond the wildest preliminary estimates, would have, in the
words of Judge Swygert, "repeatedly exonerated the federal defendants," if in his position to
observe there had been reason to support Judge Swygert's basis for sanctions that the federal
defendants, other than O'Neal and their counsel "deliberately impeded discovery and actively
obstructed the judicial process." It flies in the face of reason to think that the judge would not
have reacted promptly to any defense obstructionist tactics which were further lengthening the
time of this tediously long trial.
345
For these reasons I would see no necessity for the imposition of sanctions. Nevertheless,
because the case is going back and so that the mandate of this court is clear, I will join Chief
Judge Fairchild with regard to a direction to the district court to giving consideration to the matter,
rather than requiring it to impose sanctions.
346
There is one other matter not mentioned in Judge Swygert's opinion to which the district judge on
remand might properly give some attention. As one reads Judge Swygert's summary of the
seventeen counts of the amended complaint, of which twelve will remain viable as to most
defendants on remand, it seems rather obvious that the plaintiffs were fractionalizing what was at
most five basic issues, possibly following the school of thought that a shotgun charge is more
likely to hit something than would a rifle bullet. The federal jurisdictional issues, four in number,
as I see them, allegedly arise from (1) the raid, (2) the conspiracy concerning the raid, (3) the
post-raid activities of obstruction and malicious prosecution, and (4) the conspiracy regarding the
post-raid activities. All of these have the common underpinning of claimed violations of
constitutional rights and the post-Civil War civil rights statutes. The fifth issue would concern the
pendent state jurisdictional claims.
347
It is true that Rule 8(e)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., permits the statement of separate counts which here
would seem to be utilized to the maximum. On the other hand, it would seem to me that the new
trial judge pursuant to Rule 16 could use pre-trial procedure to good effect to accomplish a
fundamental simplification of the issues as an aid to the jury's comprehension of what was
involved. Although Rule 16 speaks of the pre-trial order limiting the issues for trial to those not
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 335
No. 83of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
64 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel, "it has been pointed out that that is an
understatement, since the pre-trial judge does not merely eliminate uncontroversial issues but
also formulates the remaining issues to show the real contentions of the parties." (Footnote
omitted.) 3 Moore's Federal Practice P 16.18 at 1129 (1978). As another text has stated, "Rule
16 calls for a pretrial conference, which can produce a pretrial order that supersedes the
pleadings, . . . ." 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1189 at 28 (1969).
348
Perhaps a simplification of the issues would also help avoid a repeat performance of the same
length.
349
Turning then to the various issues as applicable to the various defendants, I will first treat the
situation as to the remaining thirteen policemen and their liability herein insofar as the raid is
concerned. It appears necessary here to consider separately the actual activity of the raid and
the conspiracy and likewise consider separately the shooters and nonshooters. In my opinion a
directed verdict was proper on all aspects of the raid itself and the conspiracy as to the
nonshooters and as to the conspiracy with regard to the shooters with the possible exception of
Groth.
350
Relying on Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972), Judge Swygert's opinion holds that the
directed verdicts in favor of the nonshooters regarding their activities in the raid were improperly
granted by the trial court. As indicated, I disagree. The holding of impropriety is based upon the
factual premise that the nonshooters were in the apartment at the time the occupants were being
mistreated and did nothing to protect them. In my view, there is no need to reach the Byrd
question as there appears to me to be a complete lack of proof of the factual premise stated
above. The Hampton plaintiffs' brief does not touch at all upon this matter. The Anderson
plaintiffs' brief in its argument portion, relying upon a case of gross negligence, stated with regard
to the nonshooters only the following, "Similarly culpable is the conduct of the raiders who did
nothing to stop the use of excessive force, or the beating and mistreatment which followed. See
Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972)." In the Summary of Evidence portion of their brief,
after describing in two paragraphs, with frequent transcript citations, the mistreatment of the
occupants following the shooting, the brief then contained the following which is the first
reference to the presence of the nonshooters:
351
All 14 raiding police officers were present inside the apartment during the beatings and abuse,
participated in them and did nothing to try to stop them. FRED HAMPTON was still lying
unattended on the floor in the dining room. All 14 police officers then ransacked the apartment,
turning beds and dressers over and emptying their contents throughout the apartment, and
destroying and mutilating evidence of what had occurred. (Pl # 553 PL. 410 1SSGJ84-5) All 14
police officers saw FRED HAMPTON lying on the floor with blood coming from his head, but
none did anything to try to determine if he was alive and could be helped. At no time did any of
the officers seek to determine the nature of Plaintiffs' injuries, or to assist or protect them in any
way.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 336
No. 84of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
65 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
352
There is no reference at all to any portion of the transcript of the evidence with regard to any
nonshooter officer even being in the apartment. The only two citations at all to the record are to
Plaintiffs' Exhibits 553 and 410. Exhibit 553 is a photograph showing no people but showing
drawers out of a dresser, clothing on the floor, and beds turned over. Exhibit 410 is a partial
transcript of testimony by nonshooter defendant Lynwood Harris. Three of the pages, 77, 78, and
203 appear to be from a deposition of Harris and the balance of the pages are from his
appearance before the grand jury at the time Barnabas Sears was appearing as the special
prosecutor. This exhibit is somewhat difficult to read because of its disjointed nature, it being only
a part of a complete transcript. The exhibit was 33 pages of the grand jury testimony but the first
page of the exhibit is numbered 57 and the last 157. It is clear, however, that it contains no
evidence of any of the outside nonshooters going into the apartment immediately following the
shooting. Harris apparently did go in at some later time when the firearms were being laid out on
a mattress. At the time of the shooting he heard the noise of the shots. When asked what
happened next after he heard the second round of shooting, Harris, Who was not in uniform at
the raid, responded:
353
Well, actually from that point on, I was really concerned with myself because cars were beginning
to arrive in response to the policeman's call. And I was concerned in letting those officers arriving
know that I was a police officer standing here. And this was a constant cry by me, police officer.
354
While Harris subsequently was asked "who else was there other than the fourteen State's
Attorney's Police Officers, when you got back to the apartment?" he mentioned officers from
other units, a photographer, an evidence technician and other officers making sketches. The
question does not, of course, confine the 14 officers to the inside or outside of the apartment and
obviously, in any event, the time referred to is obviously after the occupants had been removed
when Lynwood Harris, himself, was helping by carrying out some of the firearms. When the
raiders went inside, it was understandable in this neighborhood that others would be posted
outside to prevent interference with the operation. The continuance of that guard duty clearly
would have become more important after the actual shooting. In sum, I find no basis for even an
inference that the nonshooters were inside when any occupant of the apartment was allegedly
mistreated, and certainly not to support the inference suggested in Judge Swygert's opinion that
they "callously chose to watch."
355
I must assume that the plaintiffs' counsel have advised us of all of their record support for their
assertion that all fourteen officers were inside and certainly this court is under no duty to search
37,000 pages of transcripts plus voluminous documents to see if there is some other reference to
any of the nonshooters being present in the apartment before the occupants had been
removed.2
356
Even if we were to assume arguendo that some of the nonshooters were present when an
occupant was mistreated, on the record we have here, I would not find Byrd applicable. That
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 337
No. 85of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
66 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
case on which I was a member of the panel, and the opinion of which was authored by Judge
Swygert, reversed a judgment based upon a directed verdict which reversal was predicated upon
the fact that the jury could have found nonfeasance, either negligent or intentional, on the part of
officers of a particularly egregious nature. In the later case of Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d 565
(7th Cir. 1976), negligence was eliminated from the picture. In that case, the plaintiff relied upon
Byrd, and in the en banc opinion written by Judge Cummings, Judge Swygert dissenting, the
significance of Byrd was circumscribed to "purposeful nonfeasance." Id. at 568. "Thus
defendants' failure to act in Byrd can be properly characterized as 'intentional.' " Id. at 569. I find
absolutely no basis for a viable claim of proof of purposeful nonfeasance on the part of the
nonshooters.
357
As to the conspiracy count pertaining to the raid insofar as the nonshooters are concerned, even
if we were to assume that the sinister conspiracy with the object of using excessive force and
killing some of the occupants existed among the federal defendants and the higher-ups of the
state defendants, I find no basis for saying that the nonshooters, and indeed the shooters with
the possible exception of Groth, were a part of the conspiracy. If there had been such a
conspiracy, these men, five of whom including three of the shooters being black, were not doing
anything except pursuing the often unhappy lot of a policeman of carrying out orders of
superiors. Lynwood Harris, for example, found out he was to go on a raid when he left work the
evening before. He reported at 3:45 a. m. and he along with the others was given an assignment
by Groth. They were simply carrying out their duty of serving a judicially issued search warrant. If
subsequent to learning that this might be a very dangerous assignment involving a local leader of
the Black Panther Party, while it might not be surprising if those entering the premises
overreacted in view of the knowledge that they were entering as "pigs," some of their colleagues
having been allegedly killed by a Black Panther Party member, the fact of the subsequent
overreaction would not bear upon the existence of a conspiracy on their part.
358
At this point, it is appropriate to refer to one point of emphasis both on the part of the plaintiffs
and in Judge Swygert's opinion with regard to the existence of a conspiracy and this is applicable
to all of the defendants who are charged with conspiracy in connection with the raid. That point
was that Groth planned the raid for 4:00 a. m. and there was no discussion of the use of tear gas,
sound equipment, bull horns, or of any equipment besides guns; and that there was no
discussion of alternative ways of gaining entry to the apartment, including telephoning the
occupants.
359
To anyone with a realistic regard to the circumstances existing at the time it might seem
unnecessary to point our the foolishness of these various proposed alternatives if the purpose of
serving a particular warrant was to search for and seize an arsenal of illegal weapons in a
probably unfriendly neighborhood and to arrest those who were found to be possessors of those
weapons. Nevertheless, because the nature of the raid has been given significance, it is
necessary to analyze the existing situation.
360
In settling upon the early morning hour as the appropriate time for making the raid, Groth, as the
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 338
No. 86of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
67 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
commanding officer of the group, complied with Illinois law which provided that a search warrant
may be served at any time of the day or night. 108-13, Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 38 (1969). As the state
defendants point out the key factor in that decision was to surprise the occupants while hopefully
they would be asleep, thus avoiding, if possible, any use of force or resistance, and that the
possessors of those illegal weapons would most likely be present subject to arrest at the early
morning hour. The apartment was located in a residential area and police arriving in any force at
the scene during a daylight hour, even during working time, would attract a crowd and in the
event of any shooting the lives of nearby citizens would be in danger.
361
The police had a right to anticipate the possibility that the guns in the apartment might be used
against them particularly in view of the well-known attitude of the Black Panther Party on the
subject of the dispensability of policemen.
362
As the Supreme Court stated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1881, 20 L.Ed.2d
889 (1968):
363
Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in their
performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and
every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and
thousands more are wounded.
364
One of the occupants, Anderson, indeed said that he was searching trying to find his shotgun
which he had loaded before going to bed with deer slugs and .00 shells and the pistol which he
had loaded and placed between the beds, but he could not find them because there was
shooting although he would have used them had he found them.
365
To have gone to the apartment in the early evening of December 3 might well have attracted
reinforcements from the Panther Party headquarters only a short distance away. During daylight
hours snipers could reasonably be anticipated from the buildings in the area. To have brought
equipment such as bullhorns or to have telephoned the occupants or to have thrown strong
searchlights on the apartment and ordered the occupants to come out could have reasonably
been anticipated to precipitate a battle royal. The use of tear gas at this point might have been
appropriate if the battle royal had policemen shooting from the outside and Black Panther Party
members shooting from the inside. To have used it as an initial matter, however, would have
given the real possibility of other types of damage to the occupants. Expert testimony in this trial
was that tear gas should be avoided in residential districts such as this one. Further, it is noted
that gas masks were reported to be stored at the apartment which would have been effective
against the use of tear gas by the police. A telephoning or other type of communication would
only have given the occupants time to set up their counter-attack and the time to fire the
weapons which the plaintiffs contend were never fired. To have used bullhorns, spotlights, or loud
speakers in this residential area would have only exacerbated the situation by attracting crowds
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 339
No. 87of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
68 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
and thereby exposing more persons to a potentially dangerous situation.
366
One only has to recall the gun battle occurring when the police were involved with the
Symbionese Liberation Army in Los Angeles a few years ago to realize that the police chose a
wise and prudent course in attempting to serve their warrant by way of surprise when the
purpose of seizing the weapons could be accomplished with the least likelihood of harm to
anyone. As to why this did not go as planned will ultimately apparently have to be determined by
a jury but there seems to be little dispute that someone fired a shot and thereafter the shooting
inside the apartment occurred rapidly. All of this, however, does not negative the fact that the
timing and manner of the raid was prudently planned as opposed to all alternatives and the
timing of the raid and carrying of the weapons are, in my opinion, no evidence whatsoever of the
existence of a conspiracy.
367
Turning next to the shooters, what I have said with regard to the conspiracy as to the raid itself is
applicable to them with, as I have previously indicated, the possible exception of Groth. If there
was such a sinister conspiracy, or putting it in the context of this case, if there was evidence in
the case sufficient to require the conspiracy-raid issue to go to the jury, then the jury should also
have the opportunity of deciding whether he was a party to the conspiracy. As will be indicated
hereinafter I do not think there was a jury issue developed.
368
With regard to the non-conspiracy raid activity case against the shooters, the state defendants'
brief presents a persuasive case to the effect that these officers who were acting pursuant to a
judicial warrant did not fire a weapon until there had been firing at them. It seems fairly certain
that some of the officers who went in, negligently thought that the occupants were firing at them
and thereupon returned the fire. This could well result in a jury verdict for some of the shooting
officers and against others. Insofar as the case before us is concerned, however, there is
testimony from which a jury could reasonably find that the shooters overreacted and used
excessive force. See Davis v. Freels, 583 F.2d 337 (7th Cir. 1978). Where evidence is to be
weighed, that is not the function of this court but that of the trial court trier of fact. I think the
district judge, although understandably satiated with this long drawn-out trial which was not going
to come to a final decision because of a hung jury, mistakenly directed a verdict on the raid issue
as to the shooting officers.
369
Going next to the conspiracy-raid issue as to the remaining state defendants and the federal
defendants, I cannot agree that there was a basis for reasonable inferences that there was any
kind of an agreement among them, express or implicit, to cause a raid to be made with the object
of killing or wounding various Black Panther Party members. It is true that at the time in question,
the federal authorities thought it would be in the public good to neutralize the Black Panther Party
so that it could not carry out its avowed purpose, among others, of killing policemen. Indeed, the
idea perhaps could have been entertained by some, if not all, of those defendants who were
engaged in law enforcement work that the community would be a safer place for law-abiding
citizens to live and work in if Fred Hampton and his cohorts were not on the scene. This human
feeling is far removed from a basis for an inference that they deliberately set a course to
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 340
No. 88of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
69 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
accomplish that by violence.
370
In our jurisprudence a person cannot be convicted of a traffic offense unless proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though the present case is of the civil variety, I cannot believe
that the law should permit a determination that any person has deliberately planned a homicide
on nothing more than speculative conjecture or mere suspicion. The hard basic reasonable
inference-creating facts just did not exist in this case.
371
What I have said about the conspiracy-raid is also applicable to the non-conspiracy counts
concerning the planning and participation in the raid by the federal defendants and the state
defendants. The shooters, as I have previously indicated, remain in the case not because they
planned a raid with the objective of attempted homicide, but because of the excessive force
question. As I have stated previously I do not regard the carrying of the firearms or the time and
manner of the raid as being the basis of an inference of a plan to use excessive force.
372
An aspect that is directly involved in the result of the decision in this appeal is, in my opinion, a
potentially disastrous curtailment on necessary exchanges of information between law
enforcement and agencies. The rising need for effective law enforcement cannot but be
substantially chilled if there should be the prospect of becoming a defendant in a suit for
monetary damages whenever information concerning law violations is communicated by one
agency or official to another agency or official having primary jurisdiction over the crime.
373
At this point in the preparation of this dissent, I have become confronted with an increasingly
compelling necessity to turn to other cases of this court with which I am concerned, many of
which have statutory priority over this civil case, notwithstanding Judge Swygert's concluding
admonition that upon remand this case should be given "high priority." I have not requested, nor
have I been given, a respite from a full calendar of sitting accompanied as that must be by the
necessity of preparing opinions or orders on at least one-third of the cases on which I have sat.
Therefore, while not doing so happily because of my belief that sending virtually the complete
case back for another extended trial constitutes a miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the
federal judicial facilities, I will endeavor simply to outline as briefly as possible my remaining
observations on this case.3
374
1. Post-raid prosecutorial matters. An initial difficulty for the plaintiffs here is that the occupants
were in possession of illegal firearms and were subject to prosecution. In any event, under Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), most of the post-raid direct
prosecutorial activities of the state's attorney and his assistants provided to them absolute
immunity from civil liability. It is true that the Imbler Court expressly left open the question of
whether absolute immunity extended to a prosecutor in the role of an administrator or
investigative officer rather than an advocate. Here charges were being made following the raid
that the police and Hanrahan were guilty of murder and genocide. Demonstrations occurred and
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 341
No. 89of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
70 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
there was tension in the community. Under these circumstances it appears to me to have been
well within the prosecutorial authority and duty of this public official charged with the enforcement
of the criminal law in his county to take the steps that he did in defense of the system of law
administration. Hanrahan's concept of this duty was thus stated:
375
I had a public responsibility as the chief prosecuting officer in Cook County to do everything
possible to preserve the peace and to prevent an outbreak of violence. I saw that coming as a
result of what I described as the press orgy, the accusations of murder and unlawful conduct, and
I did not feel that there had been clear and accurate reporting of the accounts given by the
officers.
376
Vociferous denunciations of the police conduct by those supporting the Panthers, as an

aftermath of the raid does not mean that Hanrahan was not entitled to believe those who were
involved in the law enforcement activities of the county. It appears to be a frequent practice today
when steps are taken to enforce the law that the one charged attempts to divert attention from
his own malfeasance by asserting that his constitutional rights have been violated.
377
The involvement here in public statements and media publicity was of a far less egregious nature
than that which has been involved in cases of absolute immunity where prosecutors were
engaged directly in the prosecutorial process. The conduct here was so intimately interrelated
with the prosecutorial process that it should have the same protection. As the Court pointed out
in Imbler, at 425, 96 S.Ct. at 992, "Frequently acting under serious constraints of time and even
information, a prosecutor inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims
of constitutional deprivation." That is what has happened here in my opinion, and, again quoting
the Court, at 426, 96 S.Ct. at 993, "The affording of only a qualified immunity to the prosecutor
also could have an adverse effect upon the functioning of the criminal justice system." In the
present case, the counterattack to the publicity was for the purpose of avoiding such an adverse
effect.
378
It is the state authorities who prosecute, and irrespective of whether the federal defendants may
have thought prosecution was proper, I fail to see a jury case of malicious prosecution against
them. One, of course, does not have to be in the prosecutor's office to be chargeable with
malicious prosecution but he should have some connection with bringing about the wrongful
prosecution more than just thinking that the defendant should be prosecuted.
379
2. Claimed obstructionism. Under my view the matter of the raid would only remain in litigation as
to the shooters. Without the issue of conspiracy as to the raid, the post-hoc claimed acts of
obstructionism, upon which the Anderson plaintiffs particularly rely, have not been, it seems to
me, demonstrated to have harmed the plaintiffs. As Chief Judge Fairchild has pointed out in his
concurrence, it seems clear that plaintiffs cannot recover damages for injury to reputation,
without more. If the defendants have engaged in the obstruction of justice or perjury the criminal
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 342
No. 90of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
71 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
courts not this civil suit are the proper place for their consideration.
380
Indeed, the history of criminal proceedings in the area with which we are concerned during the
past decade testifies to the fact that high office or powerful position does not provide a shield
against successful prosecution for violations of the law.
381
I find it almost incredible that Sadunas, who made a mistake in identifying one of many guns he
examined from which a shell had been fired, is being left in the case. This is particularly true
because he is paying a penalty for honesty by promptly acknowledging his mistake when he
made a reexamination and because this is not a case of a rifle or pistol cartridge where the rifling
in the barrel gives a much more distinctive basis for identification than in the shotgun shell casing
here involved.
382
Other charges of obstructionism upon which the plaintiffs rely amount to nothing more than
nonfeasance, or failure to act.
383
Again, the fragmentation of the complaints creates difficulties. These matters are all interrelated
and when they are viewed in the light of a nonsupportable claim of conspiracy as to the raid, the
prosecutorial immunity, the nonexistence of claims based upon mere negligence, the existence
of law violations in the illegal possession of firearms and the fact that the plaintiffs who were
offered an opportunity to appear and participate in the post-raid investigations declined to do so, I
find no merit in the claim that the charged obstructionism was the basis for an action against the
defendants.
384
3. Groth's informant. I must confess that I fail to comprehend the considerable emphasis given to
this matter. I have no idea whether Groth did or did not have his own informant; but I cannot
agree with Judge Swygert's conclusion that the lack of or unreliability of the informant, or the
furnishing of incorrect information by the informant, would, on the facts of this case, place the
search warrant in any serious jeopardy. I do know that a knowledgeable and reliable informant
known to be such to a law officer provided information which was passed through a reliable chain
of law enforcement officers into an application for a search warrant and the information so
furnished was correct. And it was on this judicially issued search warrant that the police officers
acted as they had to do.
385
At one point in their brief, the Anderson plaintiffs say they are seeking to learn the identity of the
informant in order to "try and find" evidence of illegality. Mere speculation or suspicion that an
informant might be of some assistance should not be sufficient to overcome the public interest in
the protection of an informant's identity.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 343
No. 91of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
72 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
386
The matter of protecting the identity of a confidential informant, in my opinion, is one of extreme
importance in law enforcement. Perhaps if this were the best of all worlds, spying would not be
tolerated because there would be no place for it. The said fact, however, is that this is not the
best of all worlds and crime, whether it is caused by poverty, economic inequality, psychological
maladjustment, or other causes for which society may be responsible, does continue to exist,
and at the present moment appears in no way to be declining. Particularly with regard to those
who have consciously embarked upon a criminal career, one of the most effective ways of
learning of their activities and curtailing them is through the use of confidential informants.
387
I would let the matter rest upon the determination of Judge Perry, who had the opportunity to see
and evaluate Groth's credibility. The fact that Groth declined to reveal the informant's identity to
Judge Perry in camera is a strong indication of the truth of his assertion that the informant's life
would be endangered by his identification. O'Neal's identity could be revealed even though his
usefulness as an informant was thereby ended because he was no longer associated with the
Black Panther Party. There is ample basis for belief that if Groth's informant were still in such an
association he would be in a position of retributive jeopardy.
388
I cannot conceive that the scope of our appellate review is such as to permit us to conclude, as
Judge Swygert's opinion does, that upon remand the identity of the informer must be disclosed.
The matter, if it really is of significance, which I doubt on the facts of this case, should be
reexamined carefully in the light of Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d
639 (1957). By this court deciding as a matter of law that the identity of the informer is not
entitled to protection, we are deciding a factual matter in much the same way as that which the
majority faults Judge Perry for doing.
389
4. Discovery matters. I have already earlier in this dissent expressed my views on this subject.
This was not in trite parlance "a fine-tooth-comb" operation but was a time-wasting and harassing
"fishing expedition."
390
5. Evidentiary rulings. I find no basis for a reversal in this respect. The Anderson plaintiffs' claims
for the most part relate either to instances where the judge sustained objections to improper
questions, barred testimony on an irrelevant area, made non-damaging comments or clarifying
remarks to the jury, explained the pertinent law or himself asked questions of the witness, all of
which were well within his discretion. United States v. Pellegrino, 470 F.2d 1205, 1206-08 (2d Cir.
1972), Cert. denied, 411 U.S. 918, 93 S.Ct. 1556, 36 L.Ed.2d 310 (1973); United States v.
Curcio, 279 F.2d 681, 682 (2d Cir. 1960), Cert. denied, 364 U.S. 824, 81 S.Ct. 59, 5 L.Ed.2d 52.
391
Insofar as the complaints of the Anderson plaintiffs that Judge Perry disparaged their evidence or
that he engaged in acrimonious exchanges with their lawyers are concerned, I regard these as
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 344
No. 92of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
73 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
nothing more than instances in which the judge either lamented the irrelevant and repetitive
nature of appellants' counsel's questions, instructed the jury on a relevant point of law, or aptly
described improper questions by plaintiffs' counsel.
392
The exchanges which did occur between court and counsel were, it appears to me, the result of
repeated improper questioning and, on the whole, resulted from the rude and insulting behavior
on the part of the Anderson plaintiffs' lawyers. Thus, frequently, counsel would persist in asking
improper questions, in interrupting, in making improper statements in front of the jury, and in
continuing to argue and object after the judge had made a ruling. It is well settled that the judge
may admonish counsel for unnecessary and improper questions or for failing to comply with the
rules of the court. Miley v. Delta Marine Drilling Co., 473 F.2d 856, 857 (5th Cir. 1973), Cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 871, 94 S.Ct. 93, 38 L.Ed.2d 89 (1974); United States v. Glaziou, 402 F.2d 8,
17 (2d Cir. 1968), Cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1121, 89 S.Ct. 999, 22 L.Ed.2d 126 (1969); Pacific
Coast Cheese, Inc. v. Wirtz, 314 F.2d 145, 148 (9th Cir. 1963), and the judge did nothing more
than that here.
393
As the court stated in Volkswagen Interamericana, S.A. v. Rohlsen, 360 F.2d 437, 445 (1st Cir.
1966), Cert. denied, 385 U.S. 919, 87 S.Ct. 230, 17 L.Ed.2d 143:
394
It is inappropriate for counsel to complain of treatment that he has invited, particularly when that
treatment is well within responsive limits. We have said before, and we repeat, such claims
should not be made at all unless they are very sound. The proposition that counsel can disregard
the court's instructions, obtain a rebuke, and then preserve the incident as insurance in the event
the case is lost, does not sit well.
395
It appears to me that Judge Perry displayed wisdom and patience in a vigorously contested case
with contentious counsel and that his rulings followed the governing rules of evidence, producing
a fair trial for the plaintiffs.
396
6. The Contempts. The authority of a federal judge to punish summarily for conduct constituting
contempt committed "in the actual presence of court" as well as the procedure to be followed, is
established by Rule 42(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 42(a) reads:
397
(a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies
that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the
actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by
the judge and entered of record.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 345
No. 93of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
74 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
398
The authority to punish summarily applies to behavior of counsel. Sacher v. United States, 343
U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 451, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1952). See also United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 95
S.Ct. 1802, 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975). In Sacher the issue arose from a nine month trial, one-half
the length of the present case. During the Sacher trial defense counsel, in the presence of the
trial judge and in the face of repeated warnings from him that their conduct was regarded as
contemptuous, persisted in a course of conduct that was highly contemptuous and that tended to
disrupt and delay the trial and possibly to cause a mistrial. Upon receiving the verdict of the jury
at the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge, without further notice or hearing, immediately filed a
certificate under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure summarily finding such
counsel guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing them to imprisonment.
399
The decisive issue in the Sacher case was whether Rule 42(a) applied at the end of the case. Of
significance to the present case is the fact that the Court in Sacher took it as conceded that there
was no substantial issue when, as in the present case, the judge acted promptly. By way of
summary, the Supreme Court stated at 13-14, 72 S.Ct. at 457:
400
But that there may be no misunderstanding, we make clear that this Court, if its aid be needed,
will unhesitatingly protect counsel in fearless, vigorous and effective performance of every duty
pertaining to the office of the advocate on behalf of any person whatsoever. But it will not equate
contempt with courage or insults with independence. It will also protect the processes of orderly
trial, which is the supreme object of the lawyer's calling.
401
It is clear in the present case that Judge Perry properly followed the procedures set forth in Rule
42(a). The conduct clearly was not committed outside "the actual presence of the court" nor is it
contended that the judge did not see or hear such conduct. Also, the judge promptly signed and
entered an order reciting the facts.
402
It is to be noted before taking up the individual contempt orders that both Haas and Taylor were
counsel for the Anderson plaintiffs.
403
Taking up the Haas incident first, this incident developed very shortly after Haas had been
reprimanded for directing a derogatory statement towards the judge. Thereafter, the jury was
excused because of argument regarding the propriety of a question. When the jury returned the
judge struck the last question and told the jury to disregard it. Haas resumed his examination of
Hanrahan and upon objection the judge told Haas that they had just gotten through that out of
the presence of the jury and "you will not go into that subject matter any further." Haas
responded that he did not even get to argue it and the court repeated, "I said you will not go into
it any further."
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 346
No. 94of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
75 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
404
Upon this Haas responded, "Judge, we can't cover up the cover-up." Haas continued that that
was part of their complaint, that they covered up. The judge immediately held him in contempt of
court. All of the above was in the presence of the jury. After the jury retired Haas continued:
405
All right, Judge. I think all the people who have spoken the truth have always ended up in
contempt, and the cover-up goes on and on and on.
406
It appears obvious to me, as it must have to the jury, that Haas in his first statement about a
cover-up was not referring to something which had happened back in the early 1970's but was
referring to the court participating in a further cover-up. His meaning was made clear by his
subsequent statement that the cover-up goes on and on and on. A charge in the presence of the
jury that the presiding judge is participating in a "cover-up" is particularly damaging during the
course of a trial. On the one hand the jury may come to the conclusion that the judge thinks there
is no merit in the answer which counsel is attempting to elicit and therefore he is curtailing the
pursuit. On the other hand, the jury may think just the opposite, i. e., that the trial judge is
improperly covering up for the defense, in which case the judge's necessary authority in further
trial matters such as instructions is diminished. In either event a fair trial is hampered.
407
A charge that the trial judge engaged in a cover-up made in the presence of the jury is clearly an
affront to the court and disruptive to the administration of justice and the order of contempt as to
Haas should be affirmed. See United States v. Wilson, supra; United States v. Sacher, supra.
408
The case as to Taylor is closer although possibly with some significance it was Haas who was
examining the witness but it was Taylor who engaged in the conduct charged as being
contemptuous. The case is closer because it simply should not have occurred in the first place.
This all began because defense counsel objected to a question which included the word "raid"
and said that the defendants had never entered into a stipulation using that word. He accused
Haas of a "deliberate, willful, and intentional intent to prejudice the jury." The defense was
incorrect because the word "raid" had been used in the stipulation and indeed I am at a loss as to
why this type of objection would have been made as there could be little doubt in my mind, and I
have so characterized it herein, that the service of the search warrant on the morning of
December 4, 1969, was a raid within the common dictionary definition of that word. The situation
no doubt became more distressing to plaintiff's counsel when the judge told the jury that Haas
had deliberately and willfully misread a statement and subsequently, after a transcript had been
obtained, did not upon the request of Haas advise the jury that Haas' statement was not a
misrepresentation.
409
At this point Taylor for some reason got into the act and as he slapped papers on the table his
hand knocked off the pitcher which broke onto the floor. The glass lining of the pitcher was
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 347
No. 95of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
76 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
broken. In dealing with this incident in the Anderson plaintiffs' brief, typical of the hyperbole
throughout the brief was the reference to defense counsel's bringing to the attention of the judge
that a water pitcher was broken which caused the brief writer to characterize the defense counsel
as "the snitch."
410
The appellants' brief concedes the judge's action finally got them good and mad by refusing to
hear them and that they returned to their table flinging down their papers in anger and frustration.
At a further point the brief indicates that, "Taylor, by contrast, gave the judge grist for his mill, by
letting him get his goat, to mix metaphors. In a case without such pervasive bias and unremitting
provocation by the Court, some rebuke might arise on such a gesture. . . ."
411
I have no reason for believing that Taylor deliberately knocked the pitcher off onto the floor. On
the other hand one cannot safely predict the consequences of uncontrolled anger which should
not occur, or at least which should not be exhibited in the courtroom by counsel.
412
Under all of the circumstances, I would affirm the contempt orders as to both Taylor and Haas.
413
7. Other contentions and issues. Judge Swygert's opinion correctly holds that the matter of
whether plaintiffs should recover attorneys' fees must be deferred until the final outcome of the
litigation but does allow such fees for the appellate work. Because of my position on the merits of
the appeal I would only allow the appellate work fees commensurate with the work involving the
shooter defendants which would be the full reasonable amount for the Hampton plaintiffs but
which would be substantially curtailed for the Anderson plaintiffs.
414
Judge Swygert's opinion also directs the district court judge to whom the case is reassigned on
remand "to give the retrial high priority." I assume that this can only mean all possible priority and
that we are not directing the district court to disregard the numerous types of litigation which
might have statutory priority over this civil suit. I should think, for example, that cases under the
so-called Speedy Trial Act would have precedence over the instant litigation.
415
Because of the multiplicity of the claimed errors, at least in the Anderson plaintiffs' briefs, it is
somewhat difficult to be sure that all significant claims have been addressed. I am not aware,
however, of any, including any of the various elaborating fragmentations, which cause me to think
that a new trial is indicated as to any of the defendants except to the extent herein indicated.
416
8. Conclusion. It has not been a happy task to disagree to the extent to which I have felt
compelled with the opinion of an esteemed brother judge but I consider that this case has
important overtones of unbridled denigrating attacks on governmental officials. I hope I have
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 348
No. 96of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
77 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
made it clear that I do not entertain the idea that government officials should not have to answer
in some forum for abuse of power. I would agree that, individual governmental officials who do
not have absolute immunity should anticipate that they will be held accountable for monetary
damages to those whom they have injured when they have discharged their duties of office in a
way that is known to them to violate the United States Constitution or in a manner that they
should know transgresses a clearly established constitutional rule. The result would be the same
where the actions were manifestly beyond their line of duty.4
417
I am saying, however, that a wide-ranging witch-hunting type of assault on public servants across
the board should receive the most careful judicial attention.5 I don't think the present case can
withstand that scrutiny, the focus of which must be on the situation as it existed at the time of the
events in question.
In June 1972 the death of Fred Howard, one of the police officers, was suggested on the record
and the cause was dismissed as to him
Hampton v. City of Chicago, 339 F.Supp. 695 (N.D.Ill.1972)
We summarized our action as follows:
Insofar as the district court's order of February 3, 1972, dismissed the charges against the City of
Chicago and the County of Cook, it is reversed with respect to the Brewer complaint and affirmed
as modified with respect to the Johnson complaint; insofar as it dismissed the charges against
Mayor Daley and Superintendent Conlisk, it is affirmed; insofar as it dismissed the charges
against defendants Hanrahan, Jalovec, Mulchrone, Ervanian, Meade, Kukowinski, Purtell,
Koludrovic, Sadunas, Sorosky and Meltreger, it is reversed. The case is remanded to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Hampton I, supra, 484 F.2d 602 at 611.
Judge Perry elected to provide the parties with a Summary of the evidence approximately one
month after the trial's conclusion. Although the judge stated in a letter attached to the Summary
that it was not intended to be an official memorandum in the case, we see no reason why the
Summary is not a part of the record and therefore properly before us
The organizations originally the subject of COINTELPRO included the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and
the Nation of Islam
6
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 349
No. 97of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
78 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Further, the trial court's restrictions on discovery and its questionable evidentiary rulings
hampered the plaintiffs' ability to marshall evidence to substantiate their contentions. See infra,
pp. 639-642
For example, in Southern California the FBI mounted a covert operation to escalate a "gang war"
between the BPP and an organization called the "United Slaves." This gang war resulted in the
killing of four Panthers by members of United Slaves and numerous beatings and shootings
From January 1969 to June 1970, O'Neal's monthly pay for his services as an FBI informant
ranged from $100 to $500
Testimony differed as to whether Winters was a member at the time of the shootout or whether
he had been expelled from the Party prior to the incident. In any event, he was close to the
Panthers and was eulogized by Hampton as a fallen comrade
10
Mitchell, however, never mentioned these federally illegal weapons in writing until eight days
after the December 4 raid on the apartment
11
The SPU also was informed about the presence of a large quantity of weapons at 2337 West
Monroe Street
12
From late November to December 4, 1969, Mitchell had five to seven conversations with Jalovec
13
The plaintiffs question whether Groth's informant in fact ever existed. The trial court did not
require Groth to disclose the identity of his informant. See infra, pp. 635-639
14
The FBI document refers to action planned by "Chicago police." This, however, does not
necessarily indicate that the local FBI thought that the Chicago Police Department planned an
action and that it was unaware of the action planned by the SPU of the State's Attorney's Office.
The officers detailed to the SPU were, in fact, Chicago police officers. More importantly, other FBI
documents indicate that the local FBI at other times referred to police actions of the SPU as
actions taken by Chicago police. For example, a December 10 counterintelligence memorandum
sent from Johnson's office to Washington stated that Hampton was killed by "Chicago police."
15
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 350
No. 98of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
79 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Plaintiffs introduced the expert testimony of Eleanor Berman, chief toxicologist of Cook County
Hospital, indicating that Hampton was drugged at the time of the raid. On the basis of blood
samples extracted from his body, she concluded that secobarbital was present in Hampton's
system at the time of his death in an amount which would make it difficult for him to awaken. Bell
and O'Neal testified that Hampton was not a drug user
16
For example, Officer Kelly stated:
A Yes, I have two questions. Am I charged with any crime?
Q You are not charged with any allegations, no.
A My second is not a question, it is a statement. I have known Sergeant Groth personally for
approximately eight or more years. I have never seen him act in any manner other than that
which would bring praise and credit to the Chicago Police Department. That is it.
Officer Jones said:
I am Black and proud of being Black and a member of the Chicago Police Department. I have
worked with these officers, both black and white for over six months and consider them to be of
highest professional caliber and a real credit to the Department. The courage they exhibited that
night made me even prouder of my associates. I feel strongly about the advancement of Blacks
on the Chicago Police Department and deeply sorry that criminal elements are using this incident
to attempt to destroy mutual understanding and respect.
17
Plaintiffs attempted to join Leonard as a coconspirator-defendant in December 1975 after

receiving certain discovery materials. The court denied the motion and plaintiffs have not raised
the ruling on appeal. The record fails to reveal whether Treviranus was intended to be named as
a defendant in the motion
18
The teletype stated:
AAG Jerris Leonard, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, at Chicago, advised SAC
Marlin Johnson in strictest confidence that no indictments of police officers are planned in
captioned matter. AAG Leonard has a firm commitment to meet with Edward V. Hanrahan,
State's Attorney, Cook County, Illinois, within one week, whereupon, on basis of Federal District
Court order Hanrahan will receive testimony of State's Attorney's Police before FGJ.
The above is based upon an agreement whereby Hanrahan will dismiss the local indictments
against the BPP members. Hanrahan is to be given thirty days to dismiss the local indictment
which will be based upon the change of testimony of John Sidunas (sic) of the Chicago Police
Department Crime Lab.
Subsequent to this dismissal, BPP victims will then be subpoenaed before the FGJ for their
testimony in this case.
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON
OF APPEAL Page
Page 351
No. 99of
of538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
80 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
19
Plaintiffs' conspiracy claims are based on 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3)
20
It should be noted that when we refer to a conspiracy among defendants, we are not passing on
the ultimate validity of plaintiffs' claims. We merely are commenting on plaintiffs' claims and
evidence from which a jury reasonably could infer that a conspiracy or conspiracies existed
21
The federal defendants make no contention that, because they are not state actors, they are not
subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the statute. Section 1985(3) clearly was intended
to provide redress for victims of a conspiracy to violate civil rights whether or not the conspiracy
was under color of state law. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338
(1971)
22
Discrimination on the basis of political beliefs or affiliations has been found to be actionable
under section 1985(3). See, e. g., Means v. Wilson, 522 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied,
424 U.S. 958, 96 S.Ct. 1436, 47 L.Ed.2d 364 (1976); Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899
(6th Cir.), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 930, 96 S.Ct. 280, 46 L.Ed.2d 258 (1975). See also Griffin,
supra, 403 U.S. at 102 n. 9, 91 S.Ct. 1790, n. 9; Comment, Private Conspiracies to Violate Civil
Rights, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1721, 1728 (1977) ("the legislative history behind section 1985(3) points
unmistakably to the conclusion that discrimination on (the basis of political beliefs or affiliations)
was intended to be actionable"). One of the foremost concerns of the drafters of the original
section 1985(3) was discrimination against individuals whose political affiliations were imbued
with racial implications. See Avins, The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: Some Reflected Light on State
Action and the Fourteenth Amendment, 11 St. Louis U.L.J. 331 (1967)
23
This evidence is examined in more detail. See, esp. Supra at pp. 608-612
24
If the evidence were to demonstrate that the federal and state defendants merely agreed to help
each other enforce the law and prevent violence by the BPP through lawful means, the
agreement, of course, would not have violated plaintiffs' civil rights
25
Defendants urge that plaintiffs be denied relief on the ground that negligent conduct is not
cognizable under section 1983. We are not persuaded by this argument. Defendants are correct
that "mere negligence" is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d
565, 567 (7th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932, 98 S.Ct. 1507, 55 L.Ed.2d 529 (1978). In
Jamison v. McCurrie, 565 F.2d 483, 486 (7th Cir. 1977), Chief Judge Fairchild articulated the
standard for a constitutional cause of action: "The plaintiff must show that (the police officers')
misbehavior was either intentional or in reckless disregard of his constitutional rights," citing
COINTELPRO CASE
IN SUPPORT HAMPTON Page
OF APPEAL Page
No.352
100ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
81 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Bonner v. Coughlin, supra. The evidence offered by plaintiffs, however, viewed in the light most
favorable to them, satisfies this test. Plaintiffs' case rests on evidence of excessive force, assault,
battery, and wrongful death which a jury could conclude constituted reckless disregard of
plaintiffs' civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct.
473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1960); Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79, 80 n. 1 (7th Cir. 1975)
Judge Pell states in dissent that the directed verdicts in favor of the nonshooters were proper
because there is "no basis (in the record) for even an inference that the nonshooters were inside
when any occupant of the apartment was allegedly mistreated, and certainly not to support the
inference suggested in Judge Swygert's opinion that they 'callously chose to watch.' " Infra, p.
658
The record demonstrates that the dissent's position is incorrect. Louis Truelock testified before
the state grand jury that there were "fifteen or twenty officers in the kitchen," some in uniform and
some in plainclothes, when the firing ceased and Groth ordered that the bodies be brought into
the kitchen. Plaintiffs' Exhibit LT # 7, pp. 27-28. (The shooters wore black on the raid;
nonshooters wore police uniforms.) Additionally, testimony of several of the nonshooters
themselves establishes that they were inside the apartment before the survivors were taken
away. Officer Kelly testified at the Coroner's inquest that he entered the apartment in the midst of
the firing. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 417, p. 109. See also Federal Grand Jury testimony, Plaintiffs' Exhibit
574B, p. 152. And Officer Marusich testified at the Coroner's inquest that he entered the
apartment "a couple of minutes" after the last shot was fired. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 421, p. 1236.
This evidence demonstrates that at least some, if not all, nonshooters were in the apartment at
the time the occupants allegedly were being abused. The question whether nonshooters are
liable under section 1983 for purposeful nonfeasance, under the rule of Byrd, is one for the jury
to determine.
26
In Count 4 of their complaint, plaintiffs allege under section 1986 that Hanrahan, Jalovec, the
raiders, and the federal defendants neglected to prevent the wrongs perpetrated in violation of
section 1985(3). Section 1986 states in part:
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and
mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or
aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act
be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages
caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented.
On the basis of our examination of the evidence supporting plaintiffs' conspiracy claim, we
conclude that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of section 1986 liability.
27
We read Counts 6 and 8 of plaintiffs' complaint as describing the post-raid conspiracy
28
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.353
101ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
82 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
In Count 7 plaintiffs charge Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants (except
O'Neal) with failing to prevent the post-raid conspiracy in violation of section 1986. Plaintiffs have
presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case on this theory of liability.
Additionally, in Count 11 of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that Hanrahan, Jalovec, Groth,
O'Neal, Mitchell, Johnson, and Piper conspired to obstruct justice in violation of 42 U.S.C.
1985(2). Section 1985(2) states:
. . . if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or
defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to
any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing,
or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of
the laws. . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages,
occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
We conclude, on the basis of our review of the evidence supporting plaintiffs' conspiracy claims,
that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of a section 1985(2) violation.
29
In summary, a prima facie case has been made out against defendants as follows:
Counts 1-4: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants.
Count 5: Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders.
Count 6: Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders.
Count 7: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, and Mitchell.
Count 8: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, Mitchell, Sadunas, Meade, and
Mulchrone.
Count 9: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, Mitchell, Sadunas, Meade, and
Mulchrone.
Count 10: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, Mitchell, Sadunas, Meade, Mulchrone,
Ervanian, Kukowinski, Sorosky, and Meltreger.
Count 11: Hanrahan, Jalovec, Groth, and the federal defendants.
Count 14: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants.
30
Our recent decision in Daniels v. Kieser, 586 F.2d 64 (7th Cir. 1978), is not to the contrary. In
Daniels we held that the prosecutor's actions were within his "quasi-judicial" functions and, for
that reason, were absolutely immune from liability. Id. at 68-69
31
Today we hold that plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence against Sorosky and Meltreger to
warrant submission of the conspiracy claims against them to a jury. We do hold, however, that
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.354
102ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
83 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
there was sufficient evidence supporting the section 1986 claims against them. While Imbler
expressly discusses only section 1983, its reasoning applies to the 1871 civil rights statutes
generally, See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 369, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951), and
thus should be applied to claims brought against prosecutors pursuant to section 1986
32
The Butz Court held that a federal official's exposure to civil liability under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619
(1971), should be the same as a state official's exposure under section 1983. In the instant case,
the plaintiffs not only are seeking damages from the federal defendants under Bivens, but also
are alleging that the federal defendants, by conspiring with state officials to violate the plaintiffs'
civil rights, violated section 1983. We see no reason, given the Court's reasoning in Butz, to give
different official immunity treatment to federal violators of section 1983 than to state violators
33
The suppression of plaintiffs' political speech through harassment, intimidation, and subversion
part of plaintiffs' case against the defendants would constitute violation of a clearly established
right
34
An illegal entry based on a falsified warrant is a violation of clearly established Fourth

Amendment protections
35
Killing and wounding the inhabitants of an apartment without cause, placing the survivors in jail,
and subjecting them to trial based on spurious charges is a patently obvious violation of an
individual's right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
36
There is no need to examine the second branch of the doctrine to determine whether the
defendants acted with the requisite intent to deprive them of the benefits of their qualified
immunity. Either branch of the doctrine independently can deprive a defendant of the immunity.
We note, however, that plaintiffs in the instant case have presented sufficient evidence to require
a trial court to submit the issue of the defendants' intent to a jury if it were necessary to
determine whether the defendants could avail themselves of qualified immunity
37
The identity of Jalovec's "informant" has already been disclosed. In fact, Jalovec did not have an
informant who saw the weapons in the apartment. Instead, Jalovec was told about the weapons
by Mitchell, who in turn had learned about the weapons from his informant, O'Neal. O'Neal's
identity was disclosed several years after these events by the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois in an unrelated criminal case
38
The credibility of the affidavit to the warrant has already been undermined by the evidence that
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.355
103ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
84 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
Jalovec did not have an informant and was relying on information which Mitchell had received
from O'Neal. And the sufficiency of O'Neal's information alone as the basis for a warrant is
questionable. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). See
also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v.
Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1973) (En banc )
39
The trial judge, in his "Summary," never mentioned Roviaro. In fact, he cited only a Missouri
appellate court criminal case, Ex parte McClelland, 521 S.W.2d 481 (Mo.App.1975), to support
his conclusion that Groth was not required to disclose the identity of his informant. Apart from the
judge's obvious failure to apply the appropriate controlling precedent, his analysis and reliance
on McClelland is not entirely accurate. There is a factual similarity between McClelland and the
instant case: in both, a police officer refused to identify his informant. More importantly, though,
McClelland recognized that the decision to compel disclosure or not should be based on a
balancing test. And the two factors which the McClelland court said would justify disclosure,
when translated for application in the civil context, are present in the instant case: The informant
may have been a witness, if not a participant, to the conspiracy which constitutes the basis of the
action, and the reasonableness of the law enforcement officers' conduct is dependent upon the
reliability of the informant. See id. at 485. Thus, even under McClelland, disclosure would have
been appropriate
40
The determination of the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant has been characterized as
qualitatively more significant than civil litigation, thus justifying a higher threshold of justification
for exceptions to the privilege in civil cases. However, the difference in "significance" of criminal
and civil cases simply should be considered another factor in the Roviaro balancing test. Further,
the proposition that all civil cases are less significant and therefore require a higher level of
justification for the disclosure of the identity of the informer than all criminal cases is a dubious
one. It would seem impossible to conclude absolutely that every criminal misdemeanor case is
"more significant" than civil actions to redress, for example, egregious violations of an individual's
rights
41
And, conversely, the relevance to the establishment of a cause of action
42
The danger that law enforcement officials, protected by the informer's privilege, may, and have
misrepresented themselves on affidavits for warrants, saying that informers have provided
information which they have not provided, has been recognized by the courts. See, e. g., McCray
v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 316 n. 2, 86 S.Ct. 1575, 16 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting
); United States v. Pearce, 275 F.2d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 1960)
43
In March 1977 the trial judge changed his position and refused to permit plaintiffs to reexamine
Johnson and Mitchell
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.356
104ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
85 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
44
The federal defendants contend that since the documents in question are official FBI documents,
they had no control over them and should not be held responsible for the obstructive tactics
regarding their production in the course of discovery. Neither federal defendants nor their counsel
(provided by the federal government) said at trial, however, that the delays in producing the
relevant documents were caused by their lack of control over the documents; instead, the record
is replete with statements by the federal defendants and their counsel suggesting that documents
which were discovered later never existed
45
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) states in relevant part:
In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing
to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially
justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
46
The state defendants argued in a motion to strike the "Anderson" reply brief that plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees is not a proper subject for consideration because the request was not
raised in plaintiffs' opening brief. Plaintiffs, however, did assert the statutory basis for attorneys'
fees in their main brief although the argument was directed to the federal defendants
Whatever the situation may now be, or should be, it is doubtful that in 1969 attempts to discredit
groups thought to be presenting a clear and present danger of violence was a violation of First
Amendment rights
A footnote has been added to Judge Swygert's opinion with regard to the point in my dissent that
the nonshooters were entitled to a directed verdict because they were not even in the apartment
at the time the plaintiffs claim the occupants were mistreated. I attempted to make it clear that I
assumed that plaintiffs' counsel would give us all of the record support available to demonstrate
the presence of the nonshooters in the apartment at the time in question and that upon analysis
they gave no such support. Judge Swygert's added footnote, however, refers to other items of
evidence on the question
I see no reason, however, for receding from the position I took on this issue in my dissent. Judge
Swygert's added footnote gives significance to there being fifteen or twenty officers in the kitchen
some of them being in police uniforms. If the number was twenty, this, of course, was six more
officers than were in the raiding party and would seem to indicate that the presence in the kitchen
related to a time substantially subsequent to the cessation of the shooting when other officers
had answered the call. Further, Officer Harris at least, upon whom the Anderson plaintiffs rested
the matter, was in plain clothes although a nonshooter. The fact that two of the nonshooters
Entered the apartment at or about the time of the shooting, if that indeed is a fact, does not place
them there at the time of the alleged mistreatment of any of the occupants. While this is a
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.357
105ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
86 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
situation in which reasonable inferences are permitted to be drawn, there should be something
more than Judge Swygert's added footnote demonstrates to say that there was something to go
to the jury on the matter of purposeful nonfeasance on the part of any of the nonshooters.
The incentive toward continuing a fuller discussion is not encouraged by the realities of the
situation being that there is very little probability this case will not go back for retrial. Two of the
active judges of this court (Judges Bauer and Wood) have disqualified themselves, two more, of
course, are in the majority of the present panel, and all four of the remaining would have to vote
to rehear the case En banc. Insofar as the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned, the
small percentage of the heavy volume of petitions for certiorari which can be granted minimizes
the likelihood in any case of being successful in the pursuit of certiorari
Nor, I should add, do I intend anything said herein to minimize the importance of lawyers
accepting unpopular civil cases. Accepting such employment often requires a solid exercise of
courage, but I regard doing so as one of the obligations assumed by a person who has been
admitted to the practice of law
The pendulum has taken a far swing from the days of McCarthyism but the extremes of the
swing seem to me to be equally undesirable for the good of the country. Unfortunately many who
decried the excesses of McCarthyism do not seem equally concerned by the development of the
extremity of present day witchhunting directed toward law enforcement officials
Source URL: http://openjurist.org/600/f2d/600/hampton-v-hanrahan
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.358
106ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
87 of 87 12/5/2016 5:25 AM
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.359
107ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.360
108ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.361
109ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.362
110ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.363
111ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.364
112ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.365
113ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.366
114ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.367
115ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.368
116ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.369
117ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.370
118ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.371
119ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.372
120ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.373
121ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.374
122ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.375
123ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.376
124ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.377
125ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.378
126ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.379
127ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.380
128ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.381
129ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.382
130ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.383
131ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.384
132ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.385
133ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.386
134ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.387
135ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.388
136ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.389
137ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.390
138ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.391
139ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.392
140ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.393
141ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.394
142ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.395
143ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.396
144ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.397
145ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.398
146ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.399
147ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.400
148ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.401
149ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.402
150ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.403
151ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.404
152ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.405
153ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.406
154ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.407
155ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.408
156ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.409
157ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.410
158ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.411
159ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.412
160ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.413
161ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.414
162ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.415
163ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.416
164ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.417
165ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.418
166ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.419
167ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.420
168ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.421
169ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.422
170ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.423
171ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.424
172ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.425
173ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.426
174ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.427
175ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.428
176ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.429
177ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.430
178ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.431
179ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.432
180ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.433
181ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.434
182ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.435
183ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.436
184ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.437
185ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.438
186ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.439
187ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.440
188ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.441
189ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.442
190ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.443
191ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.444
192ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.445
193ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.446
194ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.447
195ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.448
196ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.449
197ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.450
198ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.451
199ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.452
200ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.453
201ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.454
202ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.455
203ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.456
204ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.457
205ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.458
206ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.459
207ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.460
208ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.461
209ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.462
210ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.463
211ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.464
212ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.465
213ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.466
214ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.467
215ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.468
216ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.469
217ofof538
481
Wednesday 5, 2017
June 7, 2016
COINTELPRO CASE
OF APPEAL Page
No.470
218ofof538
481
Wednesday June 5,
7, 2016
2017
COINTELPRO
Published by the
USEDADVANCED
TO OBSTRUCT
MEDIAJUSTICE
GROUP
%
!"" # $
&! ! '" !
((( &&" " ! & )#

# *& !" #
+,+-../-0,.1
'$ ! #
2 3
/14 '" ! $ 5
5 6! & $ 07414-777,
80709 10:-1777
; << = ; = < 5 = = = 2 = =
= > < < =
! " # # $ % & " & ! & " & % & '

" ! " ! ( " ) # !" ' ( ' #
$ ' $ ' & * + , &( & * - *
& % . /0 1. $ % $ " 2
= < 3 ( & $ $ % & = <' # # 4 ! %

$ '' # ' 5 65 6 ( 7 $& $ " , $ $ ' 8& & %
# 3 8 4 $ & '' # %' # $ $ # $ $ &( # $ ( ' '
# 9 *5 6
8 $ " ! " . /0 1. & #$ # &( $ $
$& ' " " 8
$ $ & 5:6 '&$ # -; < # 9 % " ' 1 #"
+ 8' ) ! 3 *#* + & " = # >* $ " 8' ) " 4
% # 9 - ' ' 3 & " & 1 $ ( $ # &( ' )
" ? & # $ 4 $ % # 9 " ! ( % " $ ! %*
8 >* 0$# @ & $ $ # # . /0 1. $ # 8 #
A B( &( $ $ $ $ & '9 " ! ' A " % "
$ ( '' " ' $ *5 65 6 , $ @ " # " # % . /0 1.
! < '' * &'' *5 6 C ' 1 * = $ ( '' &" 9 $ %
" ( # *5 6 ' " &#" = $ ' # ! (( '% ' $! (( # % = #D
(" A ' % " A 5E6 @ B $ $ " ' " !
A& " )' $A ' )% $ % = #D ' % " $ $ ! " *5 6
# ! ? !# $ % $ " ' $ " $ & 2

3 4 <" ) '' ( ) '' " ( ! " ' # ( %
3 4 " $ % ! ( %% '( $ # #
$ $ & " 7 ( $& $ ! %% '( $ #F
384 ( $ # ' ! % %% % ' # " ( '
LETTER
COINTELPRO
17-01233to Director
BRIEFCASE Comey,
LAW - FRED
IN SUPPORT FBI HAMPTON Page
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.471
1 ofof538
219 481
5 1224 Monday
MondayNovember
December
Wednesday June28,
5,
7, 2016
2017
. / 0 / ' 0
) 3
& 4
&
6 7 )
&) 8&9&
' ) 7 )
: & 4
&
' 8&9& ' ) 7 )
: ;
1 & % < < 1 6 . 5

5 = ; 3 &' $ 7& #- - + ' & 0++ >?)@ A
(
7 ) &> = & B +, 7& + + ' & +,,,
> ?
A @
" 7 ) ?&@> &
2 ) & % = = 2 ; )'/8 &
) $#, 7& - , # ' & 0+ >4
7 ) A
&> &
3 & % ) ) ' 3 6 =
< 1 1 < = * 2 ; 7 &
' 9 7& $ - , ' & +,, 7
)
) & / C 7 & ) A" C 1 & ++(+# 0+ 2/
0 $# 0 , ' &) &+ 0+ 7 )
&
4 ) & % ) 7 3 ; 9 &'
' + 7& + + ++ ' & 000 >4 7 )
&> &
4 ) D 9 ' 1 E "
5 &7 D 1 & )( ,+0(+04 1&E& ) &D &9 & + 0+
7 ' A &
= 1 E 7 9
1 F ' 7 )
&
F % &
) 8&9& ' ) 7 )
> > G & B '
$ 7& - $+($ ' & 0+0 9 &6 7 & ) A" - - ' & 00,
% " & 7 8
9 D E 7 )
8&9&
7 ) &9 9 &B
' . D A 1 & +;++( (0 ---(BF/ D& < & 9 = E +0 0+ &
Stan J. Caterbone
17-01233 BRIEF INCase Law Library
SUPPORT OF APPEAL PageNo.
Page 2437
220ofof2664
1224 Friday December
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
3054( 5 1 ! ! 305 )
! 6 ) ' % H
;
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2438
221ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
7 4" ' !!
- ' % ) ' #
(
+ )
& 6
" !
&
) !
#0-
;
D &
&6
) 3
) 3
%
! #+
) 3
& 6
"
& 4
! & =
!
% %
(
& 1
! " " &
7
&
.
. F <
) ;
"
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2439
222ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
!
.
F < )
&
)
&
)
9 F
&
$ .
&
# )
"
&)
> > > > > > > > > "
> D +0 +,# .&/&- 1 & -#
8 8 / . /
&
- )
&
, )
;
#+#
&
)
&
+0 ) ;
;
)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2440
223ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
B
' !
D
;
) $ ' ) +, - 9 & ++0 # 8&9&'& I
B " #0 ' ) +, #
8&9&'& I $0 #0 # 8&9&'& I $0
"
&
++ * !
!
&
+ ) !
;
;
)
B
;
)
B &
+ ) D
' 9
;
4 D '
9
;
) B
&
B 8
&
' 4
&
9 ( D '
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2441
224ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
.
&
4 D '
9 &
+ )
;
4
;
) B
&
B 8
&
' 4
&
9 (
&
.
&
4
&
+ 4
& )
! &8 !
7 9
&
+$ ) #
;
)
&
) ;
)
B " A
'
#0$ "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2442
225ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
) > >
. 9 .
. &'&9& ' & + 9 &D &
) ! % ) ) ,
8 9 / : , 9 3 9; < % 5 / ) = ) 8 9
% !!
' !! ' !!
!! ! ) ' ) )
! ) ! ' ' !
+- )
# . &'&9& I +0
;
4
&
F
A &
4
( ! &
4
&
E +0 +,-+ .&/& # 1 &# & $0 D & +,-+ .&/& , 1 &+# & $0 * & +
+,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 9 & $ +,, + 9 &9 & .&/&+0 $ 1 & 0 & $0
D & +, +,,$ .&/&+ - 1 &+-$ & $0 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & E ++
00 .&/& $# 1 & & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0 7 & 0+
.&/& + 1 &,
, 7 ! ! ) , & +$ & +- $0 &

+$ &
, , ! ! ) 0 & + + B + B
& +# &
88* ! ! ) +, & & & , &
+ &
88; ! ! ) +-$ & & + &
88 ! ! ) 0 + 9 &9 & & + &
5 & 9 #0 #0 #0$ #+# # 0 # +&+ #
# # # , #- ,0+ 4 0 7 ,0+ 4 3 &
' 5 & 9 #0, #0 #+ &+ #+ &+ &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2443
226ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
! "
# ! $ %
!! % % & !! % !
' '! ' ' ' '
% " (
% !! ' !!
!! ' !! ) *
$ % !! +
! " "
#
$ "
%
&
' &(()
% !
%
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2444
227ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
'6).4F5 #
2=5F4)..=13 )1D F/F'45*1=' 985JF=//)1'F
9
)& 3 .
B& 2 F * '
'& 9 2 F ' 4
5 )
D& < 4 D
F& . 5 4 4 D 4 = =
D
7& <
4 ! . ' # * +,#- .&/&- + 1 &+$ $0

&
/ / ) 7 ' # D
$ +,# .&/&+ - 1 & * +,#- .&/&- + 1 &+$ $0 &
& . ' # + 4 )
# 4 E E . &
98B'6).4F5 )
3F1F5)/ .5*J=9=*19
9 &
#0+& 9 &
#0 & D &
2 ' > 4 9 ) * + +,-- .&/&+000

1 &++ &
I #0+& 9 &
4 >2 F 9
' ) &>
I #0 & D &
)
" ;
? ) ? )
&
? ? )
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2445
228ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
?& !! !! ? )
&
?& !! ) ? )
&
?& !! !? ) (
! &
?& ? )
&
?& ? 4 9 ' & 7 9 '
&
?& ! ) ? ) ;
+ ) ;
< 0 &
J 0
0$
#0 +
,0+ &+
+ + "
+ " "
+ &+ "
+
0 0+
0 +
#0+ +
#0 &
= ,
&
5 ,
&
' ,0+
,0
,0
&
) ! +
'
% &
?4 !! ? )
( " ;
+ D &
) &
) ( &
) &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2446
229ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
?4 !! ) ? D &
?4 !! !? D &
?4 ! ) ? )
;
+ ) !
&
)
&
F! #0 +
" &
>F &>
+ )
&
)
&
?> ! ? 4
" &
?- ? 4
&
?- ? ) !
& 4
&4 !
) 3
) 3
&
?- ) ) % ! ? ) 8 9
'
! %
&
?@ ? 2 %
9 B
% 9 ' &
?A ' !! < ! ? =
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2447
230ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
?0 !? )
A
" &
?0 !! ? ) "
% %
" &4 &
>* &>
+ 4
% ;
&
?/ ? )
&4
"
&4
&
?/ ? ) 8 9
% &
?. ' ' ? )
;
+
!
(
! # '75 . # D F 7 ,
! . #
" " (
&
?. ! ! ) ? 4
&
?2 % ? )
& 4 !
&
?2 ? ) 8 9 D ' ' .
5 8 9 &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2448
231ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
?2 ! ) ? )
#0,
#0,
#0, &
?5 !! ) ? ) !
&
?5 < ) ? )
% &
?5 ) ? )
&4 =D " =D
&
? ? ) ;
+
&
?B !! ? )
&
D & +,-+ .&/& , 1 &+# & $0 * & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +-
+,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & D & , 00 .&/&+ 0 1 &+$ & $0 * & 0+
.&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & > > > > >

> & > > > > >
> > > > >
& > > > &>
, , ! ! ) +$ & > &>
88* ! ! ) +, & > > >
> > > > > >% > >
> > > & > > > >
> &>
& . 9 #0 ,++ ,0 $ + &
98B'6).4F5 B
2=5F F/F'45*1=' *5 *5)/ '*<<81=')4=*1
9 &
#0 & = &
#0 & F" &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2449
232ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
#0 & .
&
#0$& F"
&
#0#& 9 &
#0-& * &
#0,& ) &
#+0& 3 &
#++& . &
#+ & = &
#+ &+& 4 ( &
#+ & F &
#+ &+& F &
#+ & 5 &
#+ & 9 &
#+$& 9 &
#+#& =
&
#+-& = &
#+,& 8 " &
# 0& 9
&
# +& 9 5 &
# +&+& F &
# & 5 % &
# & ) ) 3 &
# & 4 &
# & '
&
# $& ) &
# #& F" 5 &
# -& = % &
2 ' > 4 9 B * + +,-- .&/&+000

1 &++ &
& . 9 B #0 &
I #0 & = &
F" ;
+
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2450
233ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
I #0 & F" &
= ! ;
+ )
& 6
" !
&
) !
#0-
;
D &
&6
) 3
) 3
%
! #+
) 3
& 6
"
& 4
! & =
!
% %
(
& 1
! " " &
7
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2451
234ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
.
. F <
) ;
"
!
.
F < )
&
)
&
)
9 F
&
$ .
&
# )
"
&)
> > > > > > > > > "
> D +0 +,# .&/&- 1 & -#
8 8 / . /
&
- )
&
, )
;
#+#
&
)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2452
235ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
+0 ) ;
;
)
' !
D
;
) $ ' ) +, - 9 & ++0 # 8&9&'& I
B " #0 ' ) +, #
8&9&'& I $0 #0 # 8&9&'& I $0
"
&
++ * !
!
&
+ ) !
;
;
)
B
;
)
B &
+ ) D
' 9
;
4 D '
9
;
) B
&
B 8
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2453
236ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
' 4
&
9 ( D '
&
.
&
4 D '
9 &
+ )
;
4
;
) B
&
B 8
&
' 4
&
9 (
&
.
&
4
&
+ 4
& )
! &8 !
7 9
&
+$ ) #
;
)
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2454
237ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
) ;
)
B " A
'
#0$ "
D
&
) > >
. 9 .
. &'&9& ' & + 9 &D &
+# ) ) + +, .&/&+ #
1 & $+ 4 . D ) +,
&
+- )
# . &'&9& I +0
;
4
&
F
A &
4
( ! &
4
&
E +0 +,-+ .&/& # 1 &# & $0 D & +,-+ .&/& , 1 &+# & $0 * & +
+,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 9 & $ +,, + 9 &9 & .&/&+0 $ 1 & 0 & $0
D & +, +,,$ .&/&+ - 1 &+-$ & $0 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & E ++
00 .&/& $# 1 & & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0 7 & 0+
.&/& + 1 &,
, 7 ! ! ) , & +$ & +- $0 &

+$ &
, , ! ! ) 0 & + + B + B
& +# &
88* ! ! ) +, & & & , &
+ &
88; ! ! ) +-$ & & + &
88 ! ! ) 0 + 9 &9 & & + &
& . 9 #0 #0 #0$ #+# # 0 # +&+
# # # # , #- ,0+ 4 0 7 ,0+ 4 3 &
I #0 & .
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2455
238ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
F" #0$ "
;
+ =
&
=
&
=
&
=
&
= &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
I #0$& F"
&
% ) = ;
+
8 9 '
8
9 '
8 9
'
&
5 &((
+ F" ) 3
#0 +
" #+
#+ #+ &+
&
4 . 9 .
!
#
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2456
239ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
#0 + #+ #+ #+ &+ &
6
#0 + #+ #+ #+ &+
) 3 )
3
&
2 ) 3
#+ &+
#0 + #+ &+&
4 . 9 . !
#0 +$ & 4 !
. B &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & E ++
00 .&/& $# 1 & & & D &, 00 .&/&+ 0 1 &+$ & $0
, , ! ! ) & ) +$ & &

& . 9 #0$ #0 #0 &
I #0#& 9 &
)
' &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
I #0-& * &
4 ) 3 ) 3
) 3
9 ' %
;
+ 8 ;
9 ,++
9 0+
9 0
9 0
9 #0
9 #0$
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2457
240ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 #0,&+
9 #+$
9 ,0+
9 0++
9 0+
9 + +
9 + "
9 + &+ "
9 +
9 0+
9 0
9 0
9 #0+
9 , +
9 ,
9 , "
9 #0+
9 #0
9 + &
9 + &
9 +
9 +$
9 $ +-
8
;
9 ,+0
9 #0, $ #
9 ,
9 , $
9 , # !
9 ,
9 +0-
9 +0, "
9 ++#
9 0
9 ,0 %
9 ,0,
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2458
241ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 ,++
9 ,
9 ,
9 +0+
9 +++
9 + +
9 ,0
9 ,0 "
9 # + " 7
8 < +,#+ .&/&$ 1 & 4 " 5 ' +,#+
;
9 + #
9 + #
9 + #
) + ) + +,# .&/& 1 &$
4 ' 9 D D ' )
+ + &
) 1 + +,# .&/&+ # 1 & # &
$ ) &
# 8 1 +,,- .&/&-# 1 &++0 < J '
9 = * ) . ) &
D & +,- .&/& - 1 &$# & & * & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +,,0
.&/& 1 & & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & D & + +,,- .&/&+0-$ 1 &+
& $0 E - 00 .&/& -+ 1 &- & $0 1 & 0 00 .&/&++0 1 &+ & $0
D & , 00 .&/&+ 0 1 &+$ & $0 D & , 00 .&/&+# , 1 & +- & $0
1 & , 00$ .&/&+ 0 1 &+ , & $0 E 0+ .&/&, 1 &+0 & $0
, 7 ! ! ) +0 & + &
, , ! ! ) - & + ) + & + ) +$
) +- & + &) +$ )
+ ) +- ) + +$
" #0-&
4 ) = ) E 0 00 7 # 00 #0-
) + ;
I #0-& * &
4 ) 3 ) 3
) 3
9 ' %
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2459
242ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
;
+ 8 ;
9 ,++
9 0+
9 0
9 0
9 #0
9 #0$
9 #0,
9 #+$
9 ,0+
9 + +
9 + "
9 + &+ "
9 +
9 0+
9 0
9 0
9 #0+
9 , +
9 ,
9 , "
9 #0+
9 #0
9 + &
9 + &
9 +
9 +$
9 $ +-
8
;
9 ,+0
9 ,
9 , $
9 , # !
9 ,
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2460
243ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 +0-
9 +0, "
9 ++#
9 0
9 ,0 %
9 ,0,
9 ,++
9 ,
9 ,
9 +0+
9 +++
9 + +
9 0
9 ,0
9 ,0 "
9 # + " 7
8 < +,#+ .&/&$ 1 & 4 " 5 ' +,#+
;
9 + #
9 + #
9 + #
) + ) + +,# .&/& 1 &$
4 ' 9 D D ' )
+ + &
) 1 + +,# .&/&+ # 1 & # &
$ ) &
# 8 1 +,,- .&/&-# 1 &++0 < J '
9 = * ) . ) &
. 5 " 4 1 + +,# .&/&+ # 1 & #
D - +,#0 .&/&-# 1 & #$ 4 .
' * ) +,#0 D $ +,# .&/&+ -
1 & &4 % ,++ 4 +-&
9 , &
9 0 &
& . 9 #0- #0 #+0 #+ # &
I #0,& ) &
F
) 3
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2461
244ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
;
+ ) &
) !
&
)
% ;
4
&
4 &
4 &
)
&
4
&
) !
&
)
&
2 "
"
&
)
&
$ ) % &
# 9 %
! &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & D &, 00 .&/&+ 0 1 &+$ & $0
& . 9 #0, #0 #+ &+ #+ &+ &

I #+0& 3 &
8 % "
!
' %
" ;
+
#0-
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2462
245ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
! " "
#
$ "
%
&
' & ' ) ) )
% !
%
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
& . 9 #+0 #+ # +&+ &

I #++& . &
1
&
I #+ & = &
$ )
;
+ 4
&
4
&
4
&
)
&
4
&
' 5! ! 1
"
& F !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2463
246ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
& =
"
&1
" 0 &4 0(
&
F" 0
& 1 "
% ! #+0
&
. ' 4 ! ) 3
&
/ 2
! %
% &
4 % ! &
1 2
&
)
!
& 4
=D "
=D
#
! (
&4
! '
' &4
#
& 4
!
# & )
"
& 4
&
4 ' % ! )
!
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2464
247ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
- &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * &
0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & & & &

88* ! ! ) +, & &
& . 9 #+ #0$ #+ &+ #+ &+ # +&+
&
I #+ &+& 4 ( &
5 % 4 ! #+
#0, ;
+ =
;
4
&
4 % &
=
;
4
A
&
4 % ! &
' 2 ! 7 ( %
!
;
+ 4
&
4
&
! )
;
+ 4
&
4
&
4
&
)
&
)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2465
248ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
5! ! ) "
#+ &
. ' 4 ! ) 3
&
/ = !
%
% & 4
% ! &
1 =
&
) &((
+ )
!
&
4
# !
(
&
)
"
&
)
&
4 ' % ! )
!
+
;
+ 4 &
4 %
- &
* & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 #+ &+&
I #+ & F &
2 ) 3
) 3
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2466
249ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" #0-
-
& 9
&=
&
' 1 =
#+$
!
&9 #+
"
#
& =
&F
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & D &, 00
.&/&+ 0 1 &+$ & $0
, , ! ! ) +$ & &
& . 9 #+ #0$ #+ &+ #+$ # +&+ # #
&
I #+ &+& F &
= 4 ) 3
&
' / )
" !
&)
#0, -
&=
& 8 !
#+ & =
&=
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2467
250ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
#+$
& 4
#+ &
= )
!
! &
= )
;
>F &> ) ;
+ %
&
>9 &>
+ 7
#
&
7 ) 3 . 9 .
#
' . 9 . ;
. 9 . &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * &
0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
88* ! ! ) +, & &
8** ! ! ) ++ #+ &+&
& . 9 #+ &+ #0$ #+$ # +&+ &
I #+ & 5 &
. ! )
& 4
& 2
#
;
+ 4 &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2468
251ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 &
4 &
) &
' 2 = " "
A
% & '
& 4 "
&D
#+#
&4
" !
#+# &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
& . 9 #+ #0 #+ # , ## &
I #+ & 9 &
)
A
"
& 4
% "
A
8
9 "
& =
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
I #+$& 9 &
2 ) ) 2 ,0
"
#+ #+ &+
%
;
+ 1 #+
#+ &+&
4 #+
#+ &+&
4 &
4 &
' / ! * " %
! 0 &
) 0 "
% &
- 4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2469
252ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
A
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
& . 9 #+$ #+ #+ &+ &

I #+#& =
&
: % ! )
&+ &+
"
&
! )
" &
' 4) )
' 8
9 7 % % &
' & ! ) #0 +#
"
"
&
* &((
+ F"
7 3
' &
4 7
3
7 3 &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * &
0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & & &+ &

& . 9 #+# #0 #+ #+- # +&+ # ,
&
I #+-& = &
2
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2470
253ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
#+#
& 9
' 8 9 7
% % !
& 9
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
I #+,& 8 " &
F"
"
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
I # 0& 9
&
4
'
#0
"
&4 !
% &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
2 ' & . 9 # 0 . 5 E '

. 1 & -00 + ) + 00 5 0 B $
( % &
9 # 0 . 5 ' . 1 & ++0+
< + 000 5 1 & # # 0
5 1 & # B + &
I # +& 9 5 &
88* . 3 9 # + 7 +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+,

&
I # +&+& F &
D &((
+ F"
' &
)
%
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2471
254ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
#+#
! (
'
8 9 7 % % &*
&
1
"
&
' A " )
' "
;
+ 8 " #0 "
#+
#+
#+ &+ &
4 #+
#+ #+ &+
#+0 + &
4 #+ &
4 ! &
2 #0
' &
$ 2 ! #0
&
. &((
+ 4
& 4
&
= "
#+0 % #+0
&
4
" &
2 " +
&
2 " $
&*
#0 &
$ F "
' "
' " &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2472
255ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
= '
"
&
4 4 %
% &
4" ) ! 4
%
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
88* ! ! ) +, # +&+&
& . 9 # +&+ # , &
I # & 5 % &
2 0 " "
% ) * . '
;
+ 4 " &
4 &
4 &
4
" &
4 " &
$ 4
&
# 4
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
I # & ) ) 3 &
@ = ! 4 +- 8&9&'&
I +, %
) * . ' & 4
% ;
+ 4 &
4 &
4 &
4 &
4 &
$ 4 &
# 9 ) * . '
! &
' = !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2473
256ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 +- 8&9&'& I +, ) 3
) * . ' E '
9 6 5 &4 ) 3
+- 8&9&'& I +, &
= F ) 3
) 3 &
0 4 ' E 9 ' ) 3
3 3 )
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
I # & 4 &
4 ) 3 ' . 9 .
'
& 4 . 9 .
&
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
& . 9 # #0 #0$ #+0 #+ &+ #+ # ,

&
I # & '
&
& )
;
+ ) ! K+00
K+ 000 &
. &
) A &
' B ) ) !! 4 " '
&
= =
&
E +0 +,-+ .&/& - 1 &# & $0 * & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
& . 9 # #+ &
I # $& ) &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2474
257ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
& )
' '
A A A
& =
&
' = =
&
E +0 +,-+ .&/& - 1 &# & $0
I # #& F" 5 &
8** . 3 9 # # * + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++

&
I # -& = % &
2
) 3
' ' % & 4
% '
&)
. 5 ' . "
. 5 ' . &
* & + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ & &
8** ! ! ) ++ # -&
98B'6).4F5 '
94*5FD 2=5F )1D F/F'45*1=' '*<<81=')4=*19
)1D 45)19)'4=*1)/ 5F'*5D9 )''F99
9 &
# +& 8 &
# & D &
# & 5 ! &
# & B &
# & D &
# $& ' &
# #& ' &
# -& F" &
# ,& 5 &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2475
258ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 ! 9 ' * + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ &
I # +& 8 &
0 F"
;
+
" A &
. &((
+ =
% ;
K 0 000
K 0 000
! &
= % K 000
" &
4" 9
;
+
# ! #
&
I # & D &
/ ' F" ;
+ )
;
*
&
9
&
)
;
*
&
9
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2476
259ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
)
&
' 4" ) ;
+
#0 +
#0-
#
$ ;
2 &
) &
4" ! )
;
+ )
&
) ;
) # &
4 ! &
) ! !
&
)
&+ & 4
# &
1
' '
&
9 %
7 7
&
&+ * &((
+ )
&
4
&
4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2477
260ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
)
&=
&
* &, 00- .&/&+ 0 1 &+++ & &
, * ! ! ) +++ & & &

& &+ &
& . 9 # # $ &
I # & 5 ! &
& !! =
!
;
+ * .
5 ' . &
< +-0 &
' &((
+ = !
;
!
. 5 ' .
;
) %
B
" # &
. +
;
*
&
9
&
5 &((
+ D &
)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2478
261ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
%
. 5 ' .
&
)
! &
. # ! )
&)
!
!
&
3 ) ! '
1
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * &, 00- .&/&+ 0 1 &+++ & & * & 0+
.&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
, * ! ! ) +++ & + &
88* ! ! ) +, & &
& . 9 # #+ #+ &+ # + # #
# # $ # # &
I # &+& ) &
) &((
+ =
"
" ;
4 !
;
) 4 ) 3 &
B ) ) 3 &
' ) &
D ) &
)
;
) ! # !
A
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2479
262ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
B !
&
) !
&
= + B
' &
.
# &
4 ;
F"
&
4 ! &
$ ) + ! &
# 2
"
,0 &
- ) !
&
' 2 ) 4 ;
+ ) +-
&
9
&
9
%
;
) &
) &
)
' &
4
&
4 ! 4 ;
+ 4 ) 3
% ;
4 % &
4 % &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2480
263ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 ! )
3
& )
& ) %
' &
-!! ! ) ' 1 9
'
&
4
;
+ * ) +
" ) 3
E ' 9 E
' 6 5 &4 ) 3
;
4 &
4 &
4 # &
4
&
4
&
* < +
"
) 3 +
) 3 &
4" 4 " D + 0+#&
= )
;
?0 ) ) " " ' ? )
+- ;
+ ' , &
' 0 &
' + " &
9 $ + " &
9 $ +- &
$ 9 $ 0 " " &
* & 0+ .&/& 1 &+ + & $0
, 7 ! ! ) + + # &+&
I # & B &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2481
264ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
B &((
+ ) #
! !
!
& 2
&
4
&
1
# &
4
;
A &
4 !
+ A
;
A !
! &
) !
+
# "
& 4 %
&
' &((
+ 2 +
!
&)
& ) !
& 4
;
A
!
&
9
&
7 > >
. 5 ' . &
= +
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2482
265ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
& =
A
& )
A &
=
!
!
& =
!
! &
)
&4 '
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
88* ! ! ) +, & &

& . 9 # # + # $ &
I # & D &
D &((
+ ) #
! ;
!
! # " ,0 !
"
%
! # " ,0
"
"
&
) + ;
% &
4
+ &
F" # ,0
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2483
266ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
% &
8 " +
! ;
!
;
)
! !
!
B
'
D &
$ ) > >
!
A !
! A ! &
' / ' ) ! )
# !
# + "
"
& 4
"
;
+
% &
& . 9 # # # &
I # $& ' &
/ ! F"
# # !
#
& 5
&
' ! 4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2484
267ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
' 4 !
# & 4
!
&
. 4 ) 3 &
* &, 00- .&/&+ 0 1 &+++ & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
, * ! ! ) +++ & &
I # #& ' &
& F" # !
&
' . = ;
+ !
&
= ! 4
K+ 000&
= ) ;
+ %
! #+
#0 +0 "
&
:! )
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * & 0+ .&/& 1 &+ + & $0
, 7 ! ! ) + + & &
88* ! ! ) +, & &
I # -& F" &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2485
268ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 %
&
I # ,& 5 &
. 4
#0 +$ "
+ &)
#0 +$ ,0
;
+ 4 & F"
,0
& )
#+ "
# &
4
#+#
# +&+
& )
#+ " # &
)
0
& 4
&
)
0
&4
&
4 &
' = = #+# # +&+
;
+ 8 !
. 5 ' . . 5 F
8
&
= )
;
>' &> 4 ;
+
. 9 .
&
>/ &> ) . 9 .
! . &'&9& ' & + 9 & D
&
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2486
269ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
E ++ 00 .&/& #0 1 & & &
, , ! ! ) # ,& 9 ) # ,
+- . &'&9& I #0 & ) 00 E ++ 00
+- . &'&9& I
#0 &
. 5 " 4 > > & + & > >
& ' . 9
. &
& . 9 # , #- &
98B'6).4F5 D
<*B=/F 45)'G=13 DFJ='F9
9 &
#$+& < &
4 ! 9 D * + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ &

I #$+& < &
*
&
' @ *
' & 4
% &
2 )
& F
&4 ;
+
% "
&
3 4 #
&
5 ! $ )
,0 &)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2487
270ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" ,0 &
. ! ) ) 2
" & =
" &
A ) ! ) <
" "
&
* &, 00- .&/&+ 0 1 &+++ & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
98B'6).4F5 F
.F1 5F3=94F59 45). )1D 45)'F DFJ='F9
)1D 4F/F'*<<81=')4=*1 =DF14=7=')4=*1
=14F5'F.4=*1 DFJ='F9
9 &
##+& 3 " &
## & ) &
## & = &
## & ) &
## & 5 &
4 ! 9 F * + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ &

2 ' > 4 9 F 7 +- +,,- .&/&+0
1 &+, &
& . 9 F #0 &
I ##+& 3 " &
F"
##
&
' 4" 4
;
+
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2488
271ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
&
' :! )
&
/ 2
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
& . 9 ##+ ## &

I ## & ) &
4 ) 3
) 3
" ##
! %
9 ' %
&
' & ) ;
+ 4
&
)
&
)
" ## &
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
88* ! ! ) +, & &
& . 9 ## ## &
I ## & = &
- 8 ##
"
'
& = " "
& 4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2489
272ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
# A &
' & ) ;
+ 9 ;
4
&
4
&
4 % &
=
&
)
&
D !
##+
" &
=
#+ +
&
4 " &((
+ )
" $0 &
F"
## % ! &4 "
" 0 &
3 " )
!! ) )
;
+ 4 &
4
"
"
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & * & 0+ .&/&+$ 1 & 0 & $0
, , ! ! ) 0 & &
& . 9 ## ##+ ## ## &
I ## & ) &
/ 8 !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2490
273ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
##
&
' 5 ) 8 !
## & 8
&
& ! )
"
&
3 ) !
' 1
&
= )
&
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
I ## & 5 &
4 ) 3 ) *
. '
' &
' = F ) 3
) 3 &
7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & &
98B'6).4F5 7
<=9'F//)1F*89
9 &
#-+& F" &
#- & 5 &
4 ! 9 7 * + +,-- .&/&+000 1 &++ &

I #-+& F" &
4 " D + 0+- " &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2491
274ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
D & + +,, .&/&+ - 1 &+ - & & 7 & +- +,,- .&/&+0 1 &+, & & 1 & ,
00 .&/&+ , 1 &+# & & * & , 00- .&/&+ 0 1 &+++ & & 1 & # 0+
.&/&++ # 1 &+0 & &
I #- & 5 &
4 . 9 . ) 3
#0 +$ "
# ,
#0 +$ &
E ++ 00 .&/& #0 1 & & &
, , ! ! ) #- & 9 ) #-
+- . &'&9& I #0 & ) 00 E ++ 00
+- . &'&9& I
#0 &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2492
275ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
ATTORNEY H. NASIF MAHMOUD
1 SBN: Ill. 0173345
2 Application Pending Pro Hac Vice
MCKINNEY, WILLS & MAHMOUD
3 Mail Only: 8717 Forest Avenue, Gary IN 46403
P. (219) 381-0859
4 Email: mwmlawoffices@aol.com
Local Counsel: ALFRED W. SLOAN II, SBN: 230432;
5 THE SLOAN FIRM, P.C.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7 (BAKARFIT), "THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS FOR THE BOKHARY, CASE NO:CV07- 07198 CAS (PLAX)
8 ASGHAR, KHWAJA AND RICHARDSON FAMILY
IRREVOCABLE TRUST; ROCK OF GIBRALTOR LLC; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
9 DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR:
Plaintiff(s)
10 v. 1. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act of 1970, RICO
11 NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION; DLJ 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1) (A (1) (B) et. seq.
MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC; OCWEN LOAN 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c)
SERVICING LLC; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a)
12 INC., NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING 18 U.S.C. 1962 (b)
CORPORATION; FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d)
13 INC., FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP; FIRST 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a)
AMERICAN LENDERS ADVANTAGE; FIRST 18 U.S.C. 1965 (a) and (b) et seq.
14 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AS
ATTORNEY IN-FACT; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 2. QUIET TITLE
15 INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLIANCE TITLE 3. CANCELLATION OF DEED OF TRUST
INSURANCE CORPORATION; STATE FARM 4. BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
16 INSURANCE; MOBILE STORAGE GROUP; KERN 5. ACCOUNTING VIOLATIONS FOR
COUNTY CALIFORNIA; KERN COUNTY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH (CFLL)
17 TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR; CITY OF 22000 et seq.
BAKERSFIELD; PIMA COUNTY ARIZONA; PIMA 6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
COUNTY TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR; CITY OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
18 TUCSON; CHRISTOPHER R. PERRY, AS AN 7. NEGLIGENCE
INDIVIDUAL, AND TRUSTEE FOR STARRPASS 8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
19 MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AN EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION; (MASTER 9. INFRINGEMENT ON THE PLAINTIFFS
20 HOA) STARRPASS MASTER HOMEOWNERS CONSTITUTIONAL AND DUE
ASSOCIATION, INC., AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT PROCESS RIGHTS
21 CORPORATION, DEVCON; FRANK ST. CLAIR, ST. 10. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
CLAIR DEVELOPMENT ST., CLAIR INVESTMENT,
ST.CLAIR REALTY; DEBBIE BANDUCCI; MARVIN [Concurrently filed with petition and application for
22 temporary and permanent injunction; application for
CHAMBERS; KENYON TERRACE HOA; PERI temporary restraining order in support thereof
23 ELIZABETH LOCKLEAR; COMMISSIONER ERREA declaration for declaratory judgment; Notice of Motions
OF KERN COUNTY; JUDGE MICHAEL ALFRED OF for Removal & Consolidation of related Kern County
PIMA COUNTY; SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS; JOHN Cass S-1500-CL-216249 and Pima County Case C2006-
24 DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1- 6461 pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) and Title 18
10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; U.S.C. 1965(a), (b)].
25 DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10 AND
INDIVIDUAL DOES 1- 10, INCLUSIVE, DEMAND FOR TRIAL B Y JURY
26 Defendant(s)
27 1 First Amended Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2493
276ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 PLAINTIFF (hereinafter separately and collectively referred to as Plaintiff or
2 (BAKARFIT)) THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS FOR
3 THE BOKHARY, ASGHAR, KHWAJA AND RICHARDSON FAMILY
4 IRREVOCABLE TRUST" and ROCK OF GIBRALTOR, LLC, (ROCK) on
5 behalf of themselves and all similarly situated beneficiaries and members, allege and
6 complain collectively against defendants, and each and every one of them, as follows:
8 INTRODUCTION
9 1. This is a Federal action brought pursuant to the provisions of the Racketeer

10 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO), Title 18 U.S.C.
11 1961, et seq., and nine (9) other causes of action, by plaintiffs, on behalf of
12 themselves, separately and collectively and similarly situated, individual
13 beneficiaries and members of the respective Trust and LLC, against defendants
14 New Century Mortgage Corporation; DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc; Ocwen Loan
15 Servicing LLC; Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., National Default Servicing
16 Corporation; Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group; First
17 American Lenders Advantage; First American Title Insurance Company As
18 Attorney In-Fact; First American Title Insurance Company; Alliance Title

19 Insurance Corporation; State Farm Insurance; Mobile Storage Group; Kern County
20 California; Kern County Treasurer Tax Collector; City Of Bakersfield; Pima
21 County Arizona; Pima County Treasurer Tax Collector; City Of Tucson;
22 Christopher R. Perry, as an individual, and Trustee For StarrPass Master
23 Homeowners Association, Inc., An Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; (Master
24 HOA) StarrPass Master Homeowners Association, Inc., An Arizona Non-Profit
25 Corporation, DevCon; Frank St. Clair, St. Clair Development St., Clair
26 Investment, St. Clair Realty; Debbie Banducci; Marvin Chambers; Kenyon Terrace
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2494
277ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 HOA; Peri Elizabeth Locklear; Commissioner Errea Of Kern County; Judge
2 Michael Alfred Of Pima County; Successors, Assigns; John Does 1-10; Jane Does
3 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; Doe Entities 1-10; Doe
4 Governmental Units 1-10 And Individual Does 1-10, Inclusive.
5 2. Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive and other appropriate relief from defendants
6 violations of RICO; quiet title; cancellation of deed of trust; breach of statutory
7 duty; accounting violations for failure to comply with (CFLL) 22000 et seq.;
8 intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; negligent infliction of
9 emotional distress; infringement on the plaintiffs constitutional and due process
10 rights; conspiracy to defraud as alleged more fully below.
11 3. Through the period of the federal action, as defined below, the defendants and each
12 of them with the exception of the Honorable Judge Harrington and Honorable
13 Commissioner Errea (who are limited to restraining order) conspired to extort
14 millions from plaintiffs and their beneficiaries and members by first intercepting
15 them from making payments by embezzlements and theft of their Bank accounts,
16 rents and mortgage payments, the forcing them to pay enormous penalties, and then
17 refusing them their right to close escrow and obtain title insurance or invest and/or
18 reinvest their earning in the boom real estate market, so that Plaintiffs may make up
19 the losses suffered by embezzlement, thus forcing plaintiffs to pay enormous
20 penalties, unrelated to any actual damages, for purported unauthorized causes for
21 interception of national escrow, insurance, title and banking services, to plaintiffs
22 with pristine credit causing them to pay enormous penalties, padded HOA bills,
23 forged and duplicative global bill, repeatedly, because even after payment the bills
24 would remain on the title and credit report generally committing acts involving
25 arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, enjoining at will randomly and callously
26 properties of innocent plaintiffs, with the aid and supervision of Fidelity National
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2495
278ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group; ( hereinafter referred to as Fidelity
2 and First American Lenders Advantage; First American Title Insurance Company
3 as Attorney In-Fact; First American Title Insurance Company; (hereinafter referred
4 to as FATCO, together they originated, designed, implemented, and executed a
5 policy, a form of established pattern of practice and/or course of conduct, by and
6 through which they bribed co-conspirators and confederates and inter-alia
7 associates-in- fact, who would and could transmit use the interstate offices federal
8 corporations to conduct grand deed and warranty deed theft fraud, via federal
9 interstate wires, including electronic messaging (email), and federal mails,
10 backed by a series of Demand Letters, unsigned and signed settlement statements
11 and threats to and by escrow companies, to friends and business associates of
12 Plaintiffs, business associates and tenants whose names, identity and existence
13 had been ascertained within the scope of the Title and escrow core business
14 privileges in order to commit non-core illegal acts.
15 4. The purpose and intent of these demand letters, threats and duplicative bills, notices
16 and intimidating messaging was to coerce and/or extort and defraud, and/or attempt
17 to extort and defraud, payments of money from these, escrows, associates, tenants,
18 family members as victims, by threatening to initiate and prosecute suits against

19 these individuals, if they were associated to plaintiffs, and if they were buyers
20 brought in to replace plaintiffs buyers, all of them together facilitated the false
21 demand letters, with one goal in mind and that goal was not to allow any funds to
22 be released to plaintiff, their beneficiaries or friends on their legally owned
23 properties, with threats of suits lingering after official record showed properties
24 sold for less than cost leaving plaintiffs to pay the bills created by defendants, while
25 defendants and their associates-in-fact would walk away with the property and
26 profits, allowing poverty to disable protection for plaintiffs against the initiation of
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2496
279ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 prosecution against their innocent self and victims who were being framed and
2 enjoined from their own earning so that they could not fight deep pockets without
3 access to legal representation, leaving the victims without their constitutional rights
4 to protection against piracy and extortion if they dared to challenge payment.
5 5. Defendants mutually agreed to accomplish their illegal objectives, by and through a

6 scheme or artifice to defraud, employing various material misrepresentations and/or
7 material and or fraudulent non-disclosures and causing general and specific injury
8 to plaintiffs, their beneficiaries and members, in their interests in business and/or
9 property.
10 DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
11 6. The Nature of this case calls for discovery pursuant to Freedom Of Information Act
12 5 U.S.C. 552 be conducted against the defendants to flush out the guilty in instant
13 and concurrent actions, (with ongoing harassment now being initiated in Central
14 District areas governed by Fed. R. of Civ. Proc. Section V. DEPOSITIONS AND
15 DISCOVERY invoking R.26; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 36; 37 and applicable
16 discovery allowed against the enterprise and their affiliate for seeking information
17 and outlets of destination for extorted gains. (Breached title policies and contracts
18 exhibit marked 6.)
19
20 JURISDICTION
21 7. Title 28U.S.C. 1441(a) for original jurisdiction; title 28 U.S.C. 1367(a)
22 applicable for concurrent supplement cases; Title 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) applicable for
23 corporate defendants doing business in California; Racketeer Influenced and
24 Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (hereinafter, RICO), Title 18 U.S.C.
25
1961(1)(A)(B)(D); 1961(6) et seq., and selected 1961 sub-section 1334(a) for
26
Title 11 crimes to invoke conditions requiring Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 conditions
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2497
280ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 upon natural and non natural plaintiffs, involving, section 201 (relating to bribery),
2 section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification
3 documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with
4 access devices), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire
5 fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1503 (relating to
6 obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal
7 investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law
8 enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an
9 informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an

[1]
10 informant), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or
11 extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1957 (relating to
12 engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
13 activity); for filing and taking of wrongful taxes from victim/plaintiff, where there
14 is no other remedy for relief from state taxes without invoking the provisions of
15 title 18; of the United States Codes; section 1956 (relating to taxation of laundered
16 monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions
17 in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 2319 (relating to

18 criminal infringement of a copyright), Title 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a)(b)(c)(d);
19 1964(a), Title 18 U.S.C. 1965(a) and (b), et seq., Title 28 U.S .C. 1331for
20 federal Question of Law; Title 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)Diversity of citizenship;
21 amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
22 and costs; F. Rule Civ. P. 60(b) violations; F. R. Cv. P. 65 et seq violations; Title 28
23 U.S.C. 1335(a)(1),(2)(b); Interpleader actions; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
24 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq., Truth In Lending Act, Home Ownership and Equity
25 Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 2605 (RESPA) requiring the application of Title 42
26 U.S.C. 1982 invoking FOIA 552 controlling original and concurrent similar
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2498
281ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 violations of California debt Collection acts and California Finance Lenders Law
2 (CFLL), 22000 et seq.) in instant and concurrent matters; Title 28 U.S.C.
3 1341for unauthorized and third party state tax collections; AR.S. Rule 13-
4 2301(d)(4); A.R.S. 13-2312; A.R.S. 13-2314(f); 13-2301(D)(4); A.R.S 13-
5 2312;A.R.S. 13-2314(F); Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 conditions imposed by malice
6 and artifice under conditions defined by Title 18 U.S.C.1961(6) fraudulent debt
7 application; interest of justice and fairness statutes.
8
9 VENUE ALLEGATIONS
10 8. Competent subject matter jurisdiction and venue exists, in whole and/or in part,
11 over original and supplement and/or concurrent matters pursuant to 1964 (a), and
12 1965 (a), (b) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act of 1970
13 (hereinafter, RICO); pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); Title
14 28 U.S.C.1337 (regulation of commerce); pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.
15 1391(b)(3),(d)(Venue); Title 18U.S.C. 1334(a) for alleged fraud under color of
16 Bankruptcy Proceedings and Title 18 U.S.C.1961 (1) (D) subsections governing
17 offenses, false claim and collection of unlawful debt through the misuse of Title 11
18 claims and such claims arising out of Central District Venue applicable for original
19 matter pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and concurrent matters pursuant to
20 1367(a) governing Supplemental jurisdiction.
21 (a)controlling Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be
22 instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides,
is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.
23 (b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in
which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district
24 be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for
that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal
25 thereof.(d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on
26 any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or
transacts his affairs..
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2499
282ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 1V
2 THE PARTIES
3 PLAINTIFFS
4 9. PLAINTIFF, (BARARFIT) "THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT

5 OF HAPPINESS FOR THE BOKHARY, ASGHAR, KHWAJA AND
6 RICHARDSON FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST", at all times mentioned
7 herein was and is an irrevocable Trust based in California, (hereinafter referred to
8 separately and collectively as (BAKARFIT), with a service mailing address
9 located at 11909 Palm Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93312, County of Kern, State of
10 California, conducting business within the jurisdictional district of this Court. The
11 trust has its principle place of business in Los Angeles, California.
12 10. PLAINTIFF, ROCK OF GIBRALTOR, LLC (hereinafter referred to as

13 ROCK), is and was at all times mentioned herein ROCK; a Limited Liability
14 Company conducted Business in the Jurisdiction of Los Angeles, California. Its
15 current mailing address is 11909 Palm Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93312.
16 DEFENDANTS:
17 11.DEFENDANT, NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION (Hereinafter

18 referred to as NEW CENTURY). New Century Mortgage is, and at all relevant
19 times, has been a corporation conducting business in California. New Century
20 Mortgages main office is located at 18400 Von Karman, Suite 1000, Irvine,
21 California 92612, with an additional address as principal place of business listed as
22 follows: New Century Mortgage Corporation D/B/A Home123 14750 NW 77th
23 Court, Ste. .... 6399 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 812, Los Angeles, CA 90048.
24 12.DEFENDANT DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC; (Hereinafter referred to as
25 DLJ,) is, and at all relevant times, has been a corporation conducting business in
26 California DLJ as a successor trustee for New Century, with offices in New
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2500
283ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 York and Utah; the latter shared with Defendants Fidelity Title and other
2 defendants, as the address for process of service located at: 3815 SW Temple, Salt
3 Lake City, UT 84115. Tel. 801-293-1883, Fax 801-293-2555.
4 13.DEFENDANT, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, formerly OCWEN

5 FEDERAL BANK FSB; OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and at all
6 relevant times, has been a corporation conducting business in Arizona and
7 California collectively and/or separately its Core Business and Non-Core
8 Businesses included: Federal Banking, Residential Loan Servicing, Commercial
9 Assets, Ocwen Technology Xchange ("OTX"), Affordable Housing, Ocwen Realty
10 Advisors ("ORA"), Subprime Finance, Ocwen Recovery Group, Business Process
11 Outsourcing, Commercial Servicing amongst other items of revenue and expense
12 in their corporate items and segments based on strategy to focus on fee-based
13 earnings to maximize the long-term value of the Company with the non-core
14 residential discount loan business and commercial finance business involved the
15 acquisition of non-performing loans at a discount to par value in order to increase
16 its value by selling it at a profit. At all times relevant OCWEN, New Century,
17 GMAC acted as agents or servicers for each other and for other Banks like
18 Wells Fargo etc, sharing the same business locations, attorneys and or local
19 brokers. OCWEN principal place of business is: 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,
20 Ste. 1000, West Palm Beach, Fl., 33401-2129.
21 14.DEFENDANT, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., a Utah
22 Corporation, (Hereinafter referred to as SELECT) and at all relevant times, is a
23 successor trustee of Defendant Fidelity Title organized under Federal Rules of
24 United States to act as an agent of financial and Title Insurance Entities or doing so
25 without such license. At all relevant times SELECT shares its business address
26 3815 SW Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84115. Tel. 801-293-1883, Fax 801-293-
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2501
284ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 2555, with Defendant Fidelity National Group and multiple Corporations
2 including Chicago Title; First American Title as Attorney-in-Fact for Loanstar,
3 and multiple named defendants, subject of offer of proof by discovery.
4 15. DEFENDANT, NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION,

5 (Hereinafter referred to as NDSC) NDSC, at all relevant time has a legal
6 standing to do Business in California and Arizona, is an agent of agent of
7 Defendant Fidelity National Title, New Century and named defendants
8 according to proof operating under the umbrella of Fidelity Title offices located
9 at 3815 SW Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84115. Tel. 801-293-1883, Fax 801-293-
10 2555, per defendants notices mailed through U.S. Mail.
11 16. DEFENDANT FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, Inc., a Delaware

12 corporation, at all times relevant operating, doing business with Chicago Title
13 Insurance Corporation and multiple other known and unknown affiliates and
14 subsidiaries inclusive of FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP; FIDELITY
15 NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, (Hereinafter collectively referred
16 to as Fidelity or Fidelity Title). At all relevant times Fidelity as a national
17 and/or international Corporation is/was wholly or majority owned/run by CEO
18 William Foley II, doing business under the Laws of The United States of America
19 as a Title Corporation by and through owner William Foley of Foley Vineyards.
20 Has its offices loctaed in Los Angeles, at 601 S. Figueroa St, Suite 2130 Los
21 Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 689-9301 (800) 611-6161, fax (213) 689-9330 and
22 process of service address located at: 3815 SW Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84115.
23 Tel. 801-293-1883, Fax 801-293-2555, an address that provides umbrella to
24 multiple defendants.
25
26
10 First Amended Complaint for Damages and Equitable
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2502
285ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 17.DEFENDANT FIRST AMERICAN LENDERS ADVANTAGE; FIRST
2 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AS ATTORNEY IN-FACT;
3 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, the largest
4 subsidiary of The First American Corporation (NYSE: FAF) (Hereinafter referred
5 to as FATCO), at all relevant times Defendant is based in United States with
6 nationwide offices located at: 550 South Hope Street, LA, CA 90071; 1 First
7 American Way Santa Ana, CA 92707-5913 located at and Overseas Head Office
8 Title House 33-39 Elm field Road Bromley Kent BR1 1LTTel: +44 (0)20 8315
9 1300, Fax: +44 (0)20 8315 1339. Email: info@firsttitle.eu.
10 18.DEFENDANT ALLIANCE TITLE, (Hereinafter referred to as Alliance) at all

11 relevant times is/was a California Escrow and Title Corporation operating under the
12 umbrella of FATCO (www.alliancetitleco.com with Offices in Los Angeles and
13 Kern County 5060 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93309 (661) 862-5712.
14 19.DEFENDANT STATE FARM INSURANCE, (Hereinafter referred to as State

15 Farm) at all relevant times is/was a national insurance Corporation, organized and
16 doing business under the laws of The United States of America; operating
17 nationally and international as an Insurance Carrier, hired to insure plaintiff on a

18 Commercial Policy 93-C3-0734-5 and to provide an Umbrella Fire Policy in
19 California and Arizona, from or prior to 1998 onwards, and according to proof and
20 discovery defendants breached both policies. State Farm Insurance Head Office is
21 located at One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL. 61710. (309)7663635.
22 20. DEFENDANT MOBILE STORAGE GROUP (Hereinafter referred to as
23 Mobile Storage) at all relevant times is a business organized in Burbank
24 California doing business in Arizona with or without a license located at 7590 N.
25 Glenoaks Blvd. Burbank, CA 91504. Tel. (818) 253-3200 Fax: (818)253-3293,
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2503
286ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 with its officers and owners, whose verified email contacts is listed as follows:
2 ChaCha Pina at Email address:CPina@MOBILESTORAGE.com, PastyGodinez@
3 818-253-3231,pgodinez@mobilestorage.com,Lisa@quintero@ mobilestorage.com
4 21.DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY AND KERN COUNTY TREASURER TAX

5 COLLECTOR, (hereinafter collectively referred to as KC), at all relevant times
6 operated collectively and separately as a government unit, by and through its
7 offices, employees and agents whose actions allegedly caused multiple unlawful
8 activities, for which KC), may be served at: Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun
9 Ave. Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 93301. Fax. (661)868-3805. Tel. (661)868-3818.
10 22.DEFENDANT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, (Hereinafter referred to as

11 Bakersfield, at all times relevant a government agency and doing the business of
12 Bakersfield with a process of service address located at: offices of the City
13 Attorney, 1115 Truxtun Ave., 2nd Floor, and Bakersfield, California 93301-4640.
14 23.DEFENDANT PIMA COUNTY, AND PIMA COUNTY TREASURER TAX

15 COLLECTOR; (Hereinafter collectively referred to as PC), at all relevant times
16 operated collectively and separately as a government unit, by and through its
17 offices, employees and agents whose actions allegedly caused multiple unlawful
18 activities; wherefore service is made C/o County Counsel: 32 N. Stone, 21st Fl.,
19 Tucson 85701. Fax: (520)740-5600, Tel. (520)740-5750.
20 24.DEFENDANT CITY OF TUCSON, (Hereinafter collectively referred to as
21 TUCSON,) at all times relevant defendant is named as a State organization who
22 maybe served for alleged violations by service upon Senior City Counsel. Josh
23 Mendelelsohn, Bldg. 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson AZ. 85726-7210 or by service
24 upon, City Clerk City of Tucson, P.O. Box. 2031. Tucson Arizona 85775-0240.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2504
287ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 25.DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER R. PERRY, as an individual, and Trustee For
2 StarrPass Master Homeowners Association, Inc., An Arizona Non-Profit
3 Corporation; (Master HOA) StarrPass Master Homeowners Association, Inc., An
4 Arizona Non-Profit Corporation, DEVCON; with its principals, affiliates and
5 subsidiaries shall be referred to with its principals and inclusive of DESERT PASS
6 REALTY, (Hereinafter shall be collectively and separately referred to as
7 DEVCON at all times relevant, DEVCON is a Canadian corporation doing
8 business in the United States of America by and through CEO Christopher Ansley
9 with one of its offices located at 3654 W. Starr Pass Blvd. Tuc. AZ 85745.
10 26.DEFENDANT FRANK ST. CLAIR, ST. CLAIR DEVELOPMENT ST.

11 CLAIR INVESTMENT; ST. CLAIR REALTY (Hereinafter collectively and
12 separately shall be referred to as St. Clair), at all times relevant St. Clair is
13 owned by Real Estate Broker/Developer Frank St. Clair, who operates under
14 various names and unknown subsidiaries and entities, with and/or without
15 Developer Bryan Whitfield with his principal place of business located at: 3401
16 Wible Rd. Bakersfield CA. 93309. (661)434-0604; (661)834-4202; (661) 834-4219.
17 27. DEFENDANT DEBBIE BANDUCCI, (Hereinafter referred to as Banducci)

18 at all times relevant was/is an individual and a California Real Estate Agent
19 operating collectively and /or separately as an individual and a Real estate agent
20 under two separate Brokers during the pendency of these actions, lists as her current
21 business address: 3955 Coffee Rd, Bakersfield, CA 93308. (661) 334-4300.
22 28.DEFENDANT MARVIN CHAMBERS, (Hereinafter referred to as
23 Chambers), at all times relevant Chambers is/was an individual residing at:
24 5405 Fairfax Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93307 and alleged to be a RICO person for
25
multiple acts committed separately and or collectively for the alleged enterprise and
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2505
288ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 allegedly rewarded and punished for disclosing the same to plaintiffs.
2 29.DEFENDANT KENYON TERRACE HOA ITS SUCCESSORS AND

3 ASSIGNS, (Hereinafter referred to as K.T.), was/is at all times relevant a
4 Homeowners Association and has/had as its agent an attorney named Tanis Duncan
5 whose service address is located at: 548 E. Speedway, Tuc., AZ 85705.
6 30.DEFENDANT PERI ELIZABETH LOCKLEAR; (Hereinafter she shall be

7 referred to as LOCKLEAR), is/was at all times relevant a convicted felon for
8 committing crimes against Plaintiffs and its beneficiaries; and later referred to as an
9 alleged RICO person residing in Kern County or Los Angeles, upon whom
10 service can be made by service upon CCCOE Adult Correctional Education
11 Department for Parolees located at 3400 Sillect Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93308.
12 31.DEFENDANT FOR ONE SPECIFIC RESTRAINING ACTION,

13 HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ERREA OF KERN COUNTY (Hereinafter
14 shall be referred to as ERREA), at all relevant times, a commissioner presiding
15 in limited State Court of Kern County (CV07-06757) named as a defendant to
16 restrain his honor from presiding over S-1500-CL-216249 despite statutory,
17 constitutional and procedural challenges sans jurisdiction and standing where
18 amounts in controversy is governed by 281331, 1332 and venue controlled by

19 1367(a) for like issues and facts raised in original and supplement cases, and
20 service may be made upon: County Counsel, Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun
21 Ave. 4th Fl., Bakersfield CA 93301. Fax. (661)868-3805. Tel. (661)868-3800.
22 32.DEFENDANT FOR ONE SPECIFIC RESTRAINING ACTION,
23 HONORABLE JUDGE MICHAEL ALFRED, (Hereinafter shall be referred to
24 as Alfred at all relevant times, a Pima County Judge (CV07-06750) named as a
25 defendant for purpose to restrain his honor from proceeding in C2006-6164 Pima
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2506
289ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 County State Court case controlled by 1367(a) for matters controlled by interstate
2 conversion; Title 281331 and 1332, service address located at: 110 West
3 Congress, 9th Floor, Tucson, Arizona, 85745.
4 33.Plaintiff are ignorant of the true names and capacity of the defendants DOES 1-10,
5 JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10,
6 DOE ENTITIES 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, and INDIVIDUAL
7 DOES 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues such defendants by their fictitious names,
8 seeking leave of court per local and federal rules to update names and capacities of
9 said defendants as ascertained.
10 V
11 PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS
12 The Prior Criminal Trials
13 34.Throughout the relevant period as defined below, defendants who own Title and
14 Escrow services and their agents and affiliates conspired to extort millions of
15 dollars from plaintiff Trust, its beneficiaries and from plaintiff LLC, and its
16 members leaving both plaintiffs, its private family beneficiaries and husband and
17 wife members insolvent, by a scheme of framing plaintiffs with false debt
18 obligations belonging to a convicted felon and for acts committed by defendants
19 themselves then bribed defendants later identified as RICO persons to falsely
20 declare that those false debts were owned by Plaintiff, in return of promises to levy,
21 abstracts of judgments against plaintiffs family estate regardless of ownership to
22 force Plaintiff into insolvency by forcing plaintiff to pay these false, enormous and
23 global abstracts, liens and penalties, unrelated to any actual debt or damages, which
24 led to purported unauthorized interception of any and all of Plaintiffs business
25
relationships and real estate escrows and rental business transactions, alleged more
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2507
290ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 fully below; with the aid of and assistance of a Law Firm called Caswell Bell and
2 Hillison ( hereinafter enterprise or enterprise agent CB&H whose appearance
3 on behalf of multiple defendants both corporate, state and individual defendants
4 is/was designed, implemented, originated and executed a policy, a form of
5 established practice and/or course of conduct, (subject of Title 5552 FOIA) by and
6 through which; enterprise, principals, godfathers, affiliates, co-conspirators and
7 confederates would transmit, via federal interstate communication services, wires
8 including mail, messaging email services and or fax, series of demand letters or
9 abstracts of Judgments without actual foundations (1999 to 2007 ongoing) to all
10 those persons whose names had been obtained through the tracking system devises
11 controlled by the Title and escrow section of the enterprise, spread across state
12 lines, with one or more specific scheme, inclusive of stopping and disabling
13 innocent victim/plaintiff (as set forth by 1961(3)), transactions and ability/s to pay
14 disputed and undisputed debts according to the definition of 1961(6) regardless of
15 controversy, so as to allow enterprise to continue this charade of non-payment of
16 debt for Plaintiffs lifetime. (See 1136 S. little Buck Loop, Tucson, Arizona list of
17 intercepted buyers to force foreclosure, offered as a sample, exhibit marked 1.)

18 35.The purpose and intent of sending those demand letters and contaminated Title
19 Reports with wild writ enforcement practices is alleged to have been implemented
20 to coerce, extort and defraud, and/or attempt to coerce, extort and/or defraud,
21 victims; and to threaten initiation of suit, designed to be won without jury trial or by
22 default; if victims responded or filed a cross complaint calling them mad and
23 vexatious, so as to continue with interstate piracy of grant and warranty deed real
24 property. Defendants mutually agreed to accomplish their objectives, by employing
25 Title Corporations as the vehicle for collections of unjust gain with attorneys on
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2508
291ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 standby to provide hired litigants based on material misrepresentations (CV07-
2 06757 & CV07-06750) and/or material non disclosures, causing multi-million
3 dollars worth of injury to plaintiffs, their family members, beneficiaries, business
4 associates, and members interest in business and/or property. (See list of wrongful
5 taking of property and or/intercepted sales, exhibit marked 2).
6 36.From time to time Defendants impersonated Plaintiffs as sellers of properties listed

7 in exhibit 2, the title arm of the enterprise would ensure title in the commission of
8 theft, or walked it in to a local commissioner or a person of authority and obtained
9 an after the fact cover-up as security against money laundering of equity theft
10 allegations.
11 37.Occasionally enterprise paid other associate/defendants in return for making false

12 declarations, allegations of debt, or claim to persons of authority so as to obtain
13 friendly verdicts; such as offering false low value on a property then setting up an
14 LLC to buy the same property at the initial loan amount, and collecting rent for
15 years but allowing taxing to continue in plaintiff name for monies earned by
16 defendants, then finally taking over title to house, through local developers/real
17 estate agents, profiteering from huge equities laundered under Plaintiffs name
18 showing zero gain to defendants and false claim of profit to plaintiffs, causing false
19 assessments and taxation to an innocent party and backed by false declarations
20 under color of experts by the use of a series of federal interstate demands, claims
21 and ownership allegations transmitted by federal mail, wire, e-mail, (see sample
22 BANDUCCI and St. Clair racket in California and DevCon and Coldwell
23 Banker mirror image racket in Arizona without plaintiff authority exhibit
24 marked 3.)
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2509
292ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 38.Defendants knew that plaintiffs are holder in trust of its beneficiaries estate, and as
2 non individual entities would require an attorney to file any action for relief, so first
3 the potential plaintiff was financially marginalized and if that failed to obstruct an
4 attorney from coming in, each attorney Plaintiff retained at great cost to themselves
5 and/or with borrowed monies, was systemically intimidated, threatened and given a
6 carrot and stick approach to abandon plaintiff; with the sole aim of obstructing
7 Plaintiffs from the following: discovery against defendants, leading to investigation
8 that may expose criminality by defendants, affecting local and State local law
9 enforcement proceedings, that could expose obstruction of justice and witness
10 tampering. When all else failed, enterprise uses alleged henchmen/agents, or
11 enterprise agent CB&H to perform preemptive tried and tested unlawful acts in
12 targeted venues as retaliation to silence plaintiffs/victim attorneys, witnesses, juries
13 and or informants adverse to defendants.
14 39.In the current climate of national crises of foreclosures, plaintiffs found it slightly
15 easier to expose how a daisy chain of subprime financial Institutions and Insurance
16 carriers formed an enterprise that ran as standard operating practice a business of
17 hiring persons and entities for illegal acts for the Corporate deep pockets in return
18 for kickbacks and bribery; exposed by State of California Vs. First American Title
19 et al; State of New York Vs. First American Title et al; State of California Vs.
20 Fidelity Title; State of Colorado Vs. First American Title; State of Colorado Vs.
21 Fidelity Title and related institutions listed in below mentioned web sites; three of
22 which are specifically identified for their likeness to instant and related cases as
23 exhibit marked 4) containing three third party controlling complaints of similar
24 violations across state lines in Guzman Vs. Ocwen; Corporate Commissioner Vs.
25 New Century; Hanson Vs. Ocwen;
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2510
293ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 40.On May 03, 2007 defendant arbitrarily changed the Title of the roof over Plaintiffs
2 head, which is their farm, office and source of income for the last two decades, and
3 now their sole income over and above a homesteaded roof (CV07-06757), with an
4 equity of $800,000 to I million dollars, if the money credited from missing funds
5 taken from multiple escrows is credited back to plaintiffs.
6 41.On November 06, 2007 a limited court commissioner is going to preside over this
7 matter despite plaintiffs challenges, fully aware of the Federal Questions of law;
8 the existence of federal claims and controversy and the entry of a third party
9 appraisal confirming the value to eviscerate any foreclosure and or eviction
10 proceedings, for lack of legal standing of the alleged plaintiffs in the state court
11 case controlled by CV07-6757 to bring such an action, and for lack of jurisdiction
12 of the court to hear this matter by withholding of right to proceedings in an
13 unlimited federal court in front of a jury of peers.
14 42.a. CV07-06757 involves plaintiffs beneficiary Sammye Richardsons million

15 dollar homesteaded roof over her head KC S-1500-CL-216249 controlled by the
16 same non enforceable lien/writ so as to help justify lack of equity by court.
17 b. CV07-06750 involves like practices against homesteaded home of Beneficiary

18 Michael Richardson by the same financial group of defendants as CV07-06757 in
19 Pima County C2006-6164 where the same unenforceable lien/writ was used to
20 incept sale to cause foreclosure where no such debt exists.
21 43.This is a Complex Suit, based on multi-district crimes and violations adverse to
22 plaintiffs where discovery may prove to require the invoking of Title 28 1407(a)
23 (b) (c) (d) over and above 1367(a).
24
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2511
294ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 44.Before the entrapment by defendants plaintiff had pristine credit; until 1999 when a
2 false debt of a third party was imposed upon the plaintiffs, (See Title report
3 prepared by defendants Cause of action 1-9 exhibit marked 5.)
4 45. It is an undisputed fact that in 2004-2006 without the Enterprises lien of $1.3
5 million and unauthorized debts by agents of FATCO, City of Bakersfield, and
6 individual defendants using Caswell Bell and Hillison, hereinafter enterprise or
7 enterprise agent CB&H, as its counsel was valued by comparable prices at an
8 approximate value of forty (40) million dollars, which debts were claimed were
9 recorded against said estate and alleged not collected. These debts are not imposed
10 for economic reason alone but to malign, intimidate, silence and ruin the targeted
11 victim so that no one would listen to a marginalized victim/plaintiff. (See samples
12 of acts of bribery/incentives to ruin victim exhibit marked 6.)
13 46.RICO activities were under way before Plaintiffs became unwitting victims of the
14 alleged enterprise by corporate defendants in 1995, only plaintiff dared to report
15 the activities to the Arizona Attorney General who indicted and convicted
16 representatives of the alleged Godfather to the Enterprise i.e. First American Title
17 FATCO for state RICO charges based on Plaintiffs beneficiaries complaint along
18 with an approximate one hundred victims; undeterred FATCO repeatedly
19 continued the same criminal activities of hiring and paying for illegal acts despite
20 additional multi-million dollar fines levied across state lines upon it from, 1994,
21 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 by more than five states.
22 47.In retaliation the enterprise imposed a blanket lien over their approximately (40)
23 forty million dollar estate in complete violation of CCP699.010-701-830
24 statutory authority governing debt collection 9.1, 9.2 scope and controlling
25 guidelines governing writ enforcement; exemptions over homesteaded properties.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2512
295ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 48.US District Judge John F. Walter recently presided over a similar case of hired
2 Litigants, (Milberg Weiss) and rendered judgment that Plaintiffs believe is
3 applicable here, Plaintiff offer that this case has all the elements of the Milberg
4 case, involving the hiring of litigants spread across state lines of California,
5 Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New York from 1994 for the purpose of this complaint.
6 49.Plaintiffs allege discovery against defendants is material to any remedy for relief
7 and treble damages;
8
9 50. Plaintiff swear under penalty of perjury that they are verified victims of crimes of
10 extortions; embezzlement and fraud in accordance with Arizona and California
11 State Bill of rights guaranteeing Plaintiff beneficiaries the status of crimes
12 committed by indicted and convicted felons and a portion of instant case is filed for
13 civil damages for those convictions.
14 51.Plaintiff alleges they are verified victims of a multi-million dollar continual serial
15 extortion crime spree by and through an enterprise, that makes core and non-core
16 profit as defined under RICO specifications that meet both definitions of RICO
17 structure, i.e. organized and/or loose, in the daily operational structure of the
18 enterprise varying upon the discretion of the enterprise.
19 52. Plaintiff confirms the undisputed fact that on each occasion where Plaintiff had
20 money to hire counsel in the states of California and Arizona; its testimony caused
21 the indictment leading to conviction of three separate agents of the enterprise, with
22 plaintiff listed victims.
23 53. Plaintiff offers that on at least five or more occasions principal corporate
24 defendants referred to as an Enterprise were themselves fined by state
25 governmental units for like crimes to ones mentioned in said complaint in an
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2513
296ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 amount exceeding thirty million dollars effective 1994 to 2007. These same acts are
2 the foundation of this complaint.
3 54.Plaintiff offers courts review of facts and discovery shall reveal a structure that
4 meets the legal burden imposed by the multiple Appellate Districts for
5 qualifications to establish an Enterprise:
6 Case record shows at least three circuits appear to recognize that an enterprise
7 consisting solely of a corporation and its subsidiaries and agents, fails to meet
8 RICOs well established distinctiveness requirement;
9 With ninth circuit and two other circuits appearing to permit allegation of
10 Enterprise claims involving association-in-fact, composed solely of entities and
11 agents within a corporate family;
12 And with four other circuits holding that a RICO person and its subsidiaries or
13 agents sometimes constitute an enterprise;
14 55.Plaintiffs alleges servicers, financial institutions, associates, entities, assigns and

15 successors collaborate to gain unjust enrichment that meet the distinctive and inter-
16 alia requirement of enterprise in instant and concurrent matters as required by
17 each circuit guidelines, whether the relationship is inter alia, where the enterprise
18 consists of no more than a Corporation, its subsidiary hospitals and agents or

19 between two or more corporations and third party RICO persons unlawful on-going
20 acts in return for promise and/or actual payment of unjust financial gains taken by
21 extortion from victim through acts that involve two or more corporate defendants
22 who have committed two or more acts over a period of multiple years and used
23 federal interstate communications and commerce as established by the
24 distinctiveness requirement factor to allege enterprise; whereby Plaintiffs can
25 allege the proper construction of the RICO statute liability provision, that makes it
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2514
297ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 unlawful for a person to be associated with an enterprise, engaged in a
2 pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) (b) (c) and or (d).
3 56. Plaintiffs alleges instant enterprise is a sophisticated, elaborate and affective

4 structure lasting over a continuous decade without a break, run by a mob like
5 alternative where in lieu of the alleged Godfather Corporate bosses based out of
6 Los Angeles California and Salt Lake City Utah control actions taken that are
7 adverse to RICO victims, through creative, wrongful, and alleged money laundering
8 schemes by liquidating third party grant and warranty deed real property into cash
9 or exchanges enabling the re-cycling of equities and washing of profits.
10 57.Plaintiffs alleges RICO persons are mostly recycled over and over again with the
11 only exception being if a enterprise member is caught, like Nancy Walsh, Peri
12 Locklear and or Richard Romero in instant cases or turns out to be a wild card like
13 Marvin Chambers and or Michael Underwood. In these cases these RICO persons
14 generally remain on the take, with incentives to appear at arms length, and while
15 their unwritten job description may vary the duties invariably include showing up at
16 foreclosure sales, giving false declarations of value of targeted properties, incepting
17 buyers, character assassination of the victim; public and business maligning of
18 victim; making false debt claims; initiating fraudulent debt collection actions;
19 calling governmental agencies to file false charges against victim; circle the
20 wagons around the victim to separate it from its earnings by threats, legal actions,
21 framing victim for crimes committed by Enterprise and most importantly
22 certifying that no discovery ever takes place against enterprise and no attorney
23 lasts to dare to represent victims ethically; and if that fails closed door sessions with
24 such attorneys to chastise them from representing victim, followed by offers of jobs
25 and incentives to breach retainer agreements continual in persistence until the
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2515
298ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 attorney buckles down in the face of such unwanted pressure of deep pocket
2 enterprise who appear infallible despite being caught red handed by states for
3 bribery, kickbacks or other corrupt acts.
4 58.Plaintiffs allege Defendants do not want to see a repeat of the same mistake twice,
5 whereby the affording of attorneys from 1998 -2001 allowed plaintiff/as witnesses
6 to testify against defendants and its unknown and known agents which led to three
7 convictions of enterprise agents. (See group exhibits from California District
8 attorney and Arizona District attorney marked Peri Locklear, Nancy Walsh as
9 manager for FATCO and Richard Romero RICO person for FATCO
10 exhibits marked 8).
11 59. Plaintiffs offer, a one page correspondence from trustee Zipf for convicted felon
12 Richard Romero signed by Zipf, forced to return the estate to plaintiffs after the
13 Arizona attorney general rendered (exhibit marked (8) initiating the start of
14 revenge by the enterprise (See Zipf correspondence, to be supplemented with
15 declarations of destruction of estate by Zipf before turnover, exhibits
16 marked 9) This revenge has lasted ten years and in those ten years California,
17 Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New York Insurance Commissioners, and or attorney

18 generals have confirmed FATCO, Fidelity and associates pay kickbacks and
19 bribe as a standard course of doing business in return for unlawful activities,
20 confirming Plaintiffs allegations.
21 60.Plaintiffs offers it inadvertently fell into the role of thwarting this racket run across
22 state lines by the enterprise and unfortunately for the enterprise its actions with
23 prime and subprime lenders taking over as servicers has now re-opened this racket
24 to the national forefront coming back to haunt this nation as a national foreclosure
25 epidemic.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2516
299ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 61.Plaintiff allege, had they been afforded the right to redress their Government for
2 relief, the Nation could have been saved from this national crises of foreclosures
3 because of exposure of the unethical business relationship of financial institutions
4 to Title and escrow Corporations.
5 62.Plaintiff contends, its access to facts and history allows it to raise extortion of
6 itself by FATCO bribing co-defendants and agents to falsify statements to
7 falsely incriminate Plaintiff as a means to marginalize plaintiff before its targeting
8 by RICO persons like St. Clair and other Kern County Does who inflicted
9 duplicative paid off liens despite accepting payments in full backed by public
10 record, yet filed electronic notices from 1999 to 2007 against Exhibit 2 until the
11 entire estate was lost. In return for these liens and false claims exceeding five
12 thousand dollars per action involving mail fraud from 1999-2007 three RICO
13 persons Juliann Sanchez; Michael Underwood, Marvin Chambers gained or
14 caused a loss to plaintiffs of multi-million dollars and according to their own
15 statements they were motivated by incentives from FATCO, who unchecked
16 from 1994, used its standard operating practice of bribery in 1999, then again from
17 2001 to 2002, 2002 -2004 and 2004-2007(according to state records and Plaintiff
18 held record) invoking 1961(1) (A) robbery, bribery, extortion.
19 63. Plaintiff alleges corporate defendants financial institution and/or beneficiary of
20 enterprise New Century was licensed by Los Angeles based California
21 Corporation Commissioner to conduct Business as a Mortgage Lending Institution
22 in Multiple Districts of United States, two years after year 2000 when New
23 Century refinanced 11909 Palm Ave Bakersfield CA 93312.
24 64.Plaintiff offers New Century status from 2000 to 2002 in California is unknown.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2517
300ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 65. Plaintiff contend the same California Corp. Commissioner who licensed New
2 Century revoked its licenses for failure to comply with any (CFLL) code 22712,
3 guidelines in the following words:
4 66.Having determined that (New Century Mortgage or Company) has engaged

in, or is engaging in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices constituting
5 violations of the CFLL (Financial Code sections 22000 et seq.) and applicable
6 regulations and hereby issued the following Findings of Fact and Desist and
Refrain Order Pursuant to (Financial Code 22000 et seq) and applicable
7 regulations.
8 67.Plaintiffs are informed believe and thereon allege that DLJ was appointed
9 successor Trustee for New Century to appear as if it were a separate entity prior
10 to the May 03, 2007 extortion attempt (See pleading paper entered with Notice of
11 Motion for Removal of Cv07-06757, contradicting the shoes under which
12 DLJ took title to the roof over Plaintiffs head as third party buyer marked
13 exhibit 12) On or about August 26, 2000.DLJis a successor in interest to
14 New Century when alleging their status in CV07-06757 controlling Address:
15 11909 Palm Ave. Bakersfield, California. 93312 Family Farmhouse;
16 68.Findings of fact and conclusions of law that order New Century to desist and
17 refrain control its successors from committing like acts (See Michael Richardson
18 declaration supporting attachments in CV07-06757 exhibit marked 11)
19 69.Plaintiff offers despite the controlling order marked exhibit 11, DLJ falsified
20 material facts between March 2007 through August 27, 2007, through September
21 05, 2007 to initiate conversion and a vexatious action in front of a back pocket
22 venue of choice and this confirmed by two packages mailed to multiple parties by
23 the use of federal communications systems involving multiple allegations all for the
24 amount over $800,000.00 dollars and each contradicting the others contents with an
25 additional approximate (121) pages of exhibit in concurrent related CV07-06757
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2518
301ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 served electronically and or by mail to Attorney Sloan and such mailing followed
2 by September 05, 2007 threat to the same attorney in front of Commissioner Errea
3 to remove himself from the case in an exparte session witnessed by the
4 Commissioner. When these acts took place the property and equity being extorted
5 from was declared to be valued at: (See Appraised value lowered from 2004 of
6 1.2 to over eight hundred thousand dollars in 2007, exhibit marked 13.)
7 70. Plaintiff contends had New Century $276,000.00 Deed of Trust been valid with
8 no plaintiffs allegations of missing escrowed funds; the exhibit 13 marked
9 appraisals would confirm an approximate five hundred thousand plus equity in the
10 homesteaded farm controlled by instant and concurrent case CV07-06757.
11 71. Plaintiff alleges it was then DLJ and FATCO together as an enterprise
12 rehired Lawyers on stand-by i.e. enterprise or enterprise agent CB&H to re-
13 impose an unauthorized lien first imposed as of $1.3 Million and re-imposed as
14 $900,000.00 slightly more than the claimed equity against an innocent property
15 where no such lien ever existed against the plaintiff (See the use of the same tactic
16 by the same firm on January 18, 2001 confirmed by a California Attorney
17 Andreessen referencing this wrongful practice of the same law Firm in 2001...,
18 identifies property well over one million ,.the value for the real property to be
19 covered by the order was not to exceed $300,000.00, (Attorney Andreessen
20 raises constitutional rights/unlawful debt collection underlying causes material
21 to leading plaintiffs beneficiaries to financial ruin/BK, exhibit marked 14)
22 72. Plaintiff alleges such material facts in instant and concurrent matters to show how
23 extortion led to the dissipation of their multi-million dollar estate.
24 73.Plaintiff alleges DLJ opened the door to evidentiary hearings and discovery
25 against itself and the enterprise by the entry of altered and false approximate
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2519
302ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 (121) plus exhibits it mailed to multiple sources including State Court Case S-
2 1500-CL-216249 record, for disputed facts of material issues evidentiary in nature
3 requiring Rule 60(b) discovery controlled by evidentiary hearings
4 74. Court is moved to take Judicial Note of Title Conversion the act of May 03, 2007
5 claim of ownership by DLJ controlled by Title 18 1961(1)(B) sub-section
6 section 1341 , section 1343, section 1344 , control each mailing for an amount
7 greater than five thousand dollars as one count of mail fraud in instant and
8 concurrent related actions and note DLJs own offering to eviscerate its standing
9 to claim in CV07-06757: Plaintiff obtained Title to the premises and right to
10 possession thereof by its purchase at a foreclosure sale validly held in compliance
11 with civil code subsection 2924 the particulars of which areMay 03, 2007, in the
12 face of its contradictory offering:On or about August 26, 2000.DLJis a
13 successor in interest to New Century
14 75. DLJ standing to bring CV07-06757 controlled action must be barred by

15 California Financial code 22712, and the taking of property by impersonation
16 declared a RICO 1964(a) governed offence.
17 76. Court must further take judicial notice of the actions taken by the New York Stock
18 Exchange NDYE for the further barring and revoking of New Centurys right
19 to negotiate stocks in New York States Stock Exchange effective on or around the
20 time of Foreclosure proceedings were initiated under DLJ name by and through a
21 consensual hierarchy of managing members, lawyers, attorneys, partners, managers,
22 directors, officers, supervisors, and/or representatives that formulate and implement
23 policies relative to the provision of legal services, including but not restricted to,
24 unlawful debt collection practices, under each others cover better known as
25 OCWEN; ERBEY; LITTON; MOSS, CODILIS; MOSS, PITE;
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2520
303ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, NDSC; GMAC; FIDELITY
2 and FATCO making up defendants core and non-core profits is material to the
3 demand for turnover of Titles back to its legal owners.(See approximately 100
4 violated Title Policy/ies to be entered as exhibit marked 15).
5 77.Court is moved by Plaintiffs to review the facts and related actions for the
6 application of similar citations in instant and concurrent matters where the same
7 group of defendants, controlled in like manner properties through the same
8 unauthorized title transfers, sample of one title transfer in exhibit marked 16), by
9 which alleged scheme defendants like OCWEN; New Century and GMAC
10 by relying on each other, agents/assignees and enterprise made millions just from
11 these plaintiffs.
12 78.Third party cases like (Guzmans v. OCWEN; Kweku Hanson et al v. Ocwen

13 Federal Bank et al Docket #.3:02CV960 (CFD) and the Corporate
14 Commissioner v. New Century, listed as exhibit marked 11), merely support an
15 ongoing serial, systemic pattern of State and federal racketeering in violation of
16 statutory and constitutional rights of consumers across state lines (Exhibit 2).
17 79.Plaintiff alleges when they asked Defendant Select to provide accounting of

18 missing funds Select wrote a letter with an alleged copy to FBI threatening
19 victims of Selects own fraud by the use of intimidation through the mentioning
20 of FBI. (Letter on Select letter head as successor for Fidelity followed
21 by the same request resulting in threats against Plaintiff Counsel in the
22 presence of Errea making Errea witness to RICO crime of tampering
23 court proceedings. exhibit marked 17 as proof of thereof).
24 80.Plaintiff alleges the production of documents itemizing settlement statements and
25 Demands for pay-off on at least eighty of exhibit marked 2; properties shall expose
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2521
304ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 that the lien over CV07-06757 controlled property for $276,000 could have been
2 paid off ten times over and a substantial equity left over for Plaintiffs.
3 81.Yet NDSC commenced foreclosure proceeding on the roof over Plaintiffs

4 beneficiaries head located at 11909 Palm Ave., Bakersfield, California 93312
5 without service of notice of foreclosure with intent to ignore Plaintiff multiple
6 requests for accounting based on contention that payment has been collected on a
7 Contract Breached by Lender New Century; NDSCS, principal Defendant New
8 Century and its agents refused any accounting and threatened law suits.
9 82.Once confronted with non service an after the fact photograph of a posting on
10 Plaintiffs front door, claiming posting to have taken place on February 14, of 2007,
11 was entered on record. For the record Valentine date is a celebrated event in
12 Plaintiff Household, whereby no posting could have taken place, as there was an
13 historic event taking place at the house where all times plaintiffs were in an around
14 the house, where such a picture would have resulted in the capturing of movement
15 and festivities and it did not.
16 83.Defendant New Century further ignored Plaintiff numerous requests for an

17 accounting that exceed ten properties sold by and through New Century and/or
18 assignees and those ten plus properties that were sold by and through New
19 Century or their assignees had a market value that exceeded Five Million dollars
20 with mortgage debt of no more than $40,000 to $70,000 dollars per property.
21 84.Plaintiff are further informed, believe and thereon allege that defendant St. Clair
22 as a major Kern County Developer was working as an insider with Defendants and
23 each of them (exception Arizona Defendants) and gave low ball appraised value on
24 said real property/s without being licensed to do so. The goal was to purchase these
25 properties at low ball prices and resell them at huge profits under specially set up
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2522
305ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 fronts like Foundation Ventures LLC, a partnership commenced on May 30, 2002
2 with Legal status presently cancelled.
3 85.Plaintiff are informed believe and thereon allege that Fidelity had abused its
4 Fiduciary responsibility to plaintiff, in over a dozen cases and is the umbrella and
5 the enterprise by which remaining defendants are able to receive safety and shelter
6 from exposure for violations of numerous Federal Statutes governing Mortgage
7 Lending Institutions. Besides CV07-06757 and CV07-06750 Hall of record,
8 FATCO and Fidelity Title hold proof that KC S-1500-CV 253558; S-1500-
9 CL 190453; Civ. S 1500- 250894 were vexatious in nature and allowed as the
10 Enterprise alleged to be run by FATCO and Fidelity by and through and
11 RICO persons Frank St. Clair, Banducci, and legal agents for the enterprise
12 enterprise or enterprise agent CB&H so as to walk away with over $75,000.00
13 in stolen equity belonging to plaintiff per property.
14 86.Ironically the RICO enterprise did not record the same lien against 5311 Glacier
15 Springs Bakersfield, CA 93313 after its Title was altered in favor of a Jason
16 Lowe while the assessments and bills against the property were lumped together
17 against Plaintiffs names and three other properties of plaintiffs which it was
18 attempting to sell held in escrow, because of these global Les Pendens and Liens
19 imposed by the same agents of defendants enterprise or enterprise agent
20 CB&H who are on standby to file suits and actions as they did in Kern County
21 suit S-1500-CV 253558 through ready and willing litigants to extort money from
22 plaintiffs who did so under duress though escrows held at Alliance run by the
23 enterprise.
24 87.Plaintiff are further informed and believe that Fidelity in consort with St.
25 Clair New Century; GMAC Mortgage Corporation Pa; Assignee Norwest
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2523
306ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 Mortgage Inc.; OCWEN; First American Lenders Advantage; First
2 American Title Insurance Company As Attorney in-fact; their agents,
3 subsidiaries and employees continues to violate RICO 1961(1)(A) robbery,
4 bribery, extortion and selective RICO 1961(1) (B) violations, wherefore
5 Plaintiff can safely allege all charges and claims levied against FATCO for
6 above and below listed violations are applicable to this defendant. The actions of
7 this defendant have forced Plaintiff to be sued for Tax Liens, HOA Foreclosures
8 and Mortgage Foreclosures for its own benefit and the benefit of its affiliates and
9 partners in crime as identified in this instant action.
10 88.Plaintiffs are informed believe and thereon allege that Plaintiffs are not alone in
11 this plight imposed upon them by the Godfathers of the enterprise Fidelity and
12 FATCO. Listed below is a record of third party web sites to offer a pattern:
13 89.http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2005/02/21/daily8.html
14 90. http://www.firstam.com/content.cfm?id=2498
91.http://www.colorado.gov/governor/press/february05/insurance.html
15
92.http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/taxesandinsurance/20050301-draper.html
16
93..http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/19991108_firstamtitle.htm
17
94.http://www.ins.state.ny.us/invstcomp.htm#ra
18
95.Plaintiff contends First American abused its Fiduciary Duty based on its issued
19
First American's Eagle Protection Owner's Policy and violated the same policies
20
from an approximate period of 1996 to 2007 (see attached group of Title Policies
21
where Fiduciary violations let to direct and indirect abuses against Plaintiffs
22
by FATCO and Fidelity Title and Escrow Companies working under their
23
Licenses and/or under each others influence, attached hereto group exhibit
24
marked 20)
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2524
307ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 96.Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Alliance is protected under FATCO
2 umbrella. Plaintiff alleges that on more than one property Alliance is abusing the
3 same fiduciary Duties to its clients and Parties in Interest as its predecessor
4 (FATCO) and has failed to pay taxes and or give Title Insurance on properties
5 located in Kern County after charging Title Fees, to Consumers.
697.Plaintiff alleges Alliance over paid Kern County (hereinafter KC) and KC
7 Attorneys, because the same attorneys represent Alliances Umbrella protection
8 First American Title hereinafter FATCO all through 2004-2006

998.Plaintiff contend that despite being offered proof of false billing in the face of their
10 own official record in 2004 KC remained silent and allowed its attorneys
11 enterprise or enterprise agent CB&H filed an actual suit and collect predatory fees
12 from innocent escrows upon receiving pay-off demand by plaintiffs and Alliance in
13 2004 insisted on paying the duplicative global fees:
14 Address: 711 Las Colinas Street, Tehachapi, California

Address: 733 Las Colinas Street, Tehachapi, California
15
Address: 5303 Glacier Springs Drive, Bakersfield, California
16 Address: 5307 Glacier Springs Drive, Bakersfield, California
17 99. Foreclosure proceedings are underway for another such mistake by Alliance
18 against 711 Las Colinas Street, Tehachapi, California and 733 Las Colinas Street,
19 Tehachapi, California, again in 2007 that need to be restrained; BAKARFIT is
20 owed a difference of $65,000 in these properties but may lose this right to collect
21 due to breach of Title Insurance and intentional non-payment of tax liens by
22 Alliance after it issued and got paid for a clear Title report.
23 100. State farm is responsible for making good claims under one commercial and
24 one Fire Policy to this plaintiff.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2525
308ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 101. Claim# 03-H165-281 under Policy #03-C3-6175-5 (see attached letter from
2 State Farm avoiding and circumventing Insurance policy on a house now
3 rendered subject to disclosure according to Plaintiff hired two non attached
4 separate engineers report marked Exhibit 21) since September 15, 2003 State
5 Farm has used mother against daughter to conspire with the alleged enterprise to
6 deprive Plaintiff to reside at 1091 South Bill Martin Drive Tucson, Arizona 85745,
7 after the enterprise took a commercial caterpillar truck and ransacked structure of
8 the above property.
9 102. Factual Issues of damages arise out of Arizona sub-divisions controlled by

10 DEVCON and KT (See attached list of properties in Sub-divisions
11 controlled by DEVCON exhibit marked 2 listed under StarrPass with
12 declarations by Arizona Realtor Patsy Andrews before she was threatened
13 Exhibit marked 2 and 22) Plaintiffs themselves narrowly escaping death threats
14 and gunfire after saving 1091 Bill Martin Drive Tucson, Arizona 85745, from
15 New Century, GMAC, OCWEN, FATCO Fidelity Title;
16 DEVCON collective efforts to foreclose only to be faced by an agent of
17 DEVCON called BALDWIN ramming a caterpillar truck into the same

18 property, then using David McEvoy who filed CV07-06750 against Plaintiff equity
19 to authorize Mobile to remove around two hundred thousand dollars worth of
20 furniture; Federal lawsuits papers, cell phones, Turkish carpets foreign artifacts
21 telephones and items from the marginalized 1091 S. Bill Martin Drive home and
22 while they were at it additional swipes were made in neighboring 1136 South Little
23 Buck loop Tucson, Arizona 85745 around the same time with David McEvoy at the
24 heart of each controversy arising out of DEVCON controlled sub-divisions.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2526
309ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 103. Over and above Plaintiffs insurance State Farm was instructed not to pay
2 replacement costs, which started a chain of suits and threats by David McEvoy to
3 fix the house, which he had levied with liens and despite Plaintiff spending
4 thousands of dollars to get engineering and expert reports verifying collateral and
5 structural damage, the insurance company would not pay replacement costs.
6 104. Upon information, belief and trust in this belief plaintiffs allege Defendants
7 BALDWIN as an agent of Canadian concern defendant DEVCON moving
8 party of C2006-6164, encouraged defendant named defendant(s) MOBILE
9 through David McEvoy, after the failed foreclosure attempt by the defendants to
10 take away 1091 S. Bill Martin Drive Tucson, Arizona on September 12, 2003,
11 whereby DEVCON agents Baldwin ran a Caterpillar Truck into the same
12 house on September 15, 2007 (exhibit marked 23).
13 105. Then David McEvoy asked MOBILE to remove all of the damaged and
14 restored items so plaintiff would be left without proof of damages, the same were
15 removed in a copy cat pattern of removal of contents from: 6352 Vuelta Tajo unit
16 160 Tucson, Arizona; 1091 South Bill Martin Drive Tucson, Arizona; 1136 South
17 Little Buck Loop Tucson, Arizona and 1120 South Little Buck Loop Tucson,
18 Arizona; where RICO 1961 et seq inclusive of (1) (B) sections 2314 and 2315 is
19 applicable for Grand theft, break-in forced entry under color of authority .
20 106. KC caused multiple foreclosures (See tax claims by KC on intercepted
21 sales by the Enterprise godfathers FATCO & Fidelity exhibit marked 24).
22 107. City of Bakersfield ongoing attempts at intimidation and alleged conspiracy
23 with developers and FATCO attorneys enterprise or enterprise agent
24 CB&H is part of ongoing request for discovery for damages. Liability has
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2527
310ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 already been established by public records to be produced during Trial, it is the
2 extent of damages that need to be explored through discovery.
3 108. Current damage estimated are estimated at over two million and ongoing
4 pending Trial by Jury, City officials including a Mr. Newell supposed to be
5 handling such claims was notified multiple times between 2004 through 2006 and
6 failed to stop this criminal activity by City officials through cronyism.
7 109. City of Bakersfield continued to restrain Plaintiff opened escrows, by liens
8 imposed and refusal to acknowledge fault from its unlawful Les Pendens obtained
9 from a local Judge by false offerings obtained through hired litigants (See
10 enterprise or enterprise agent CB&H attorneys, false injunction against
11 innocent Plaintiffs from 1999 and the hiring of the same attorneys to impose
12 another Les Pendens to stop payment of taxes, in order to obtain another set of
13 properties through a new lien; (See Letter by real Estate Company called
14 Watson realty confirming interception by defendants from 1999 and see
15 contents of case referred to as Civ. S-1500-CV-250894 exhibit marked 25)
16 110. St. Clair; Fidelity and unknown government and corporate does,
17 participated with the city of Bakersfield to benefit under color of office of the City
18 manager who hired by his own offer FATCO firm enterprise or enterprise
19 agent CB&H, without precedence to sue Plaintiffs unlawfully imposed false and
20 padded global injunction and Les Pendens vexatious in nature, Kern County
21 Civ.#S-1500-CV 250894, as a means to launder money collected under
22 Richardson name and through attorney fees multiple times the amount of the
23 actual assessments according to the City/s own record.
24 111. False liens, lawsuit threats and global Les Pendens offences against Plaintiffs
25 5311 Glacier Springs Bakersfield, California 93311 controlled by RICO act 1961
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2528
311ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 (D), led a title 11; section 1956, section 1957 takeover through the actions of then
2 unlicensed agent Banducci impersonating California Real Estate Agent
3 controlled by 1343 for false advertisements and electronic releases encouraging
4 scheme and/or artifice to defraud, obtain money or property by means of false or
5 fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmittals, wires, electronic
6 communication in the facilitation of interstate commerce, and the use of writings,
7 signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
8 artifice, is subject to fines and/or imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both.
9 If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more
10 than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. (Debbie Banducci,
11 Frank St. Clair and attorneys for Bakersfield; enterprise or enterprise agent
12 CB&H) prepared documents, les Pendens, claims and transmittals designed to
13 collect unlawful gain is controlled by Title 18 sections collectively affecting each
14 and every Property made part thereof exhibit 2 and specifically the below listed:
15 Address: 5915 Winter Grove Drive, Bakersfield, California

Address: 5311 Glacier Springs, Bakersfield, California
16
Address: 3225 Sherrell Way, Bakersfield, California
17
112. Plaintiff allege collectively Defendants KC and PC and agents collected
18
thousands of dollars by the above scheme of conversion, specifically affecting
19
above and below listed properties over and above properties listed in exhibit 2:
20
21 Address: 1120 South Little Buck Loop Tucson, Arizona 85745;
Address: Lot 369 in Oro Valley Arizona
22 Address: 1136 South Little Buck Loop, Tucson, Arizona 85745;
Plus (20) twenty properties located in sub-division of KT including plaintiff
23
developer rights.
24
113. Developer and international corporate conglomerate Canadian group
25
DEVCON is the same party who is claiming the status of plaintiffs in C2006-
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2529
312ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 6164 and suing us again on the same house 1136 S. Little Buck Loop, Tucson
2 Arizona 85745, whose locks were replaced by DEVCON and house rented
3 barring us from entering into our own home for almost three years, while charging
4 us for HOA dues, taxes, mortgage payments and upkeep. This practice took away
5 a sub-division and at least (49) other properties that belonged to us including but
6 not limited to grant and warranty deeds to property and development rights to
7 Antelope Point aka Paradise Point as reward for conspiracy to defraud and for
8 further fraudulent conspiracy; (See recorded instrument Registration DM99-
9 020748 and the subsequent address change to an agent of DEVCON on a
10 recorded instrument without our authority exhibit marked 26). (RICO
11 1961(1) (B) section 2319 for criminal infringement of Plaintiffs copyrighted
12 name Paradise Point and the theft of the cashiers check intercepted from
13 payment to the Copyright department to intercept copyright claim to Paradise
14 Point owned by Plaintiff, after FATCO as the alleged enterprise hosted a
15 fund raiser and marketed the Public event at Desert Pass realty grounds owned by
16 DevCon to profit DevCon flying in the face of instructions by the Insurance
17 commissioners who had distinctively instructed FATCO and Fidelity that

18 they could not indulge in payment of incentives, kickbacks, promotional events
19 and or bribes to benefit Real estate agents and or developers.
20 114. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege as a continuation of
21 this practice another Arizona Home Owners sub-division called KT caused
22 false billing and global padded HOA liens, with intent to harm plaintiffs.
23 115. This act of false and padded collective billing led to multiple suits and adverse
24 actions and sale interceptions (See samples of interceptions by defendants thru
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2530
313ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 discovery marked exhibit 27) with known and unknown principals and assigns
2 who intercepted Plaintiffs sales at will with intent to destroy rental income.
3 116. A Commercial Liability Policy Claim CWO44606 is ready to issue Plaintiff
4 a check for losses it suffered in KT currently being intercepted by enterprise to
5 the detriment of the Plaintiffs.
6 117. Initial imposition of false and padded liens acted as a tracking device to
7 intercept plaintiff opened escrows in their effort to secure their own estate.
8 118. The current imposition of the same false liens continuing to haunt plaintiff in
9 this financial stage is to tract and destroy plaintiffs ability to rehabilitate with full
10 knowledge plaintiff is insolvent, with one goal in mind that Plaintiff should be
11 rendered homeless at all costs!
12 119. Plaintiff alleges that ST. CLAIR is one of the largest benefactor of extortion
13 under RICO (See group of recorded Title changes on multi-million dollar
14 estate that blows the lid off of any argument by Defendant that Kern County
15 Local Developer/Real Estate Agent was in fact was an insider targeting
16 custom built homes of designers/Trustee and beneficiary of instant Plaintiff
17 and taking over said properties under alter egos to conceal ST. CLAIR
18 identity after it provided financial institutions and adverse parties with false
19 low values on targeted properties to the benefit of other named defendants
20 and unknown does and Attorneys exhibit marked 28).
21 120. Plaintiffs allege and believe enterprise agents enterprise or enterprise agent
22 CB&H are the designated henchmen whose actions constitute the longest
23 running tracking device to intercept each and every transaction, relationship and
24 business of the plaintiffs.
25
121. Plaintiffs allege St. Clair Chambers and Banducci and Does
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2531
314ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 benefitted richly with other RICO persons benefitted in return for their collective
2 actions, misrepresentations and participation in the mailing of false and altered
3 notices, publications, for affectively tampering with a Federal Jury and offering
4 false values to different courts and benefitted the Enterprise in the millions.
5 122. All through 1999-2007 the enterprise imposed false liens under the color of
6 Marvin Chamber and Juliann Sanchez which caused a fire sale (80) plus properties
7 including the below listed without any reduction in the alleged unlawful debt.
8 (See allegation of fraudulent interception by California Attorney Joel
9 Andreessen, regarding this lien as a constitutional issue whether the lien
10 caused the insolvency of the Plaintiffs exhibit marked 29)
11 123. In 2004 Banducci sold plaintiffs custom home without authority of plaintiffs
12 proclaiming seeing is believingin one of her many advertisements while
13 promoting the unauthorized sale of the below listed custom home, without a
14 license to sell at the time she was promoting the unauthorized sale, after falsely
15 declaring to the court it valued at $165,000 and reselling it for approximately
16 $400,000.00 leaving the taxes, assessments and related bills to be paid by plaintiff:
17 Address: 5311 Glacier Springs Bakersfield, California. In like manner in 2003 to

18 date, multiple demands were sent to GMAC also known as Loanstar because a
19 sale was pending on 4304 Cyclone Drive Bakersfield, CA., but Frank St. Clair
20 threw the caretaker out of the house and advising them that St. Clair not
21 plaintiff is to collect rent and is going to be the new owner, then bought the
22 property valued at 0ver $215,000.00 for $89,000.00 dollars with full knowledge of
23 the third party sale pending escrow for over $246,000.00 on June 15, 2004 and
24 took the property nonetheless without payment of a dime to plaintiff, later as
25 plaintiff started asserting their rights to HUD, KC Civ. CASE# S-1500-CV
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2532
315ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 253558 appeared but not by then owner St, Clair nor by GMAC or Wells Fargo
2 but their alter ego Loanstar to force Plaintiff to accept one third of what they
3 were owed and even that was forced paid with half the amount with deductions for
4 their attorneys who intercepted plaintiffs sale in the first instance after Plaintiff
5 Real estate agent Rebecca Green was threatened not to sell plaintiff properties by
6 St. Clair, as was Tammy Watson of Watson Realty to name a few.
7 124. Locklear actions led her to be indicted and convicted for theft of rent,
8 mortgages and income she took from plaintiff. Information obtained since then has
9 confirmed her as an accessory to the enterprise, convicted for grand theft, false
10 endorsements and multiple counts of Fraud. Subpoenas by Kern County
11 California District Attorney to just one Bank exposed theft of $47,000
12 approximately from plaintiff by Locklear.
13 125. Losses show $250,000 USD dollars were taken by Locklear from Plaintiffs
14 rents and mortgage payments through Grand theft. Plaintiff allege Defendant
15 opened post office box located at Camino Del Oeste Post office in Bakersfield,
16 California and diverted mail, rent, foreclosure notices, tax refunds upon
17 instruction from someone other than plaintiff. Defendant stole and sold Plaintiffs
18 identity and removed trashed documents, then altered the same for the benefit of
19 the deep pockets corporate defendants in return for incentives. Plaintiffs have
20 information and undisputed proof that monies from plaintiffs account were
21 removed from Northwest account taken over by Wells Fargo Bank before the
22 Bank closed plaintiffs credit line without cause, Exhibit marked 20 (see a copy of
23 check from Norwest Financial bought by Wells Fargo Bank released funds to
24 this criminal and others by allowing non parties to use altered checks as can
25 be seen with Peri Locklear written on the face of hundreds of checks sent by
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2533
316ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 first class mail by Northwest Bank at the time of its sale to Wells Fargo, and
2 based upon which check cashing Wells Fargo closed down the Four hundred
3 thousand dollar line of credit to Plaintiff, attached as exhibit marked 30). For
4 the record Wells Fargo allowed Convicted Felons, Peri Locklear, in California
5 and Arizona and convicted felons Nancy Walsh Escrow Manager for First
6 American Title Insurance and Richard Romero to embezzle and falsely endorse to
7 remove hundreds of thousands of dollars from Plaintiff accounts without
8 permission.
9 126. Plaintiff alleges defendants that form the alleged enterprise violated
10 RICO 1961(1) (B) by actions which are indictable under any of the following
11 provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 relating to bribery, section,
12 section 659 relating to theft from interstate shipment of warranty and grant deeds
13 and Title of property to residents it solicited from Alaska and multiple states and
14 for their role in the removal and sale of personal information and federal records
15 that plaintiff needs in the implementation of this suit (See breaking in and taking
16 of Rock of Gibraltor LLC home office in the most prized resort of Tucson,
17 Arizona exhibit marked 31): plaintiff alleges enterprise removed assets, tools
18 and documents from 6352 Vuelta Tajo Tucson, Arizona 85712; 1136 South Little
19 Buck Loop Tucson, Arizona 85745; 1120 South Little Buck Loop Tucson,
20 Arizona 85745 and content worth over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
21 from 1091 South Little Buck Loop Tucson, Arizona 85745; from Arizona and
22 moved some of the contents to Northridge California with the help of defendant
23 and Does whose very acts when proven at Trial are indictable under section 659 as
24 felonious, section 1029 for identity theft, section 1341 for the federal mailing of
25 settlement statements, demands and checks back and forth between states
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2534
317ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 involving 1343 for related wire fraud), and section 1344 for fraud by financial
2 institutions, and together they all benefitted by the application of 1503 relating to
3 obstruction of justice, whereby none of these actions may have been possible to
4 continue over a continual period of 1996-2001 and 2002-to 2007 after Plaintiff as
5 a witness was successful in bringing three agents of defendants to justice, had
6 plaintiffs not been intercepted from hiring an attorney.
7 127. Based on such information and belief in such information Plaintiff alleges that
8 FATCO and certain Defendants and unknown Does may have invoked RICO
9 1961(1 (B) section 1510, relating to obstruction of criminal investigations in
10 known cases like that of Peri Locklear and may have paid for her legal
11 representation and to overturn the conviction but also in unknown case where
12 FATCO actions invoked section 1511, relating to the obstruction of State or
13 local law enforcement in the matter of criminal investigation of a Bakersfield
14 attorney and attempted filing of false claims through their agents against plaintiff.
15 128. Additionally based on ongoing investigation Plaintiffs allege FATCO and
16 Fidelity are the Godfathers of the enterprise RICO 1961 (1)(D) for offenses
17 involving fraud connected to Title 11 matters for claiming and using federal mail
18 to assert such legally fraudulent proof of claims that are punishable under any law
19 of the United States.
20 129. Plaintiff alleges FATCO, Fidelity and known and unknown enterprise
21 invoked RICO 1961(1) (E) by committing any act indictable under the Currency
22 and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act., where the following may apply:
23 a. RICO sections relating to: extortion, fraud and related activity/s with identification
24 documents; fraud and related activity connected to communication; fraud related
25 to mail fraud; fraud related to obstruction of justice; fraud related to obstruction of
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2535
318ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 criminal investigations; fraud related to obstruction of State or local law
2 enforcement; fraud related to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant;
3 fraud related to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant; fraud related
4 to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion; fraud related to racketeering;
5 fraud related to the laundering of monetary instruments; fraud related to engaging
6 in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity;
7 fraud related to interstate transportation of stolen property; fraud related to
8 criminal infringement of copyright; fraud related to false endorsements and
9 embezzlement; activity related to forced entry, break in, in the commission of
10 committing burglary or collection of unlawful earnings or any offense involving
11 fraud connected with a case under title 11; collection of unlawful debt or the
12 business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or
13 Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate; fraud
14 including the removing of documentary material which includes any book,
15 paper, document, record, recording, or other material; committed or intended to
16 commit prohibited activities; taking of unlawful earning by any person receiving
17 any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity
18 or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as

19 a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or
20 invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such
21 income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any
22 enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
23 foreign commerce or to benefit wrongdoer/perpetrator/s estate, family and
24 members of his organized or unorganized businesses and/or accomplices in any
25 manner which is unlawful or acquiring or maintaining, directly or indirectly, is
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2536
319ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 unlawful as it is carried out as interstate commerce such enterprise and the pursuit
2 of it is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,
3 controlling individuals, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity
4 and/or any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal
5 entity having successfully performed at least two like acts by definition of
6 1962(a) to be a pattern of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after
7 1970 and the last of which to have occurred within ten years (excluding period of
8 imprisonment of convicted defendants) after the commission of a prior act of
9 racketeering activity; discovery is designed to offer proof of actual damages
10 caused from the commission of such conduct of racketeering activity alleged to be
11 facilitated by conspiracy by and between 1961(4) defined participants for
12 economic or non economic reasons that otherwise meet the requirements of 1962
13 provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) and thus invoke all rights under 1964(a).
14 130. Therefor; collaborative allegations against defendants and each one of them
15 listed in paragraphs 1 through 128, must be incorporated with general allegations
16 recording collaborative efforts of defendants and each of them, with each other to
17 render plaintiff homeless by and through a court where the statutes and law
18 provides, that the amount of controversy and scope can challenge a commissioner
19 right to hear a case in a limited courtroom maybe challenged who with all due
20 respect, plaintiffs allege to call as a material witness for activities committed from
21 August 2007 through September 05, 2007 by defendants that are defined
22 specifically under statutory and RICO violation listed in Paragraph 130 adverse to
23 person/s listed in paragraph 129.
24
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2537
320ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1
2
RICO PERSONS
3 (victim)
4 [RICO TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE 1961(3)]
5 131. Plaintiff Rock of Gibraltor, LLC ROCK with its members and holding Trust
6 (BAKARFIT) and its beneficial owners Sammye Richardson and Michael
7 Richardson collectively (BAKARFIT) incorporate allegations contained in
8 paragraphs 1 through 129, inclusive at all times and made material herein by
9 themselves offering that they are residents of the State of California engaged in
10 legal activities of building and purchasing single family homes for the purpose of
11 running a family rental business in Arizona and California making Plaintiff a
12 person, (victim) as that term is defined pursuant to Section 1961(3) of RICO and
13 the enterprise (perpetrators) became defendants as defined in paragraph 130.
14 RICO ENTERPRISE
15 (godfather/perpetrators/arms)
16 [RICO TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE 1961(4)]
17 Named Defendants are at all times material herein as residents, citizens and or
18 corporations based in California, Arizona, Multi-districts of the United States and/or
19 incorporated in California, multi-districts and foreign states engaged in prohibited
20 activities, which render unlawful for any person or entity to participate in, or for any
21 person/entity to have derived any direct or indirect income from, whereby Arizona
22 Rule or its federal counterpart may apply a person or enterprise who acquires any
23 property through an offense included in the definition of racketeering in 13-
24 2301(d)(4), or through a violation of 13-2312 is an involuntary Trustee holds
25 the property in constructive trust for the benefit of the persons entitled to remedies
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2538
321ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 pursuant to a racketeering offense. See A.R.S. 13-2314(f)13-2301(D)(4), ..or
2 through a violation of 13-2312 is an Involuntary Trustee and holds property in
3 constructive trust for the benefit of the persons entitled to remedies pursuant to a
4 racketeering offense.
5 132. as a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in
6 which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2,
7 title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such
8 income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the
9 establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities
10 of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce; whereby defendants New
11 Century; DLJ; Ocwen; Select; NDSC; Fidelity; FATCO; Alliance;
12 State Farm; Mobile Storage; KC; Bakersfield; PC; Tucson;
13 DevCon; St. Clair; Banducci; Chambers; KT; Locklear; Successors,
14 Assigns; John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Doe
15 Corporations 1-10; Doe Entities 1-10; Doe Governmental Units 1-10 And
16 Individual Does 1-10, Inclusive are alleged to form a, is a enterprise, as that term
17 is defined pursuant to Section 1961(4) of RICO enterprise which includes any
18 individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union
19 or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;
20 V11
21 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
22
133. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in
23
paragraphs 1 through 130, inclusive;
24
134. Plaintiffs allege Corporate Defendants are working with each other and
25
enterprise organized and maintained by and through a consensual hierarchy of
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2539
322ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 partners, managers, directors, officers, supervisors, and/or representatives that
2 formulate and implement policies that are relative to silencing victims of crimes.
3 135. The genesis of this law suit originates as a defensive mechanism by the plaintiff
4 on behalf of its members and beneficiaries like the named plaintiffs, who were
5 defrauded and/or extorted into force paying and did pay a sum of money to
6 defendants who benefitted from this non-core business practice under umbrella
7 protection of the enterprise.
8 VII1
9 CAUSES OF ACTION
10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT OF
12 1970, RICO (brought for the quiet title turnover of properties listed in exhibit
2., taken from plaintiff by definition of 1962(a) and part thereof exhibit 2).
13
14 136. The allegations of paragraphs 1-133 are incorporated herein by reference as
15 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of general allegations hereinafter listed as
16 paragraphs 131-133 in support of quiet title, cancellation of deeds; fiduciary and
17 statutory breaches, accounting.
18 137. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy for turnover of stolen assets and their
19 investment properties, income from which was supposed to pay off the roof over
20 their head. Plaintiff seek the invoking of 1962(a) as relief which allows the injured
21 party of unlawful taking by any person who has received any income derived,
22 directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection
23 of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the
24 meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to be doing so within the
25 definition of RICO 1961(4) and all remedies of 1964(a) to apply. Material issues
26 of evidence and Public record offer verified proof that an enterprise is
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2540
323ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 involved in the active continual collection of false debt through levies, liens,
2 abstracts and claims based on false claims to indebtedness as defined by 1961(6),
3 and is doing so with intent to harm and render plaintiff incapable of earning a
4 living and to be declared forced Bankrupted, this has lasted over a continual
5 period of more than seven years without relief some of the activities controlled by
6 Title 11 restraints and verified Rule 60(b) and RICO subsections controlling
7 Title 11 violations.
8 RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962 (C) OPERATION OF ENTERPRISE THROUGH

RACKETEERING ACTIVITY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
9
10 140 The allegations of paragraphs 1-139 are incorporated herein by reference as
11 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 133-134.
12 Defendants and each of them are alleged to be participating in the unlawful taking
13 of property at will by and through person employed by or associated with a
14 enterprise actively engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
15 foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in its conduct
16 and for the enhancement of its bad faith affairs, through a pattern of racketeering
17 activity or collection of unlawful debt. Plaintiffs seek to have the same acts
18 exposed and declared unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the
19 provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Affectively laying the
20 groundwork for quiet title cancellation of deeds for fiduciary and statutory
21 breaches and accounting violations followed by concurrent move to ask for
22 declaratory relief; temporary restraining order; permanent injunction; and damages
23 on the basis of 1-9 causes of action for violation of 18 U.S.C 1961 (1) (A), (B),
24 (D) And (2) Et Seq; Conspiracy To Violate 18 U.S.C. 1962(a)(b)(c)(d) Et Seq;
25 1964(a) Invoking Of 1965 et seq as justification as if fully set forth herein.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2541
324ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 141 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants and each of them for
2 relief in the first cause of action against each defendant and for actions committed
3 in association with each other, and engaged in by and through conduct that
4 constitutes a RICO pattern of racketeering activity and for which each of the
5 following configurations constitutes of RICO enterprise, as that term is defined
6 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq applies:
7 a).RICO Enterprise 1: First American Title Corporation., is a RICO enterprise,

8 organized and maintained by and through a consensual hierarchy of partners,
9 managers, directors, officers, supervisors, and/or representatives that formulate
10 and implement policies relative to the provision of escrow and Title Insurance
11 requirements programming to clientele and customers, both domestically and
12 internationally. Plaintiffs allege that Marvin Chambers, Debbie Banducci, Peri
13 Locklear, Nancy Walsh, Richard Romero, Frank St Clair, Bryan Whitfield,
14 FATCO and KC agents Caswell Bell & Hillison, David McEvoy, Dev Con,
15 State Farm, New Century, DLJ are entities who are included in the meaning of
16 1961(4) for acting in concert therewith, are employed by and associated with said
17 RICO enterprise that is engaged in, or activities of which affect, interstate or
18 foreign commerce, and that said RICO enterprise agents act like arms of the
19 enterprise in concert therewith, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in
20 the conduct of such RICO enterprises affairs through a RICO pattern of
21 racketeering activity.
22 b) RICO Enterprise 2: Fidelity Title is a RICO enterprise, organized and
23 maintained by and through a consensual hierarchy of partners, managers,
24 directors, officers, supervisors, and/or representatives that formulate and
25
implement policies relative to the provision of Title and escrow programming to
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2542
325ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 clientele and customers, domestically. Plaintiffs allege that Frank St. Clair,
2 Debbie Banducci, FATCO and KC et al agents Caswell Bell & Hillison,
3 Marvin Chambers, defendant Financial Institution CEOs and persons acting in
4 concert therewith, are employed by and associated by said RICO enterprise that is
5 engaged in, or activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, and that
6 said RICO enterprise and entities acting in concert therewith, conduct or
7 participate in, directly or indirectly, to facilitate the conduct of such RICO
8 enterprises affairs through a RICO pattern of racketeering activity.
9 c) RICO Enterprise 3: Defendants New Century, Ocwen Federal, DLJ, NDSC,
10 GMAC and named Financial institutions and lawyers are part of a RICO
11 enterprise, organized and maintained by and through a consensual hierarchy of
12 managing members, lawyers, attorneys, partners, managers, directors, officers,
13 supervisors, and/or representatives that formulate and implement policies relative
14 to the provision of legal services, including but not restricted to, debt collection
15 practices, on behalf of clients, and such services are offered both interstate and
16 internationally. Plaintiffs allege that several California and Arizona Attorneys
17 acted as carriers without any disclosed relationship to enterprise in their official
18 capacity which could be determined to assert an attorney client privilege and

19 turned over monies and properties in a manner where the definition of 1961 et
20 seq and 1962 (a) can be invoked to define those activities over and above
21 1961(6) and 1961(9). Defendants, Does and unknown governmental agents
22 listed under the description of 1961(4) alleged FATCO; Fidelity and KC
23 agents to benefit chosen financial institutions. Such entities and RICO arms,
24 agents and successors shall be better identified by their actions and how much
25 money they helped squander and launder by their participation and the amount of
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2543
326ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 damage caused by these fraudulent activities including but not limited to: false
2 claims, duplication of recorded, non recorded, docketed non docketed but merely
3 alleged to cast doubt upon plaintiffs character, false declarations, false standing,
4 impersonation, ID theft under color of authority given by false claims to any court
5 or authoritative figure to obtain favorable rulings, bribery, incentives, alteration of
6 grant and warranty deeds to render plaintiff destitute with full knowledge that
7 plaintiff is/was at all times innocent of the premeditated false charges levied
8 against it by defendants; document alteration and false insinuation that plaintiff
9 may have altered said document, when the evidence and historic facts are as clear
10 as can be defined under California Evidence Code Section 450, 451 et Seq. and
11 452(d), where certain facts and propositions of generalized knowledge are so
12 universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute; and such
13 altered documents are then mailed by the use of federal communication system to
14 cause demands for payments, claims of payments by defendants and does on
15 behalf of plaintiff or their beneficiaries/members that defendants never made and
16 yet claimed, liens and abstracts levied to cause the padding of debts against the
17 names of Plaintiff/s Beneficiaries/members so as to render the entire family and its
18 Trust incapable of earning a living and the use of color of offices governmental
19 and or office of authority to levy these claims, demands, and false liens and
20 character assassination through cut and pasted abstracts of Judgments promoted
21 through advertisements, public recording, and multiple uses of the federal
22 communications system to facilitate and the amount of false claims damages for
23 which shall be determined by discovery for 1961(1) et seq inclusive of
24 (A)(B)(D)(E); 1961(2) et seq and 1961(6) and selected portion of 1961(6)(b)
25 for activities committed controlled by this Title and against persons acting in
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2544
327ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 concert therewith, or who are employed by and/or associated with said RICO
2 enterprise and whatever it is engaged in, or activities of which affect, interstate or
3 foreign commerce, and that said RICO enterprise entities and persons acting in
4 concert therewith, conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of
5 such RICO enterprises affairs through a RICO pattern of racketeering activity
6 according to discovery for proof of the extent of damages, involvement and
7 motivation other than economic.
8 d. RICO Enterprise 4: First American Title and Fidelity Title as a group who
9 own one half of the national and international Title, Escrow and credit markets is a
10 RICO enterprise along with deep pocket financial institutions, organized and
13 implement policies relative to the provision of escrow, title, credit and financial
14 programming to clientele and customers, both domestically and internationally,
15 whereby by local Managers like FATCOS convicted felon Nancy Walsh is
16 alleged not to have acted alone in her acts of embezzlement and theft of escrowed
17 funds but state governmental unit subpoenas proves that CEO of FATCO
18 Parker Kennedy and next in Command Gary Kermitz were at all times involved
19 as was the CEO of Fidelity Title, and each and every financial institution in the
20 corruption of developers and realtors like Frank St. Clair and Debbie Banducci to
21 act in concert therewith, and agree to be loosely employed by and/or associated
22 with said RICO enterprise engaged in, or activities of which affect, interstate or
23 foreign commerce, and that said RICO persons, and persons acting in concert
24 therewith, conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
25 RICO enterprises affairs through a RICO pattern of racketeering activity.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2545
328ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 e). RICO Enterprise 5: St Clair Real Estate and St Clair Development, ReMax
2 Golden Empire, and FATCO with Fidelity Title is a RICO enterprise,
3 organized and maintained by and through a consensual hierarchy of partners,
4 managers, directors, officers, supervisors, and/or representatives that formulate
5 and implement policies relative to the provision of real estate escrow, sale,
6 insurance programming to clientele and customers, both domestically and
7 internationally. Plaintiffs allege that Banducci, St. Clair, and each and every
8 defendant entities acted in concert therewith, or/are employed by and associated
9 with said RICO enterprise that is engaged in, or activities of which affect,
10 interstate or foreign commerce, and that said entities and persons acting in concert
12 RICO enterprises affairs through a RICO pattern of racketeering activity.
13 f).RICO Enterprise 6: First American Title Insurance; Fidelity Title
14 Insurance; City of Bakersfield; Kern County; Kern County Treasurer Tax
15 Collector; City of Tucson; Pima County; Pima County Treasurer; Dev Con;
16 Baldwin Construction and rogue employees is a RICO enterprise, organized and

19 implement policies relative to the provision of Real estate, escrow, title insurance
20 HOA programming to clientele and customers, both domestically and
21 internationally. Plaintiffs allege that RICO persons David McEvoy and Tanis
22 Duncan and all named defendant persons acting in concert therewith, who
23 benefitted are employed by and associated with said RICO enterprise that is
24 engaged in, or activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, and that
25 said RICO persons, and persons acting in concert therewith, conduct or
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2546
329ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such RICO enterprises affairs
2 through a RICO pattern of racketeering activity.
3 g).RICO Enterprise 7: An unnamed entity and/or Defendant constituted an
4 association in fact by his/her/its employment or association by actions to the
5 alleged RICO enterprise; preponderance of the evidence bears witness by the acts
6 and omissions that an organized and loose structure was maintained by and
7 through knowledge as a consensual hierarchy controlled by partners, managers,
8 directors, officers, supervisors, and/or representatives of financial institutions
9 licensed under federal law to formulate and implement policies relative to the
10 provision of satellite programming to clientele and customers, both domestically
11 and internationally. Plaintiffs allege that all of the named defendants and persons
12 were acting in concert therewith, in some meaningful way some time during the
13 relevant period are RICO persons, and are employed by and associated with said
14 RICO enterprise that is engaged in, or activities of which affect, interstate or
15 foreign commerce, and that said RICO persons, and persons acting in concert
17 RICO enterprises affairs through a RICO pattern of racketeering activity. This
18 association in fact had a common or shared purpose. That purpose led to the
19 mailing and record of fraudulent liens in a scheme to track plaintiffs sales and
20 efforts of securing their properties with the ultimate goal that after the sales or
21 security attempt was aborted by defendants, RICO persons would buy up the
22 properties for initial loan amounts, taxes, HOA fees or assessments and then resell
23 the same at a profit or add to defendants portfolio, with the ultimate goal that
24 plaintiff should be left homeless and declared mad and vexatious, use of
25 defendants to improve such estate through free labor continued as a unit by
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2547
330ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 defendants with a core membership, over a substantial period of time and was an
2 ongoing organization established for an economic motive and non economic
3 motives. The association in fact remains viable and active at the time of filing of
4 this complaint.
5 142 Defendants engaged in racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

6 1961 (1) by engaging in the acts set forth above, and below aiding and abetting
7 the commission of the foregoing acts, and/or conspiring to commit the foregoing
8 acts, in violation of the following laws:
9 143 California Penal Code sections 518, 519, 520 and 523, relating to the crime of
10 extortion and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
11 a) 18 U.S.C. 1341 relating to mail fraud;

b) 18 U.S.C. 1343 relating to wire fraud;
12 c) 18 U.S.C. 1951, 18 U.S.C. 875 and 18 U.S.C. 876 relating to extortion;
d) 18 U.S.C. 1952 relating to racketeering;
13 e) 18 U.S.C. 1956 relating to money laundering;
f) 18 U.S.C. 1957 relating to criminally derived property;
14 g) 18 U.S.C. 2314 and 2315 relating to interstate transportation or receipt of
transported property obtained by fraudulent means;
15
16 144 Plaintiffs allege that the aforementioned activities and/or conduct engaged in by
17 defendants constituted a pattern of racketeering activity, as that term is defined
18 in 18 U.S.C. 1964(a). Plaintiffs further allege that the activities and/or conduct
19 engaged in by defendants were related as to the modus operandi engaged in by
20 defendants which entailed fraudulent third party bill and debt imposition and
21 collection, harassment notices, continuous inasmuch as the activities and/or
22 conduct engaged in by defendants exhibited a realistic, long term threat of
23 continued future injury to plaintiffs since 1999 through today.
24 145 Plaintiffs have sustained damages and/or injuries to their interests in business
25 and/or property as a result of defendants activities and/or conduct, in an amount
26 according to proof. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages, said

27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2548
331ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 sum to be trebled, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiffs are also entitled to
2 recover an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Plaintiffs are entitled to
3 recover attorneys fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.
4 146 Defendants engaged in the fraudulent or extortionate activities that constitute the
5 RICO pattern of racketeering activity; b) defendants are members of the RICO
6 conspiracy designed and intended to contravene RICO Section 1962, subdivisions
7 (a) and (c); c) defendants engaged in activities in furtherance of advancing and
8 promoting the RICO conspiracy designed and intended to contravene RICO
9 Section 1962, subdivisions (a) and (c); d) defendants were members of the RICO
10 conspiracy at and during the time frame the fraudulent and extortionate activities
11 were committed that constitute the RICO pattern of racketeering activity; and, e)
12 the offense is within the scope of unlawful agreement and could reasonably have
13 been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.
14 147 Defendants used or invested the income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern
15 of racketeering activity, as set forth above, in the establishing or operation of the
16 enterprise(s) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a).
17 148 Monetary payments obtained earlier in the Demand Letter campaign were used to
18 expand the enterprise(s) such as by hiring additional servicers and investigators
19 and associating law firms to pad illegal, HOA and tax/assessments etc bills.
20 149 Plaintiffs have sustained damages and/or injuries to their interests in business and/or
21 property as a result of defendants activities and/or conduct that was assisted by the
22 reinvesting of sums, in an amount according to proof. Plaintiffs are entitled to
23 recover compensatory damages, said sum to be trebled, in an amount according to
24 proof. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover an award of exemplary and punitive
25 damages.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2549
332ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 150 Defendants are conspiratorially liable and members of the RICO conspiracy
2 designed and intended to contravene RICO Section 1962, subdivisions (a) and (c);
3 Defendants engaged in activities in furtherance of advancing and promoting the
4 RICO conspiracy designed and intended to contravene RICO Section 1962,
5 subdivisions (a) and (c); d) defendants were members of the RICO conspiracy at and
6 during the time frame the fraudulent and extortionate activities were committed that
7 constitute the RICO pattern of racketeering activity; and, e) the offense fell within
8 the scope of the unlawful agreement and could reasonably have been foreseen to be a
9 necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.
10 RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a)

11 and (c) AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (Third cause of action)
12 151 The allegations of paragraphs 1- 150 are incorporated herein by reference as
13 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 133-134 for
14 underlying cause of quiet title, cancellation of deeds; for 1-9 causes of action
15 controlled by fraud.
16
152 Defendants are associated with the aforementioned enterprise(s), and they have
17
agreed and conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a) and (c) as each has agreed
18
to participate directly or indirectly in the conduct of the enterprises affairs
19
through a pattern of racketeering activity, and to use or invest the income derived
20
directly or indirectly from the pattern of racketeering activity to establish or
21
operate the enterprise.
22
153 Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a) and (c) is a violation of 18
23
U.S.C. 1962 (d) and then conspired to cover-up the conspiracy by
24
marginalizing Plaintiff credibility specific tactics.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2550
333ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 154 Defendants violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) by means of overt acts that are
acts of racketeering or otherwise wrongful under RICO injured plaintiffs and
2 class members in an amount to be shown according to proof, said sum to be
3 trebled.
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5 QUIET TITLE
6
7 155 The allegations of paragraphs 1-154 are incorporated herein by reference as
8 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 1 -154 of the
9 Preliminary Allegations as if fully set forth herein.
10 156 Plaintiffs seek to quiet title against the following claim of Defendants NEW
11 CENTURY MORTGAGE, GMAC, OCWEN and SPS, DLJ etc and each of
12 them, who are, or were at one time the beneficiary of the note and deed of trust.
13 To the extent the obligation owed to said Defendants, and each of them, has
14 been satisfied, Defendants lien claim to Plaintiffs real property is without merit
15 and Defendants, and each of them, have no right, title, lien or any other interest
16 in Plaintiffs real property.
17 157 Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against the following claim of Defendant Fidelity
18 Title who is the current co-owners and trustee of the deed of trust. To the
19 extent the obligation owed to New Century et al has been satisfied, Defendant
20 DLJ May 03,2007 lien claim to Plaintiffs real property is without any legal
21 merit as a third party and must be dissolved without any other interest in
22 Plaintiffs real property.
23 158 Plaintiff seeks to quiet title as of may 03, 2007.
24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
25 CANCELLATION OF DEEDS OF TRUST
159 The allegations of paragraphs 1 - 158 are incorporated herein by reference as
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2551
334ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 154 -156 of
2 the First Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
3 160 The Deed of Trust recorded on September 1, 2000, although valid on its face, is
4 void in that Plaintiffs Beneficiaries and/or predecessor has fully satisfied the
5 obligation which is secured by the Deed of Trust.
6 161 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Deed of Trust
7 remains of record by virtue of a mistake of fact on the part of Defendants NCM,
8 GMAC, OCWEN SPS and NDSC, DLJ and each of them. Defendants and each
9 of them have been advised by Plaintiffs Beneficiaries and/or predecessor that
10 the obligation has been satisfied in full and failed to properly credit the note in
11 such a manner as to keep the Deed of Trust on record.
12 162 There is a reasonable apprehension that the continued existence of the Deed of
13 Trust, combined with the May 03, 2007 conversion of Title by DLJ New
14 Century successor in trust will continue to deprive Plaintiff their enjoyment and
15 possession of the roof over their head. (See exhibits attached to the Removal
16 Notice of Motion CV07-06757)

17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
19
though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 154 - 156
20
for quiet title, cancellation of deeds; for fiduciary and statutory breaches,
21
accounting violation, declaratory relief; temporary restraining order; permanent
22
injunction; and damages of the First Cause of Action; paragraphs 159 - 160 of
23
the Cancellation of Deed of Trust under first cause of action as if fully set forth
24
herein.
25
164 Defendants initiating foreclosures, are required within ten days following the
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2552
335ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 recordation of the notice of default, deposit or cause to be deposited in the United
2 State mail an envelope, sent registered or certified mail with postage prepaid a
3 copy of the recorded notice of default to Plaintiffs, pursuant to CALIFORNIA
4 Civil Code, section 2924b (b) (1).
5 165 Plaintiff alleges in most cases Defendants failed to comply with this mandatory
6 provision of Civil Code, section 2924b(b)(1), in that Plaintiff was not, within ten
7 days following the recordation sent registered or certified mail with postage
8 prepaid a copy of the recorded notice of default.
9 166 Defendants in the process of filing legitimate foreclosures not governed by issues
10 of interception of sales, breaches of contract etc, and each of them, are required
11 to post a copy of the notice of sale, in a conspicuous place on Plaintiffs property
12 at lease twenty days before the sale date, pursuant to Civil Code, section 2924f
13 (b) (1).If the property is a single-family residence the posting shall be on the
14 front door of the residence.
15 167 Plaintiff alleges Defendants New Century et al and each of them, failed to
16 comply with the mandatory provision of Civil Code, section 2924f (b) (1), in that
17 no notice of sale was posted in a conspicuous place on Plaintiff property nor
18 was there posting on the door of the residence.

19 168 As a proximate result of Defendants, New Century, DLJ and each of their, failure
20 to comply with the mandatory provision of Civil Code, section 2924b (b) (1),
21 2924f (b) (1) and 2941 foreclosure proceedings commenced against Plaintiffs
22 home/office have caused Plaintiffs damages in the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED
23 THOUSAND ($800,000.00) to ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00)
24 plus according to proof.
25 169 As a further proximate result of Defendants and each of their failure to comply
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2553
336ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 with the mandatory provision of Civil Code governing Financial, Title and
2 Escrows guidelines and for alleged violations of (California Financial Code
3 sections 22000 et seq.) Section 2924b (b) (1), 2924f (b) (1) and 2941; Plaintiff
4 had to incur attorneys fees and cost in an amount according to proof.
5 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 ACCOUNTING VIOLATION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

(CFLL)22000 et seq, and applicable (CFLL)rules
7 The allegations of paragraphs 1 - 169 are incorporated herein by reference as though
8 set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs; inclusive of allegations
9 in paragraphs 154 - 156 for quiet title, cancellation of deeds; for statutory breaches
10 inclusive of Fiduciary abuses, for application of desist and refrain order pursuant to
11 California financial code section 22712 and statement of facts in support thereof for
12 accounting violation, declaratory relief; temporary restraining order; permanent
13 injunction; and damages under definition of First Cause of Action pursuant to 1964(a)
14 for paragraphs 159 - 160 of the Cancellation of Deed of Trust under first cause of
15 action, paragraph 163-164 of the Breach of Statutory and Fiduciary Duty under First
16 cause of action as if fully set forth herein.
17
170 The amount of monies paid to defendants by Plaintiffs is unknown and cannot
18
be ascertained without release of escrow settlement statements, appraisals of
19
comparable values in 2004-2006 of stolen properties and equities.
20
171 Plaintiffs alleges that during the course of the loan, demands were made on
21
Defendants New Century NCM, GMAC, OCWEN, SPS and DLJ to account
22
for the taking of equities and profits from concealed escrows by and through the
23
help of Title Corporations, Fidelity Title Group and FATCO but said
24
Defendants, and each of them has failed, refused and continue to refuse rendering
25
accounting.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2554
337ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

3
though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 154 - 156
4
for quiet title, cancellation of deeds; for fiduciary and statutory breaches,
5
accounting violation, declaratory relief; temporary restraining order; permanent
6
injunction; and damages of the First Cause of Action; paragraphs 159 - 160 of
7
the Cancellation of Deed of Trust under first cause of action, paragraph 163-164
8
of the Breach of Statutory and Fiduciary Duty under First cause of action,
9
paragraph 170-171 for accounting violations of finance lenders law, (CFLL)
10
22000 et seq. and applicable regulations under first and fifth cause of action, as if
11
fully set forth herein in 1-10 causes of action.
12
173 The actions of Defendants as alleged above were done in a deliberate and
13
intentional manner.
14
174 Defendants knew that commencing wrongful foreclosure action on each
15
Plaintiffs roof would cause distress and result in severe emotional and mental
16
trauma yet continued to proceed with intent and when Plaintiffs beneficiaries
17
complained, defendants mocked them as mad and vexatious to intimidate them
18
from exercising their constitutional right of redress.
19
175 As a proximate result of the Defendants acts, Plaintiffs suffer severe emotional
20
and mental distress including, but not limited to, nervous breakdown symptoms
21
of fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation,
22
indignity, embarrassment, sleeplessness, headaches, worth damages in an amount
23
according to proof and proof of sufferings substantial or enduring quality that no
24
reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2555
338ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 176 The above-mentioned acts of Defendants were intentional, willful, wanton,
2 malicious and oppressive and outrageous, justifying an award of punitive damage
3 in an amount greatly in excess of the minimal jurisdictional amount of this Court.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 NEGLIGENCE
177. The allegations of paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated herein by reference as
6
though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 154 - 156 for
7
quiet title, cancellation of deeds; for fiduciary and statutory breaches, accounting
8
violation, declaratory relief; temporary restraining order; permanent injunction;
9
and damages of the First Cause of Action; paragraphs 159 - 160 of the
10
Cancellation of Deed of Trust under first cause of action, paragraph 163-164 of
11
the Breach of Statutory and Fiduciary Duty under First cause of action, paragraph
12
170-171 for accounting violations of finance lenders law, (CFLL) 22000 et seq.
13
and applicable regulations under first cause of action, paragraph 173 -174 of
14
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress under first cause of action as if fully
15
set forth herein.
16
178. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to ensure that any foreclosure
17
proceeding commenced against Plaintiff was proper and justified.
18
179. Corporate Defendants breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiff by
19
commencing and continuing foreclosure proceedings after breaching contracts.
20
180. As a proximate cause of Defendants conduct, as set forth in detail above, Plaintiffs
21
continue to suffer severe emotional, mental and physical injuries and damages and
22
as such, damage is due in an amount in excess of jurisdictional limits of this court.
23
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
25 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2556
339ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 181.The allegations of paragraphs 1 - 180 are incorporated herein by reference as
2 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 133-134 of
3 general allegations and each paragraph listed for 1-9 cause of action as if fully set
4 forth herein.
5 182. At all material times and in doing the things alleged herein, Defendants knew or
6 should have known that Plaintiffs were susceptible to suffering severe emotional
7 distress if Defendants proceeded with a foreclosure sale on Plaintiffs real property
8 which is not proper and justified.
9
10 183. As a proximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have
11 and continue to suffer severe emotional and mental distress including, but not limited
12 to, highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety,
13 worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, sleeplessness,
14 headaches and other psychological damage in an amount according to proof. Said
15 emotional distress was of a substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable
16 person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.
17 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 INFRINGEMENT ON THE PLAINTIFFS CONSTITUTIONAL and DUE
19 PROCESS RIGHTS (Inclusive of First, Seventh and Fourteenth
Amendment)
20 184. The allegations of paragraphs 1-183 are incorporated herein by reference as
21 though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs 133-34 of the
22 general allegations and for 1-9 causes of action in support of concurrent
23 Temporary Restraining Order; Preliminary and Permanent as if fully set forth
24 herein.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2557
340ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 185. Judgment for Plaintiffs as victims of a common plan, scheme or motive continual
2 in pattern not to allow plaintiff to close an escrow, resulted in the taking and/or
3 interception of exhibit marked 2, described herein, after plaintiffs were used for
4 free labor to improve real estate, with superior knowledge of the scheme that
5 Plaintiff would not be allowed to profit from their labor, nor to seek relief in a
6 court of Law; and the same invokes claims under first, second and third cause of
7 actions.
8 186. Plaintiffs notified defendants of its intent to exercise its option to demand an
9 accounting of missing earnings resulting in denial of right to secure, refinance or
10 earn a living from its own real estate, and faced retaliatory threats of acceleration.
11 187. Defendants and each one of them has failed, and continues to fail, to turn over lost
12 funds, properties and revenues from Plaintiffs estate.
13 188. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants and each of them for
14 relief in the second cause of action for the sum due under the Loan contracts for
15 the principal balance of $40 million dollars in grand total on the entire estate
16 and/or the appraised value of each property on 2004 appraised values, rent, plus
17 unpaid interest, late charges, foreclosure fees and costs, and any other legal, theft
18 and travelling costs according to proof.

19 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 DAMAGES
189. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-188 are incorporated herein by
21
reference as though set forth in full herein, inclusive of allegations in paragraphs
22
133-34 of the general allegations and inclusive of applicable 1-10 causes of action
23
in support of concurrent Temporary Restraining Order; Preliminary and
24
Permanent as if fully set forth herein.
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2558
341ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 190. Due to wrongful disclosures, non disclosures and fraudulent concealment,
2 breaches of contracts, and breaches of California arbitrations clauses, and
3 allegations raised in instant complaint and concurrent matters displaying gross
4 negligence and total disdain for the law, defendants, their agents, hierarchy;
5 employees, and attorneys have caused plaintiffs and their members, the members
6 of the public and this family and beneficiaries of plaintiff the loss of their entire
7 estate and relationship within family, friends tenants and attorneys exceeding forty
8 million dollars, hard cash (exhibit 2) In addition Beneficiaries/members Michael
9 and Sammye Richardson cannot continue with their rental business and garment
10 business, as the only business they know, due to the evil stuff listed on their
11 credit report that belongs to convicted felons Richard Romero. Nancy Walsh
12 and Peri Locklear. Given the conduct of the defendants and the power of the
13 enterprise, organized and pattern after the mafia structure including the strong-
14 arming of victims, witnesses and whistle-blowers with this plaintiff as a prime
15 example with intentional malice in mind and intentional disregard for the
16 welfare of the plaintiffs and its innocent beneficiaries, plaintiffs must be afforded
17 California and Arizona victims rights as verified victims under the California and
18 Arizona bill of rights and restitution made for abuse of victim as allowed by state
19 bill of rights over and above federal bill of rights, and additional punitive damages
20 plaintiffs are entitled to, over and above equitable relief. Plaintiff seeks an amount
21 in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court from defendants and
22 the enterprise based on concurrent complaint for actions 1-10.
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS FOLLOWS:
24 191.1 For judgment in favor of Plaintiffs The allegations of paragraphs 1-189 are
25
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full herein, inclusive of
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2559
342ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 allegations in paragraphs 133-134 of general allegation and 1-10 causes of action
2 seeking relief as outlined under concurrent Declaratory Relief and restraining
3 orders for violation causes of action 1-10 inclusive of relief for 18 U.S.C 1961
4 (1) (A), (B), (D) And (2) Et Seq; Conspiracy To Violate 18 U.S.C.
5 1962(a)(b)(c)(d) Et Seq; 1964(a) Invoking Of 1965 et seq violations in the
6 operation of enterprise through racketeering activity for plaintiff BAKARFIT
7 its victimized beneficiaries and members and owners of Rock of Gibraltor, LLC
8 with all rights effective as of May of 1998, Exhibit marked 2 AND/OR recorded
9 as:
10 ARIZONA DOCKET 10802; PAGE 666 MAY 22, 1998
11 CALIFORNIA DOCKET DATED MAY 28, 1998 DOCUMENT #.

12 019869158
13 Face value, relief for party defined by 1961(3), with reservation of waiver of
14 any exception to fraudulent withholding of transfer of official titles in favor of
15 Plaintiff listed in original case by entities defined in original case by 1961(4) or
16 defendants and such fraudulent withholding commissioned in the execution of
17 the enterprise.
18 192.2 Defendants, or assigns and each one of them, have no interest in the real
19 property/s and development rights and earnings that are currently held by
20 Defendants or in persons name who are adverse to Plaintiff;
21 192.3 That the Deed of Trust dated on or about August 26, 2000 and recorded on
22 September 1, 2000, in the Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of Kern
23 County, as Document Number 0200110469, be declared void and of no force and
24 effect along with the may 03, 2007 deed of ownership of 11909 Palm Ave
25 Bakersfield, California 93312.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2560
343ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 192.4 That Defendants and each of them be ordered to produce all Grant and warranty
2 deeds of original purchase listed in exhibit 2.
3 192.5 Defendants re-convey properties listed in CV07-06757, and CV07-06750 herein

4 to Plaintiff Rock of Gibraltor, LLC.
5 192.6 Defendants, and each of them, be ordered to cancel the specific Deed of Trust
6 against 11909 Palm Ave., Bakersfield and deliver it to Plaintiff or the Clerk of
7 this Court for cancellation;
8 192.7 For compensatory damages in the sum in excess of EIGHT HUNDRED

9 THOUSAND ($800,000.00) to ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) and
10 according to proof;
11 192.8 For the statutory penalty pursuant to Civil Code, section 2941(d) in the sum of
12 FIVE-HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00);
13 192.9 For accounting damages pursuant to findings of wrongdoing against New

14 Century for (Financial Code sections 22000 et seq.) and applicable regulations
15 (CFLL), and Financial Code Section 22712.
16 192.10 For an accounting pursuant to findings of missing funds from multiple escrows
17 where New Century and its affiliates were involved in the taking of equities from
18 Plaintiffs through the help of the Title Companies and each of the named
19 defendants, which could result in the payments on Plaintiffs loan/s;
20 192.11 For compensatory damaged in the sum in excess of EIGHT HUNDRED
23 192.12 For special and consequential damages according to proof on CV07-06757 and
24 CV07-06750 and properties listed in exhibit 2, according to proof;
25 192.13 For punitive damages in an amount according to proof;
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2561
344ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 192.14 For compensatory damaged in the sum in excess of EIGHT HUNDRED
4 192.15 For special and consequential damages

5 192.16 For compensatory damages in the sum in excess of EIGHT HUNDRED
6 THOUSAND ($800,000.00) to ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00)
7 and according to proof;
8 192.17 That this court declare and determine rights and liabilities of the parties,
9 properties and funds as court applies these same prayers for exhibit marked 2.
10 192.18 Wherefore court is moved to declare void all defaults under any Deed of Trust
11 and by defendants, and each of them, restraining them from proceeding with any
12 further alleged unjust enrichment effort from estate marked exhibit 2.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AS FOLLOWS:
14 192.19 Judgment for Plaintiffs for the taking away of Plaintiffs constitutional rights to
15 hire counsel; taking away plaintiffs right to claim their legal rental business
16 earnings, denying plaintiff the right to close an escrow, taking away plaintiffs
17 right to obtain Title Insurance and or to obtain relief through legal representation
18 or be allowed discovery and a trial by Jury.
19 192.20 Turnover by Quiet title, Warranty and Grant Deeds, taken pursuant to activities
20 controlled by a person or enterprise who acquires any property through an offense
21 included in the definition of racketeering in 13-2301(d)(4), or through a violation of 13-
2312 is an involuntary Trustee holds the property in constructive trust for the benefit of the
22
persons entitled to remedies pursuant to a racketeering offense. See A.R.S. 13-2314(f)
23
including deed dated may 03, 2007 based on trust deed dated August 26, 2000
24
and recorded on September 1, 2000, in the Official Records of the Recorder of
25
Kern County, as Document Number 0200110469, be declared void and of no
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2562
345ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 force and effect; core enterprise and each of the defendants to, be ordered to re-
2 convey real property/s described in exhibit marked 2, back to Plaintiffs; and
3 Defendant, and each of them, ordered to compensate Plaintiffs for interception of
4 plaintiffs constitutional rights to own, sell and profit from legally earned fruits of
5 their own labor effective 1999 continuing on without a break up until today and
6 compensation set forth herein until the resolution of Jury Trial proceedings.
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON ALL SECTIONS OF THE THIRD CAUSE OF
8 ACTION AS FOLLOWS
9 192.20. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment on all causes of action governed by
10 the racketeering Act of 1970 against defendants as follows:
11 192.21. Defendants concede to a default judgment for the full amount of damages on
12 the entire complaint in the event of failure to answer this complaint.
13 192.22. For an order declaring this case as a complex case.

14 192.23. For a declaration of compensation equal to the values of 2004-2006 at
15 defendants expense by a third party to document loss of property per Public
16 record for purpose of Liability.
17 192.24. For a declaration of the rights and liabilities of the parties;

18 192.25. For an immediate monetary relief to plaintiffs from CV07-06750.
19 192.26. For a certification of complex case.
20 192.27. For a certification of RICO status.
21 192.28. For a certification of the existence of an enterprise run by Godfather to the
22 Enterprise First American title Insurance FATCO and all its affiliates and
23 alter egos and Fidelity Title Insurance Group and all its affiliates and alter egos
24 Fidelity and the same be declared guilty of violating their agreements not to
25 bribe, and offer incentives to financial institutions, builders, developers and
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2563
346ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 Real estate Brokers, agents etc order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a) and
2 immediately dissolving the aforementioned RICO enterprise inasmuch as said
3 enterprises are mere subterfuges and alter ego vehicles for the aforementioned
4 defendants to engage in corrupt, violent, and illegal conduct restrained, as
5 alleged herein;
6 192.29. For an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a) commanding the immediate and
7 permanent expulsion of all RICO defendants from further participatory
8 management, direction, and control of the identified RICO enterprises;
9 192.30. For an order pursuant to FRCP Rule 65 and 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a), to
10 immediately cause issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
11 restrain and prohibit all defendants and their respective attorneys, accountants,
12 agents, consultants, counselors, designees, employees, servants, deputies,
13 nominees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, partners, both general
14 and limited, and any one acting pursuant to any power of attorney, general or
15 limited, from dissipating and/or otherwise disposing exhibit 2, including cash
16 collected from rents in their possession or control, pending resolution of trial
17 proceedings;
18 192.31. For compensatory damages, said sum to be trebled pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

19 1964 (a) for criminal profiteering; Title 18 U.S.C.A. 2314; 2315) and/or 18
20 U.S.C. 1341 conspiracy.
21 192.32. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;
22 192.33. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
23 192.34. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a);
24 192.35. For costs of suit incurred herein;
25 192.36. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2564
347ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 192.37. Plaintiff incorporate herein by this reference all preceding paragraphs of their
2 complaint as if fully set herein,
3 192.38. Defendants engaged in racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

4 1961 (1) by engaging in the acts set forth above, aiding and abetting the
5 commission of the foregoing acts, and/or conspiring to commit the foregoing
6 acts, in violation of the following laws:
7 192.39. Defendants activities invoke 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) (b) (c) (d) governed relief for
8 plaintiff.
9 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
10 192.40 Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on original and removed cases.

11 FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12 192.41 Plaintiff incorporate herein by this reference all preceding paragraphs of their
13 complaint as if fully set herein,
14 192.42 For court to make a ruling that all forms of actions and entry of public record
15 adverse to plaintiff that led to conversion; act as a offer of proof against
16 defendant and stayed forthwith; with the simultaneous disclosure ordered
17 against defendants for a debtors examination as a prelude to the turnover of
18 monies and/or proceeds derived from the conversion of exhibit 2, taken by the
19 use of malicious and/or fraudulent demand Letters, which instruments released
20 to court and if exceeding $5,000, when delivered by U.S. Mail; Electronic
21 Service across state lines, leading to conversion of Plaintiff estate, all applicable
22 damages for acts of racketeering and piracy based on both active and passive
23 elements of RICO enterprise; court suspend any use by the enterprise of
24 interstate Federal Financial Institutions; Interstate Wires; Federal Highways;
25
Federal Mail; Federal Transportation and Commerce for the facilitation of
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2565
348ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 moving stolen monies, assets, goods, original grant and warranty deeds and
2 associated real property; and declare all holders of stolen properties;
3 involuntary trustee holding third party assets in trust for legal owners.
4 192.43 Plaintiff on their own and through Counsel notified core enterprise to Cease
5 and Desist subversive actions adverse to plaintiffs, yet defendants persist in
6 harassing, intercepting plaintiff and its attorney client relationship such the
7 intentional bad faith continuance is cause for prayer for a refund of all damages
8 and payments to intercepted attorneys from 1999-2007 or as court deems fair.
9 192.44 For an Abstract of Judgment and injunctive stay against the holdings of the
10 Enterprise and RICO persons engaged in criminal profiteering by and through
11 the use of federal mail and federally licensed financial institutions to
12 circumvent Plaintiffs their constitutional right to own real estate and access
13 their earnings.
14 192.45 For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
15 Respectfully submitted by Attorney; Henry Nasif Mahmoud
16 Dated: October 18, 2007
17
18 ________________________________________
19 Attorney H. Nasif Mahmoud (SBN. Ill. 0173345)
Admitted Pro Hac ViKinney, Wills & Mahmoud
20 8717 Forest Avenue, Gary IN 46403
21 Email: mwmlawoffices@aol.com
Local Attorney Drop Box:
22 8350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200
23 Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Attorneys for Plaintiff
24
25 (BAKARFIT), "THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS FOR THE
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2566
349ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 BOKHARY, ASGHAR, KHWAJA AND
RICHARDSON FAMILY IRREVOCABLE
2 TRUST ROCK OF GIBRALTOR LLC;
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
VERIFICATION
20
21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
22
192.46 I, SAMMYE A. RICHARDSON, am the 50% percent owner of Rock Of
23
Gibraltor, LLC; ROCK, one of the Trustees for (BAKARFIT), The Life,
24
Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness For The Bokhary, Asghar, Khwaja And
25
26 Richardson Family Irrevocable Trust and the same status controls CV07 06757 and
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2567
350ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 CV07-06750; as such I affirm that each Plaintiff has been rendered insolvent by the
2 imposition of a false debt in the millions that dissipated an entire estate while it
3 stands due and payable.

192.47
4 I have read the foregoing Complaint to Quiet Title; Cancellation of Deed; Breach of
5 Statutory Duty; Accounting; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
6 Negligence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Declaratory Relief;
7 Temporary Restraining Order; Permanent Injunction; Constitutional violations and
8 RICO claims for Damages and know its contents.

192.48
9 Currently I maintain my home office in Kern County and am financially unable to
10 move my offices to Los Angeles area causing daily and weekly commute.
192.49 I know Plaintiff is being blackballed by defendants for the past nine years.
11
192.50 I am personally knowledgeable, informed and believe in that information to allege
12
13 grounds to state that the forgoing documents are true and correct.
192.51 I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing account is filed to the best
14
15 of my knowledge and belief in that knowledge that the foregoing is true and correct.
16 Executed before October 18, 2007 at Los Angeles County.
17 ____________________________
18 SAMMYE A. RICHARDSON
Trustee and member of Plaintiffs
19 (BAKARFIT) and ROCK
20 (SEE EXHIBIT 2.
21 LIST OF PROPERTIES CONTROLLED BY RICO 1961(4) AND 1962(a) DEFINATION
FOR ACTIVITIES COMMITTED BY DEFENDANTS WHERE RELIEF IS SOUGHT
22 THROUGH ACTIONS 1-10 AS DEFENSIVE MECHANISM ON THE PART OF THE
PLAINTIFFS FOR RELIEF.
23 RECORD OBTAINED FROM OFFICIAL RECORD OF SAID COUNTIES OF LOST OR
DAMAGED ESTATE RECORDED IN THE NAME OF ROCK OF GIBRALTOR, LLC
24 HELD IN TRUST BY BAKARFIT BY INSTRUMENTS LISTED BELOW:
25
ARIZONA BY DOCKET , 10802 PAGE 666 MAY 22, 1998.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2568
351ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
CALIFORNIA DOCKET DATED MAY 28, 1998 DOCUMENT # 019869158
1
TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
2
3 Property and inventory removed from 1091 S. Bill Martin Dr. Tucson Arizona by Mobile storage to
be turned over to plaintiff.
4 [See letter from Mobile Storage] who broke-into said premises to perform illegal search and
seizure against Plaintiff and its innocent family which opened the door for Arizona attorney
5 David McEvoy by his own admission to start a chain of suits to throw the Plaintiffs out of
6 Pima County. And the following ensued: Pima County Court Case Starr Pass Master
Association V Elena Richardson, David McEvoy Civ. Case C20050322; Pima County
7 Court case Starr Pass Master Association V Elena Richardson, Civ Case C20053405;
again by and through David McEvoy after forty nine properties were diverted to his group,
8 referred to as DevCon; followed by a chain of suits against plaintiff after it restrained
Plaintiff from doing the act it was asking it to do, such as fix 1091 S. Bill Martin Drive,
9 Tucson, AZ.; when his principals agents assaulted the house with a Caterpillar truck and
10 abandoned from the pre-meditated bankruptcy Estate, based on a guarantee of
foreclosure then intercepted payment for replacement for insured leading to the removal of
11 Furniture and contents from the garage and containers defendant by Mobile storage for
alleged non-payment by State Farm.
12 TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
Address: 1091 South Little Buck Loop Tucson, Arizona
13 Type of Property: Office and Single family residence furniture and Federal Evidence and heirlooms.
14 Legal Description and date of removal. Between September 15, 2003 through May 24, 2005 by
Mobile storage, Baldwin Construction et al, Starr Pass group of participants collectively known as
15 DevCon., by and through the combined financial and crony resources of Hired by FATCO First
American Title Insurance Companys Law Firm of Caswell Bell and Hillison, CB&H et al;
17 Address: 6001 Winter Grove Drive Bakersfield, California
18 Type of Property: Single family residence
Legal Description Lot 66 of Tract 5652 in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
19 California, as per Map Filed December 22, 1993, in Book 40, Pages 195, 196 and 197 of Maps, in
the office of the County Recorder of said County and as corrected by a Certificate of Correction
20 Recorded July 24, 1998 as Instrument 0198099580 Official Record Assessors Parcel :499-172-02-
00-6 innocent Serena Richardson and Rock property clouded first by RICO without jurisdiction.
21
TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTIONS, REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
22 Address: 7800 Westfield Road # 38. Bakersfield, California 93309
23 Type of Property: Single family residence.
24 California, as per Map Recorded November 21, 1983, in Book 32, Pages 193, and 194 of Maps, in
the office of the County Recorder of said County Official Records
25 Assessors Parcel: 502-320-16-00-9
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2569
352ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTIONS REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
1 Address: 12102 Kingfisher Avenue. Bakersfield, California 93312
Legal Description: Lot 31 of Tract 5669 Unit A, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
3 California, as per Map Recorded May 13, 1994 in Book 41, Pages 48 and 49 of Maps, in the Office
of the County Recorder of Said County Assessors Parcel : 462-202-02-00-6.
4
5 Address: 8319 Charles Place California City, California
Legal Description Lot 33 of tract 5179, in the City of California City, County of
7 Kern, State of California, as per Map Recorded March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel: 213-481-33-00-5
Address: 21727 Olivo Court. California City, California
10 Legal Description: Lot 75 of Tract 5179, in the City of California City, County of Kern, State of
California, as per Map Recorded March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of Maps in the Office
11 of the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel: 213-482-31-00-6
Address: 3225 Sherrell Way, Bakersfield, California
13
Type of Property: Single family residence
14 Legal Description: Lot 45 of Tract 4519, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
California, as Per Map Recorded February 20, 1986 in Book 35, Pages 18 through 22, inclusive, of
15 Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County
Assessors Parcel: 132-203-01-00-4
16
Address: 5408 Ilene Court, Bakersfield, California.
Legal Description: Lot 11 of Tract 4686, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
19 California, as per Map Recorded March 27, 1984 in Book 33, Pages 57 and 58 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel : 412-171-11-00-2.
21 Address: 5305 Lime Street, Bakersfield California.
22 Legal Description: Lot 20 of Tract 4686, in the City of Bakersfield, County Of Kern, State of
California, as per Map Recorded March 27, 1984 in Book 33, Pages 57 and 58 of Maps, in the
23 Office of the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel 412-171-20-00-8.
24 TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY.
25 Address: 7509 Indian Gulch Street Value $700,000; Bakersfield, California
Fidelity Title stepped in after First American Title; FATCO was exposed for the racket of selling
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2570
353ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
properties without authority, causing a loss of multi-millions to plaintiff. With St. Clair as the
1 beneficiary of alleged Title 28, 152 (5); Fed.R.Civ.P 2465 and fed, R.Civ.P.157 (d) (5) acts over and
2 above Title 281367(a).
Bakersfield, California
Legal Description: Lot 14 of Tract 4902, Unit B, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State
4 of California, as per Map Recorded February 12, 1992 in Book 39, Pages 35 and 36 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County
5 Assessors Parcel: 498-202-02-00-7.
6
7 Address: 1103 Sioux Creek Drive. Bakersfield California Value
8 Legal Description Lot 55 of Tract 5544, Phase A, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, and
State of California, as per Map Recorded May 21, 1993 in Book 40, Page 109 of Maps, and In the
9 Office of the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel: 500-063-12-00-9. Serena
10 Richardson and Rock property clouded without jurisdiction.

Address: 8331 Charles Place Bakersfield California,
Legal Description: Lot 34 of Tract 5179 in the City of California City, County Kern, State of
13
California, as per Map Filed March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of Maps, in the office of
14 the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel : 213-481-34-00-8.
15 CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LISTED BY SUB-

DIVISION.
16 1. WINTER GROVE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA
17 2. CALIFORNIA CITY CALIFORNIA
3. LOOSE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES SPREAD OVER
18 MULTI SUB-DIV. INCLUDE (12) PROPERTIES
ORIGINALLY FINANCED BY UNION BANK OF
19 CALIFORNIA SOLD BY ALLEGED ENTERPRISE
THROUGH CONVERSION AND HELP FROM
20 ALLEGED RICO PERSONS.
21 Homesteaded family farm and sole income:
Address: 11909 Palm Ave. Bakersfield, CA. 93312. Type of Property: Richardson Family Farm;
22 Legal Description: Property 5 of Tract 4274, in the unincorporated area of the County of Kern, State
of CA., as per Map recorded November 6, 1984 in Book 34, Page 18 of Maps, in the Office of the
23 County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 496-160-05-2
24 Homesteaded Family residence
25 Address: 1136 South Little Buck Loop, Tucson, Arizona
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2571
354ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Legal Description Lot 4 of Antelope Point, according to the Plat of Record in the Office of the
1 County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, recorded in Book 46 of Maps, Page 68. Assessors
2 Parcel No.:116-27-51009-0150.

Type of Property: Residential lot
4 Legal Description: Lot 34 of Tract 4878 in the City of Tehachapi, County of Kern, State of
California, as per Map recorded October 30, 1991 in Book 38, Pages 197 and 198 of Maps in the
5 office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 416-470-34-00-7.
6
Address: 733 Las Colinas Street, Tehachapi, California
7 Type of Property: Residential lot
Legal Description: Lot 35 of Tract 4878 in the City of Tehachapi, County of Kern, State of
8 California, as per Map recorded October 30, 1991 in Book 38, Pages 197 and 198 of Maps in the
office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 416-470-35-00-0.
9
Address:
10 5303 Glacier Springs Drive, Bakersfield, California
11 Type of Property: Residential Lot
Legal Description: Lot 72 of Tract 5652 in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
the office of the County Recorder of said County and as corrected by a Certificate of correction
13 Recorded July 24, 1998 as Instrument 0198099580 Official Records. Assessors Parcel: 499-173-
04-00-9 a.k.a. APN 499-173-02-00
14
15 TURNOVER OF FUNDS TAKEN BY KC AND FATCO ATTORNEYS CB&H
UNDER DURESS FROM PROPERTY MARKED
16 Address: 5307 Glacier Springs Drive, Bakersfield, California
17 Legal Description: Lot 71 of Tract 5652 in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
03-00-6.
20
TURNOVER ONLY OF FUNDS REMOVED UNDER DURESS FROM SALE OF
21 PROPERTY
23 Legal Description Lot 65 of Tract 5652 in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
California, as per Map Filed December 22, 1993, in Book 40, Pages 195, 196 and 197 of Maps, in
24 the office of the County Recorder of said County and as corrected by a Certificate of Correction
Recorded July 24, 1998 as Instrument 0198099580 Official Records Assessors Parcel: 499-172-01-
25 00-3
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2572
355ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 TURNOVER AND STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
Address: 11909 Palm Avenue, Bakersfield, California
3 Legal Description: Lot 5 of Tract 4274, in the unincorporated area of the County of Kern, State of
California, as per Map recorded November 6, 1984 in Book 34, Page 18 of Maps, in the Office of
4 the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 496-160-05-2.
5 TURNOVER OF LOSSES FOR DISTRESSED SALE TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR

PROPERTY
6 Address: 3512 Sonoita Drive; Bakersfield, California
Legal description: Lot 43 of Tract 4277, Unit 6, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
8 California, as per Map recorded October 13, 1981 in Book 31, Pages 91 and 92 of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County Assessors Parcel : 385-341-29-00-7
9 TURNOVER OF PROPERTY
Address: 4304 Cyclone Drive, Bakersfield, California
11 Legal Description Lot 7 of Tract 4898-2, in the city of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
California, as per Map recorded January 18, 1988, in Book 36, Page 98 of Maps, in the office of the
12 County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 515-151-07-00-5.
Address: 7800 Westfield Road # 40, Bakersfield, California
14 Type of Property: Condominium
Legal Description: Lot 40 of Tract 4647, In the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
15
California, as per Map recorded November 21, 1983 in Book 32, Pages 193 and 194 of Maps, in the
16 office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 502-320-18-7.
TURNOVER OF LOSS FROM DISTRESSED SALE DUE TO HARRASEMENT AND
17 INTERFERENCE OVER PROPERTY
Address: 8331 Charles Place, California City, California
19 Legal Description: Lot 34 of Tract 5179 in the City of California City, County Kern, State of
California, as per Map Filed March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of Maps, in the office of
20 the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 213-481-34-00-8.
21 TURNOVER OF PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS PROPERTY

Address: 8403 Charles Place, California City, California
22 Type of Property: Residential lot
Legal Description: Lot 40 of Tract 5179 in the unincorporated area, county of Kern, State of
23 California, as per Map recorded March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of Maps in the office
24 of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 213-481-40-00-5
TURNOVER OF PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS PROPERTY
25
Address: 8301Olivo Drive, a.k.a 21726 Olivo Court, California City, California
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2573
356ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 Legal Description: Lot 82 of Tract 5179 in the unincorporated area, county of Kern, State of
2 California, as per Map recorded March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of Maps, in the office
of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 213-482-38-3.
3
TURNOVER OF PROPERY FREE OF LIENS PROPERTY
7 TURNOVER OF PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS PROPERTY
Address: 5914 Winter Grove Drive, Bakersfield, California
Recorded July 24, 1998 as Instrument 0198099580 Official Records. Assessors Parcel: 499-171-
15 19-7.
Address: 5311 Glacier Springs, Bakersfield, California
17
20 02-00-3 a.k.a 499-173-02-00.
Address: 6000 Winter Grove Drive, Bakersfield, California
22
25 18-9
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2574
357ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
TURNOVER OF PROPERTY
4 Recorded July 24, 1998 as Instrument 0198099580 Official Record. Assessors Parcel: 499-172-02-
00-6
5
03-00-9
10
04-00-2
15
TURNOVER OF LOSSES FROM FORCED SALE DUE TO INTERFERNCE IN BUSINESS
16 RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY
Address: 5315 Glacier Springs Drive
17 Bakersfield, California
19
01-00-0
21 TURNOVER OF LOSSES FROM DISTRESSED SALE CAUSED FROM INTERCEPTION
OF SALE OF PROPERTY
22 Address: 7800 Westfield Road # 38
23 Bakersfield, California 93309
California, as per Map Recorded November 21, 1983, in Book 32, Pages 193, and 194 of Maps, in
25 the office of the County Recorder of said County Official Records. Assessors Parcel: 502-320-16-
00-9
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2575
358ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
TURNOVER OF LOSS FROM THEFT BY LOCKLEAR FROM PROPERTY SOLD
1 UNDER DURESS DUE TO INTERFERENCE LOCATED
2 Address: 9519 Sea beck Avenue, Bakersfield, California
3 Legal Description Lot 41 of Tract 5445 Phase 2, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State
of California, as per Map Recorded November 12, 1992, in Book 40, Pages 13 and 14 of Maps, in
4 the office of the County Recorder of said County Official Records. Assessors Parcel: 451-302-08-
00-3
5
Address: 1103 Sioux Creek Drive, Bakersfield, California
Legal Description Lot 55 of Tract 5544, Phase A, in the City of Bakersfield,
8 County of Kern, State of California, as per Map Recorded May 21, 1993 in Book 40,
Page 109 of Maps, In the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 500-
9 063-12-00-9
10
11 Address: 8319 Charles Place, California City, California
12 Legal Description Lot 33 of tract 5179, in the City of California City, County of
Kern, State of California, as per Map Recorded March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of
13
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 213-481-33-00-5.
14
15 Address: 21727 Olivo Court, California City, California
16 Legal Description: Lot 75 of Tract 5179, in the City of California City, County of Kern, State of
17 California, as per Map Recorded March 17, 1993 in Book 40, Pages 77 and 78 of Maps in the Office
of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 213-482-31-00-6
18
19 Address: 3225 Sherrell Way, Bakersfield, California
21 California, as Per Map Recorded February 20, 1986 in Book 35, Pages 18 through 22, inclusive, of
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. Assessors Parcel: 132-203-01-00-4.
22
TURNOVER OF LOSS FROM DISTRESSED SALE OF PROPERTY
23 Address: 10903 Galway Bay Drive, Bakersfield, California
24 Legal Description: Lot 5 of Tract 5598A, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of
25 California, as per Map Recorded June 15, 1992 in Book 39, Pages 115,116, and 117 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 394-171-05-00-4
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2576
359ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 TURNOVER OF LOSS FROM DISTRESSED SALE OF PROPERTY
2 Address: 424 Corte Gismo, Bakersfield, California
Type of Property: residential Lot
3 Legal Description: Lot 90 of tract 5084, Phase 2, in the City of Bakersfield,
County of Kern, State of California, as per Map Recorded July 10, 1992 in Book 39, Pages 132
4 through 135, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, and as
corrected by Certificate of Correction Recorded July 24, 1992 in Book 6704, Page 2236 of Official
5 Records. Assessors Parcel: 409-232-16-00-7
6
7 Address: 5408 Ilene Court, Bakersfield, California
9 Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 412-171-11-00-2.
10
11 Address: 5305 Lime Street, Bakersfield, California
12 Legal Description: Lot 20 of Tract 4686, in the City of Bakersfield, County Of Kern, State of
13
Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel 412-171-20-00-8.
14
15 Address: 12102 Kingfisher Avenue, Bakersfield, California
16 Legal Description: Lot 31 of Tract 5669 Unit A, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State
17 of California, as per Map Recorded May 13, 1994 in Book 41, Pages 48 and 49 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of Said County Assessors Parcel : 462-202-02-00-6.
18
19 Address: 7509 Indian Gulch Street, Bakersfield, California
20 Legal Description: Lot 14 of Tract 4902, Unit B, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State
21 of California, as per Map Recorded February 12, 1992 in Book 39, Pages 35 and 36 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessors Parcel: 498-202-02-00-7.
22
TURNOVER OVER OF KENYPON TERRACE PROPERTIES CONTROLLED BY
23 ARIZONA DOCKET, 10802 PAGES 666 MAY 22, 1998;
24 TURNOVER OF PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS
25 Address: 7574 E. Kini Drive, Tucson, Arizona [SAR-22]
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2577
360ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Legal Description Lot 26 through 28, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
1 According to the Map or Plat Thereof of Record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pima
2 County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof; And as Amended by
Declaration of Scriveners Error Recorded October 28, 1981, in Docket 6645 at Page 669.
3 Assessors Parcel:

5 Address: 7612 E. Kini Drive, Tucson, Arizona [SAR-22]
6 Legal Description Lot 36, 37 and 38, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County,
Arizona, According to the Map or Plat Thereof of Record in the Office of the County Recorder of
7 Pima County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof; And as Amended by
8 Declaration of Scriveners Error Recorded October 28, 1981, in Docket 6645 at Page 669.
Assessors Parcel: 134-173-09 A.
9
TURNOVER OF PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS
10 Address: 725 S. Julie Avenue, Tucson, Arizona [SAR-22]
11 Legal Description Lot 43 and 44 of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
According to the Map or Plat Thereof of Record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pima
Assessors Parcel: 134-173-16 A
14
16 Legal Description Lot 45 and 46 of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
17
County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof; And as Amended by
Assessors Parcel: 134-173-18-A.
21 Legal Description Lot 47 and 48, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County,
Arizona, According to the Map or Plat Thereof of Record in the Office of the County
22 Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof;
And as Amended by Declaration of Scriveners Error Recorded October 28, 1981, in Docket 6645 at
23
Page 669. Assessors Parcel: 134-173-20 A
24
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2578
361ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Legal Description Lot 49 and 50 of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
3 Assessors Parcel: 134-173-22 A.

Address: 631 S. Julie Avenue, Tucson, Arizona [SAR-22]
5 Type of Property: residential Lot
Legal Description Lot 53 and 54, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
Declaration of Scriveners Error Recorded October 28, 1981, in
8 Docket 6645 at Page 669. Assessors Parcel: 134-173-26 A.

Address: 711 E. Cynthia Avenue, Tucson, Arizona [SAR-22]
13 Assessors Parcel: 134-174-22 A
14 TURNOVER OF PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS.
Address: 745 S. Julie Ave., Tucson, Arizona [Paid as Retainer to Counsel and sale intercepted]
16
According to the Map or Plat Thereof of Record in the office of the County Recorder of Pima
17 County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof; and as Amended by Declaration
of Scriveners Error Recorded October 28, 1981, in Docket 6645 at Page 669. Assessors Parcel:
18 134-173-12 A
21
23 Assessors Parcel: 134-173-14 A
26 Legal Description Lot 51 and 52, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2579
362ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof; And as Amended by declaration
2 of Scriveners Error Recorded October 28, 1981, in Docket 6645 at Page 669. Assessors Parcel:
134-173-24 A
3
4 Address: 625 S. Julie Ave., Tucson, Arizona [Paid as Retainer to Counsel and sale intercepted]
8
Type of property: residential Lot
13
16
18
21
24 Address: 719 E. Cynthia Ave., Tucson, Arizona [Paid as Retainer to Counsel and sale intercepted]
25 Legal Description Lots 147 and 148, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2580
363ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
2 Assessors Parcel: 134-174-20 A.
3
Address: 7600 E. Kini Dr., Tucson, Arizona [Paid as Retainer to Counsel and sale intercepted]
Legal Description Lot 33, 34 and 35, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
7 Assessors Parcel: 134-173-0.

Address: 704 South Cynthia Kenyon Terrace Tucson, Arizona home lost due to Tanis Duncan;
9 Arizona Dept. R.E. and Caswell Bell et als culpable Acts and direct interference.
Type of Property: residential Townhouse
10 Legal Description: Lot 145 and 146, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
Assessors Parcel:
Address: 716 South Cynthia Kenyon Terrace Tucson, Arizona, lost due to direct interception of
14 Tanis Duncan; Arizona Dept. R.E. and Caswell Bell et als culpable Acts.
15
Legal Description: Lot 142, 143 and 144, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County,
16 Arizona, According to the Map or Plat Thereof of Record in the Office of the County Recorder of
Pima County, Arizona, in Book 33 of Maps and Plats at Page 65 Thereof; And as Amended by
Assessors Parcel:
18
19 Address: 7583 E. Cynthia Kenyon Terrace Tucson Arizona lost due to direct interception of Tanis
Duncan; Arizona Dept. R.E. and Caswell Bell et als culpable Acts.
20
21 Legal Description: Lot 135 and 136, of Kenyon Terrace, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona,
23 Assessors Parcel:
24
VENTANA CANYON SUB-DIVISION TUCSON ARIZONA
Address: 6452 Desert Wind Circle, VENTANA CANYON ESTATES, Tucson, Arizona (a main
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2581
364ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
retirement residence) 1st hole on golf course, current value 2 million dollars and going up; title
1 changed without payment to rightful owner Rock of Gibraltor LLC; and in spite of fraudulent
2 transfer (all who participated in this scam made money but the owner Richardson entity Rock of
Gibraltor LLC)
3 Type of Property: Single family residence to be built
Legal Description: Lot 27 of VENTANA CANYON ESTATES, A Subdivision of Pima County,
4 Arizona According to the Map or Plat of Record in the Pima County Recorders Office in Book 37
of Maps and Plats at Page 79. Assessors Parcel: *114-03-0350
5
6 DevCon CONTOLLED SUB-DIVISION CALLED STARRPASS
AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF PARADISE POINT A.K.A ANTELOPE POINT
7
9 Legal Description Lot 1 of Antelope Point, according to the Plat of Record in the Office of the
County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, recorded in Book 46 of Maps, Page 68. Assessors
10 Parcel: 116-27-50701-0150.
14 Parcel: 116-27-50804-0150.
Address: 1140 South Little Buck Loop, Tucson, Arizona
16
18 Parcel: 116-27-50907-0150.
21
22 Parcel: 116-27-51009-0150.

Address: 1132 South Little Buck Loop, Tucson, Arizona.
25 County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, recorded in Book 46 of Maps, Page 68.Assessors
26 Parcel: 116-27- 51102-0150.
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2582
365ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 Parcel: 116-27-51205-0150.

8 Parcel: 116-27-51308-0150

Parcel: 116-27-51401-0150
12
13 Address: 1093 South Antelope Meadows Loop, Tucson, Arizona
Legal Description: Lot 25 of Antelope Point, according to the Plat of Record in the Office of the
15 County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, recorded in Book 46 of Maps, Page 68.Assessors
Parcel: 116-27-53100-0150.
16
17 Address: 1097 South Antelope Meadows Loop, Tucson, Arizona
18
Parcel: 116-27-53203-0150
20
21
Address: 1105 South Antelope Meadows Loop, Tucson, Arizona
24 Parcel: 116-27-53409-0150
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2583
366ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Parcel: 116-27-53502-0150
6 Parcel: 116-27-53605-0150
9 Parcel: 116-27-5150.
Parcel: 116-27-5160.
13
County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, recorded in Book 46 of Maps, Page 68.Assessors
16 Parcel: 116-27-5170-0.
Parcel: 116-27-51803-0150.
22 Legal Description: Lot 13 of Antelope Point, according to the Plat of Record in the Office of the
23 Parcel: 116-27-51906-0150
24 Address: 1083 South Bill Martin Drive, Tucson, Arizona
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2584
367ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 Parcel: 116-27-5290-5.
Address: 1091 South Bill Martin Drive, Tucson, Arizona (Daughters Residence Destroyed by
3 FATCO et al)
County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, recorded in Book 46 of Maps, Page 68.Assessors
5 Parcel: 116-27-53007-0150
Address: 917 South Bill Martin Drive, Tucson, Arizona
Legal Description: Lot 26 of Canyon View, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona, according to
8 the Map or Plat thereof of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, in
Book 47 of Maps and Plats at Page 32 Thereof. Assessors Parcel No: 116-27-5770
10 Address: 947 South Bill Martin Drive, Tucson, Arizona
11 Legal Description: Lot 27 of Canyon View, a Subdivision of Pima County, Arizona, according to
the Map or Plat thereof of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, in
12 Book 47 of Maps and Plats at Page 32 Thereof. Assessors Parcel: 116-27-5780.
TURNOVER AND STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
13
Address: 3477 West Tiny Bird Court, Tucson, Arizona
Legal Description: Lot 40 of Quail Ridge, a Subdivision Of Pima County, Arizona, according to the
15 Map or Plat thereof of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, in
Book 46 of Maps and Plats at Page 8 thereof; and as amended by Declaration of Scriveners Error
16 recorded in Docket 9853 at Page 414 and in Docket 10562 at Page 661.Assessors Parcel: 116-27-
4700.
17
TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR COMMON AREA
18 OWNED AS DEVELOPER BY PLAINTIFF

Address: Tucson, Arizona (Rocks owned common areas in a sub-division of Starr Pass)
20 Property Type: residential Common Areas for Paradise point unlawfully changed to antelope Point.
Legal Description: Antelope Point common area an open space [sic] 3610 East 22nd Street, tax code
21 book 116-map 27 parcel54604.area code 0150.
23 Address: Tucson, Arizona (Rocks owned common areas in a sub-division of Starr Pass)
Property Type: residential Common Areas for Paradise point unlawfully changed to antelope Point.
24 Legal Description: [sic] Antelope Point common area and private street 1173 Carnegie Drive,
Tucson. Assessors number book 116, map 27. Parcel 54707. Area code 0150.
25
ORO VALLEY CONTROLLED SUB-DIVISION
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2585
368ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 TURNOVER AND STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY 45
2 Address: 1710 East Moonshroud Drive, Tucson, Arizona (Oro Valley)
3 Legal Description: Lot 368 of Catalina Shadows Estates Phase 4, a subdivision of Pima County,
Arizona, according to the Map or Plat thereof of record in the Office of the County recorder of Pima
4 County, Arizona, in Book 46 of Maps and Plats at Page 1 thereof. Assessors Parcel: 220-05-
7910.TURNOVER AND STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY 46
Legal Description: Lot 369 of Catalina Shadows Estates Phase 4, a subdivision of Pima County,
7 Arizona, according to the Map or Plat thereof of record in the Office of the County recorder of Pima
County, Arizona, in Book 46 of Maps and Plats at Page 1 thereof Assessors Parcel: 220-05-7920.
Address: 1649 East Moonshroud Drive
9 Tucson, Arizona (Oro Valley}
Address: 1598 East Moonshroud Drive
13
Tucson, Arizona (Oro Valley)
16 TURNOVER & STAY OF ALL TRANSACTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY 49
Property Type: residential Lot
18 Legal Description: Lot 377 of Catalina Shadows Estates Phase 4, a subdivision of Pima County,
Arizona, according to the Map or Plat thereof of record in the Office of the County recorder of Pima
19 County, Arizona, in Book 46 of Maps and Plats at Page 1 thereof Assessors Parcel: 220-05-8000.
LA PALOMA COUNTRY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS SUB-DIVISION
20 TUCSON ARIZONA
Address: 6352 Vuelta Del Tajo, Tucson, Arizona (Rocks main Home Office)
22 Property Type: residential Condominium
Legal Description: Unit 160 Garage 60 of the Condominium At La Paloma, a subdivision of Pima
23 County, Arizona, according to the Map of record in the Pima County Recorders Office in Book 37
of Maps and Plats at page 100; Together with an undivided interest in the common Elements As set
24 forth in the Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime recorded September 25, 1984 in Docket
25 7375, Page 1006.
Assessors Parcel: 108-121050.
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2586
369ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 PHOENIX ARIZONA PARADISE MOUNTAIN SHADOWS 8 LOTS
2 Loss subject of Title fraud by First American Title Insurance Corp. and its convicted felon Manager
Nancy Walsh in Tucson, Arizona; and money filtered to purchase 4464 East Broadway Tucson,
3 Arizona. 85701 in the name of Convicted Felon Richard Romeros entity subject of civil restitution
for criminal offense, the same to be examined under this trial.
4
5
6 SEE CONCURRENT DOCUMENTS FOR EXHIBITS AND ATTACHED CASES LAW
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Relief
28
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2587
370ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
< . < < .. '?# = 0+ 10 .. < << = / <+ = ?# + ? << < < . < <+= A
"# $ %&''" '() %'*
%&''" '() %'*
, # --. // #* ) +< . < <
0+ 7 , ) + (8.< .<<!
( =
, (' 12134 5&6'1)1 12134 $&71$8
% 99&)4 71)'16 :"'3&)4 &))"1 39"8%
5&''164 %" 1) 2 '1 9;8+ &+* ") +4 &13
8%$&(;% <<*
- # # . // +
>
7 - * * # * ? 5? @ +
% '?# = * // #@ * // = - = (# 3 7 # ?/ // , # - =
8 #= ? 7 , A #@ = # ?/ // - - ? / ? + 8= 7 , - ?# = 9 +
'?# = # = @# = # // # - A # - = ? + + $+
7 # + ,+ B<< 4 < = + 7 , '+$+ B<< . + ? = A * 9 + '?# = - - A # -
# / + <= + 7 , '+$+ B< B. + #@ * = ? C ?= ?# +
$+ 7 # + ,+ B<< # <= + 7 , '+$+ B< B. A = - - ? / ? + : -- A
= 7 ,D A# # = A # # # 9 + '?# = D A # /
+
&# A * << * = # ?/ ? # # A #@ # 0 / #@ ?@=

9 + '?# = + 9 + '?# = - A # - // = 7 , ? = # # A/ #
= E? - #@ # #@ - + 3= ? E? # - # // # , : = ? , / A #
- * = = = ? # +
: =# # - - #@ # - // * # // # 7 # ?/ $? B<<
- = = - = # ?/ ? @# # - = A # ? # = #
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2595
371ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
- ! < < 9
< . < < .. '?# = 0+ 10 .. < << = / <+ = ?# + ? << < < . < <+= A
A #
- = ? / # + + $+ 7 # + ,+ B<< + 7 , $? B< B. - E? # // #
- A # - # / =# # - # = = // = # = =
7 ,* = # / - A # = = 7 ,* = = 0 + 8= 7 , ? # = =
// = # # - = - #@ # - 5 #? <* << * - A # - #
/ * @# # - * # A # - ? + 8= # C/ # 9 + '?# = - -
= E? / / +
8= 7 , # ) - - # # & 3= ? * E? #@ 9 + '?# = - A #
- # / /? ? # <= + 7 , '+$+ B< B. 4 - / - = @# # - #
# = 7 # ?/ $? B<< 4 # - / - = A # - ? # # =
7 # ?/ $? B<< + 8= 7 , # A # # 9 + '?# = = - ? A/ = = ?
? ? # A - = // + 9 + '?# = # / # + #@ * = 7 , A
= // - - ? / ? + 9 + '?# = = # - A # = 7 ,D A # * = = =
? # + 8= // - +
: 0 A - - ? / ? ?# # ? - # # + *
+ * <= + - # #@ # ? - # # A #@ # ?/ // -
- ? @# # // * - ? - A # - ? * # - ? - A
-+
8= ? = - ? A ? / # - -/ ? #= @ # # # #
F #= # / *F @ 0 # # ? ? ? = # # 0 # ? A # @
= # -- = 0 = # C/ ? / # - +
* < (+3+ * <. + A - - ? / ? = ? A/

# - -? C - G? #+ * + !< * !< <= +
+) # = * A # // / / # @ # / = @ ? #
- / E? ? ? + ! " # $ ! " %& * (+3+ *
. +
8= 7 , = = ?= # A // / * # ? #@ A * # / # 9+
'?# = D - ? A/ = ? # = / ? A # = 7 # ?/ $? + + $+
7 # + ,+ B<< + 9 + '?# = # /? = - ? A/ = = // ? -
/ ? # - = // + 3= = # / = E? - #@ # #@ - + 8= A # - #
/ * @# # - * # A # - ? = 0 # #- +9 0 * 9 + '?# =
# = = 7 , -- 0 # = - = / - A # ? # - = ) -
- # # & 3= ? # 5 #? * << + / +7 + . +
9 + '?# = D # # # - = ? = = 7 ,D A - = // 0 - # -
G? #+ 3= / - = = 7 , G? # 0 = // ? = # ?/
? G? # # = A #@ = 0 / #@+ 9 + '?# = D
G? # @?A # - + ,? ? # B (+3+ + H !B * = 7 , = G? # 0 9 + '?# = D
// + 8= # ?/ ? D / -= 0 / #@ # -# ? G
// + B (+3+ + H !B +' * 9 + '?# = # # = 7 ,D G? # - #@ A
# - // # - #@ = 0 = // = ? + B (+3+ + H !B 4 +
$+ 7 # + ,+ B<< 4 < = + 7 , '+$+ B<< . + "# ?A* = 7 , = G? # 0 9 + '?# = D // +
/ A? - = // ? -- / ? +! ' * + <*
<= + 4 * + + 8= 7 , # ? # # A #@ 9 + '?# = D
// +
= # 0 * 9 + '?# = D A # / #
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2596
372ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
- ! < < 9
< . < < .. '?# = 0+ 10 .. < << = / <+ = ?# + ? << < < . < <+= A
= 7 ,D A - - ? / ? +
1)81$1 &$ 8%1 &($8
3 /= # +3 A ?
(# 3 ? 5? @
- # #?A ?# / # #@ # # = C+
>+
- C A # #@ // #D - # = // * = / # = A # ?# # A ? =
@?A # ? # A = A# # - = // + + $+ //+ ,+ # <=
+ $+ + ; +
( $ % )* + , - -
' ( ./% .**/
!0$ 1 .**/% ' " -
' ( (22 )* - - 2 2.**/2*32*/4/*/*
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2597
373ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
- ! < < 9
Table of Statutes http://www.zbad.net/frames/OSBMonopoly.htm
Table of Statutes, Rules, Cases, and Authorities Dealing with the Unauthorized Practice of Law,
Legal Services for the Poor, Unbundling Legal Services, The Legal Profession, etc.
Oregon State Bar
Ethics Opinion 1994-137
Unlawful Practice of Law Committee Rules

(Board of Governors Policies 9.70 As Amended through July 25, 1998)
OSB-UPL case no. 99-14 sub nom In re: Honorable Judge Carlson and Honorable
Judge Velure v. SOS Documents.
Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct (adopted effective January 1, 1996)
JR -102 (D), JR 2-106 (A) (1), JR 2-110 (B), JR 4-101 (A).
Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure
Council on Court Procedures -- ORCP Handbook 1990

Liberal Construction Rule 12(A), and Disregarding Error Rule 12(B)
Equitable Remedy after Judgment Rule 71 (C)
Oregon Constitution
Article I section 21 (ex-post facto law forbidden)
Article III (Judicial Department)
Oregon Statutes
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2604
374ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Chapter ( Practice of Law: Membership in the Bar

ORS 9.160 Unlawful Practice of Law
See also Oregon Laws 1920, ch V 1093-1, p. 949 (Spec. Sess) (first Oregon UPL
Statute and Oregon Laws 1920, ch V 1093-2, p. 949 (Spec. Sess.) defining the
practice of law. See especially OR Laws 1937, ch 343 2 repealing the definition of
the practice of law.
ORS 9. 164-166 (1) (injunctive process/procedure)

ORS 9.320 (in-court appearance by corporation must be made by attorney)
ORS 14.250 Judicial Disqualification

ORS 14.260(3) No disqualification after rulings on matters of substance
14.260(5) Not more than two judges can be disqualified in any cause or action by a party
or
attorney.
Chapter 183 (Administrative Procedures for Quasi-Judicial Actives and Rule Making by State
Agencies)
ORS 260.005(10) Defining collective persons.
State Supreme Court and State Bar Unlicensed, Unauthorized, or Unlawful Practice of Law
Rules
Arkansas: In Re: Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law

1994 Ark. LEXIS 436 (1994)
California:
Florida:
Supreme Court Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Chapter 10Rules Governing the
Investigation and Prosecution of the Unlicensed Practice of Law.
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2605
375ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
2 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Rule 10-2.1(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law (not the unlicensed practice of law for non lawyers to
engage in limited communication to assist a person to fill out a legal form approved by the
Supreme Court of Florida.) (effective Jan. 1, 1993 as per 605 So.2d 252).
Montana; In The Matter of the Commission on Unauthorized Practice of Law

246 Mont. 1 (1990)
Washington State Limited Practice Rules
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2606
376ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
3 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Cases
Oregon Cases
Service Lumber Co. V. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co., . 81 Ore. 32, *; 158 P. 175 (1916) (Stockholders of defunct corporation real parties in interest
and able to appear on behalf of their tenancy-in-common of the residual property of the former corporation).
Oregon Peaceworks Green PAC v. Secretary of State, 103 Ore. App. 323, 797 P.2d 386
(1990) rev den, (Political Action Committee, although a collective person (ORS 260.005(10)) is
not a corporation and can appear through a non-lawyer representative).
State of Oregon v. Anthony Lee Garza, 125 Ore. App. 385, 865 P.2d 463 (1993) (necessity of
disqualification of judge for cause invokes equitable remedies notwithstanding failure to comply
with disqualification statute).
State ex rel Dave Frohnmayer v. Douglas Low, aka Johnny Ted Nash, 105 Ore. App. 357, 804
P.2d 1217 (1991) (Rule 71 and equitable remedies to set aside judgments with Council on
Court Procedure Commentary).
Administrative Standards (Megdal cases)
John B. Cochran, Ph.D. V. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 171 Ore. App. 311, 15 P.3d 73
(2000).
Loomis v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 152 Ore. App. 466, 954 P.2d 839 (1998), Spray
v. Board of Medical Examiners, 50 Ore. App. 311, 624 P.2d 125, mod on recons 51 Ore.
App. 773, 627 P.2d 25, rev den 291 Ore. 117, 631 P.2d 341 (1981).
Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Ore. 293, 605 P.2d 273 (1980).
Unlawful Practice of Law cases
Oregon State Bar v. Robin Smith, 149, Ore. App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997).
Oregon State Bar v. Fowler, 278 Or. 169, 563 P.2d 674 (1977).
Oregon State Bar v. Gilchrist, 272 Ore. 552, 538 P.2d 913 (1975).
State Bar v. Miller and Co, 235 Ore. 341, 385 P.2d 181 (1963).
State Bar v. Security Escrows, Inc., 233 Ore. 80, 377 P.2d 334 (1962).
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2607
377ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Oregon State Bar v. Johnston, 158 Ore. 52, 74 P.2d 395 (1937).
Federal Cases (by date of decision)
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142 at 148. (1907). (access to court
guaranteed by U.S. Constitution)
NRLB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1959) (administrative rulemaking by adjudication).
Ferguson, et al v. Skrupa dba Credit Advisors, 372 U.S. 726 (1962) (14th Amendment due
process inapplicable to state action regarding the practice of law).
Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964). (1st Amendment collective right to legal services)
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1965). (1st Amendment collective right to legal services).
UMW District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967) (1st Amendment collective right to legal services).
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (access to court and right to non-lawyer assistance to
effectuate right of court access for prison inmates).
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) (access to court for divorce as fundamental right).
California Motor Transport Company et al v. Trucking Unlimited et al, 404 U.S. 508 (1972)
NRLB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974) (administrative rulemaking by adjudication).
Goldfarb et ux v. Virgina State Bar et al, 421 U.S. 733 (1975) (State Bar not beyond reach of
Antitrust laws, minimum fee schedules are anticompetitive)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2608
378ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
5 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1975) at 612-614 (compelling the production of ordinary business records of a sole proprietor which are
not themselves subject to the 5th Amendment. Is a testimonial act that is in violation of the 5th Amendment).
Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 719 (1980)
(State Court as legislator and/or holder of inherent power over the legal profession).
Florida State Bar v. Went For It, Inc., and John T. Blakely, 515 U.S. 618 (1995).
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Cases
th
Virginia State Bar v. Surety Title Insurance Agency, Inc., 571 F.2d 205 (4 Cir., 1978)
(advisory opinions of Virginia State Bar violate Sherman Antitrust Act).
Lawline v. American Bar Association 962 F.2d 1378 (7th Cir. 1992) (ABA, Illinois State Bar,
U.S. District of Illinois Court Rules do not violate Sherman Antitrust Act because of State
Action exception and right of individuals or organizations to petition government for action.)
th
David A. Nowicki and Robert B. Bland v. Clair H. Hoss, 1196 U.S. App. LEXIS 30369 (7
Cir., 1996) (paralegal not permitted to accompany client to interview because it would amount to
unauthorized practice of law)
Serena Dunn et al individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. The Florida
Bar and Florida Supreme Court et al, 889 F.2d 1010 (11 Cir., 1989) (Florida Bar surrender on
allowing paralegals to provide advice and information in divorce cases).
Federal District and Bankruptcy Court Cases
Virginia State Bar v. Surety Title Insurance Agency, Inc, 431 F.Supp. 298 (E.D. Virg., 1977).
(boycott created by Virginia Bar advisory opinion violated McCarran-Ferguson Act condemming
boycotts).
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2609
379ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
6 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Lenders Service, Inc. v Dayton Bar Association et al, 758 F. Supp, 429 (1991)
In re: Christopher Bachmann, Charlene Rae Bachmann, Debtors, 113 Bankruptcy Reporter
769 (1990).
Memorandum Opinion of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon in In re United States Trustee v. Barry L. Taub,
Adversary Proceeding no. 601-6022-fra dated August 21, 2001
Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc., No.

3:97-CV-2859, 1999 WL 47235 (N.D. Tex., Jan. 2, 1999) (Quicken legal self-help software
engages in the unauthorized practice of law. Injunction later vacated by 5th Circuit after new
statute specifically exempted software from unauthorized practice statute.)
Cases other states (alphabetic by State

Arizona
State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land and Title Company, 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961).
(Traditional or customary activity as definition of practice of law)
Arkansas
Pope County Bar Association v. Suggs, 624 S.W. 2d 828 (Ark., 1981)
California
Baron v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal. 3d 535, 469 P.2d 353, 86 Cal. Rptr 673 (1970).
People v. Merchants Protective Corp., 189 Cal. 531, 209 P. 363 (1922) (defining practice of
law at 535, 365 by citing Eley v Miller, 7 Ind. App. 529, 34 N.E. 836, 837 (1893))
Mickel v. Murphy, 147 Cal. Aapp.2d 718, 305 P.2d 993 (1957) (scrivening generally not the
practice of law).
People v. Landlords Professional Service, 178 Cal. App. 3d 68, 223 Cal. Rptr. 483 (1986).
(tenant eviction service engaged in the unauthorized practice of law)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2610
380ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
7 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Colorado
Denver Bar Association v. Public Utilities Commission, 391 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1964)
(independent paralegal engaged in unauthorized practice of law)
Colorado Bar Association v. Miles, 557 P.2d 1202 (Colo.1976) (scrivening generally not the
practice of law).
People v. Fry, 875 P.2d (Colo. 1994) (censuring Defendant attorney for failure to supervise
paralegal and therefore aiding unauthorized practice of law).
Florida
Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 1.31(a) and Rules of Judicial
Administration 2.065 (Legal Aid), 573 So.2d 800 (Fla., 1990)
Florida State Bar v. Furman, 451 So.2d 808 (fla., 1984) (contempt re injunction), 469 U.S. 925
(1984) (dismissed for lack of any substantial Federal question)
Florida State Bar v. Furman, 376 So.2d 378) (Fla., 1979) (UPL injunction), 444 U.S. 1061
(1980) (dismissed for lack of any substantial Federal question)
Florida State Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla., 1978) (limited Stupica to forms sold
with instructions)
Florida State Bar v. Stupica, 300 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1974) (any printed legal forms sold are the
unauthorized practice of law)
Michigan
State Bar of Michigan v. Virginia Cramer, 399 Mich. 116, 249 N.W. 2d 1 (1976) (per curiam )
and (Levin J. dissenting)
Nevada
State Bar of Nevada v. Johnson, No. CV89-5814 (Nev. Dist. Ct. April. 12, 1990) (District court
guidelines for nonlawyer practice in family law and bankruptcy) (later used by most other Nevada
Courts as basis for notice to paralegals about what would be viewed as unauthorized practice
of law)
New Jersey
In Re Opinion No. 33 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice Of Law,160 N.J. 63, 733 A.2d 478 (N.J., 1999) (balancing test of
public interest in a variety of legal services and public interest in quality of legal services provided by having members of the State Bar meet
minimum standards.)
In Re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice Of Law, 654 A.2d 1344
(N.J.. 1995) (per curiam) (refinement of balancing test)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2611
381ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
8 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
In Re Opinion No. 24 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice Of Law, 602 A.2d 962
(N.J. 1992). (announcement of balancing test)
Cape May County Bar Association v. John Ludham, 45 N.J. 121, 211 A.2d 780 (N.J., 1965).
(third generation conveyancer held to be engaged in unauthorized practice of law while
conveying real property to purchasers).
New Mexico
State Bar of New Mexico et al v. Guardian Abstract and Title Co., 91 N.M. 434 (1978), 575
P.2d 943 (1978)
New York
N.Y. County Lawyers Association v. Dacey, 283 N.Y.S.2d 984 (App. Div., 1967), (Stevens, J.
Dissenting) revs and dissenting opinion adopted, 287 N.Y.S.2d 422, 234 N.E.2d 459 (N.Y.,
1967)
(mere sale of legal self-help book not unauthorized practice but establishment of individualized
relationship with purchasers is unauthorized practice).
Ohio
In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law in Cuyahoga County, and In Re Brown, Weiss and Wohl,
et al, 175 Ohio St. 149 (1963), 192 N.E. 2d 54 (Ohio, 1963)
South Carolina
In Re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules Proposed by the South Carolina Bar, 422 S.E.2d
123 (S.C. 1992)
Texas
Palmer v. Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 438 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. App. 1969)
Washington State
Wha Young and Kelly Kim personally and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Desert
Document Services, 2000 Wash. App. LEXIS 1216, (wash., 2000)
State of Washington v. Jerry Nathan Hunt, 880 P.2d 96 (Wash., 1994)

Cultum v. Heritage House Realtors, Inc., 694 P.2d 630 (Wash., 1985)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2612
382ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Benjamin, Van Camp, Hagen and Ruhl v. Kassler Escrow, Inc., 635 P.2d 730 (Wash. ,1981)
(en banc)
Washington Bar Association v. Great Western Savings and Loan Association, 586 P.2d 870
(Wash. 1978)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2613
383ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
10 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Scholarly Works
American Jurisprudence
7 Am. Jur.2d
Attorney at Law
2 (1997)
118 (1997)
Sale of Books or Forms 119 (1997)
American Bar Association
Center for Professional Responsibility
Survey and Related Materials on the Unauthorized Practice of Law/Nonlawyer Practice (1996)
Commission on Nonlawyer Practice:
Nonlawyer Activities in Law-Related Situations (1995) (not available locally, we obtained a copy through
inter-library loan from the Univ. of Washington Law Library. Xerox copy available from Defendants for references to
text. Excellent summary of the UPL history as well as their three part balancing test on whether the public interest is
better served by permitting or forbidding particular legal activities by nonlawyers.))
State Legislature Clearinghouse Briefing Book: Unauthorized Practice of Law
(1992).
Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law:
Compendium on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, (1942).
American Bar Foundation, Justine Fischer and Dorothy Lachmann, eds., Unauthorized Practice
Handbook: A Compilation of Statutes, Cases, and Commentary on the Unauthorized Practice of
Law (1972).
Alpert, Thomas ,The Inherent Power of the Courts To Regulate the Practice of Law: An Historical Analysis, 32 Buffalo Law Review 526
(1983).
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2614
384ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
11 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Andrews, Thomas, Nonlawyers in the Business of Law: Does the One Who has the Gold Really Make the Rules, 40 Hastings Law Journal 577
(1989).
Barry, Margaret Martin, Access to Justice: On Dialogues With the Judiciary (2002), 29 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1089.
Bradlow, Julie M., Procedural Due Rights of Pro Se Civil Litigants (Spring 1988) , 55 University of Chicago Law Review 659.
Brickman, Lester, Of Arterial Passageways Through the Legal Process: The Right of Universal Access to Courts and Lawyering Services, 48
N.Y. Univ. Law Review 595 (1973).
Brockmyer, Michael F., and A. Bradley Parham, Client Protection: Enforcing the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 24 M.D. Bar Journal (1991)
California State Bar, Report of the Public Protection Committee (April, 1988)
Christenson, Barlow, The Unauthorized Practice of Law: Do Good Fences Really Make Good NeighborsOr Even Good Sense, 159 Amer. Bar
Found. Res. Jou. 1980.
Cramton, Roger C., Delivery of Legal Services to Ordinary Americans, 44 Case Western Reserve
Law Review 531 (1994).
Denckla, Derek A., Nonlawyers and the Unauthorized Practice of Law: An Overview of the Legal and Ethical Parameters, 67 Fordham Law
Review 2581 (1999).
Engler, Russell, And Justice for AllIncluding the Unrepresented Poor: Revisiting the Roles of Judges, Mediators, and Clerks, 67 Fordham Law
Review 1987 (1999).
Florida State Bar, Report of the Special Committee on Non-Lawyer Practice (1994)
Fordham Law Library Reference Staff, Bibliography to the Conference on the Delivery of Legal Services to Low-Income Persons: Professional
and Ethical Issues (April, 1999), 67 Fordham Law Review 2731.
French, Steve, Note and Comment: When Public Policies Collide . . . Legal Self Help Software and the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 27
Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 93 (2001)
Goldschmidt, Jona, Cases and Materials on Pro Se Litigation and Related Issues, May 1997, ABA Conference Annual Meeting.
Harris, George C., and Derek F. Foran, The Ethics of Middle-Class Access to Legal Services and What we can Learn form the Medical
Professions Shift to a Corporate Paradigm, 70 Fordham Law Review 775 (2001).
Healey, Paul, Pro Se Users, Reference Liability. And the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Twenty-Five Selected Readings (Winter, 2002), 94
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2615
385ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
12 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Law Library Journal 133.
Holmes, Elizabeth S., What is the Unauthorized Practice of Law and How is it Regulated? 76 Michigan Bar Journal 580 (June 1997)
Hunter and Klonoff, A Dialogue on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 25 Villanova Law Review 6 (1979-80).
Hurder, Alex J., Nonlawyer Legal Assistance and Access to Justice, 67 Fordham Law Review 2241 (1999)
Hurst, J.W., The Growth of American Law, (1950).
Hyman, A., and Charles Silver, And Such Small Portions: Limited Performance Agreements and the Cost/Quality/Access Trap, 11 Georgetown
Journal of Legal Ethics 950 ( ).
Johnstone, Quintin, The Unauthorized Practice Controversy, A Struggle Among Powergroups, 4 Kansas Law Review 1 (1955).
Justice, Kathleen Eleanor, Note, There Goes the Monopoly, The California Proposal to Allow Nonlawyers to Practice Law, 44 Vanderbilt
1979 (1991).
Katsh, Ethan, Digital Lawyers: Orienting the Legal Profession to Cyberspace, 55 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1141 (Summer 1994).
Kim, Helen B., Legal Education for the Prto se Litigant: A Step Towards a Meaningful Right to be Heard, (1987), 96 Yale Law Journal 1641.
Lamkin, Patricia Jean, Annotation, Sale of Books or Forms Designed to Enable Laymen to Achieve Legal Results Without Assistance of
Attorney as Unauthorized Practice of Law, 71 A.L.R. 3rd 1000 2 (1999).
Llewellyn, Karl, The Bars Troubles, and PoulticesAnd Cures?, , 5 Law and Contemporary Problems 104 (1938).
Lock, Marcus J., Increasing Access to Justice: Expanding the Role of Nonlawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services to Low-Income Coloradans,
72 U. Colorado Law Review 459 (Spring, 2001)
McCulloch, Elizabeth, Let Me Show You How: Pro Se Divorce Courses And Client Power (1996), 48 Florida Bar Review 481
McKnight, Maureen, Dealing with the Unrepresented Opponent (1996), unpublished manuscript prepared for the Oregon Family Law
Conference 1996.
McNeal, Mary Helen, Having One Oar or Being Without a Boat: Reflections on the Fordham Recommendations on Limited Legal Assistance
(April, 1999), 67 Fordham Law Review 2617.
Marks, Merton E., The Lawyers and the Realtors: Arizonas Experience, 49 ABA Journal 139 (1963).
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2616
386ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
13 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Michaelman, Elizabeth, The Invisible Hand, The Consumer Protection Function of Unauthorized Practice Regulation, 12 Pepperdine Law
Review 1 (1994)
Morgan, Thomas D., The Impact of Antitrust Law on the Legal Profession (1998) 67 Fordham Law Review 415.
Mund, Hon. Geraldine, Paralegals: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (1994), 2 Bankruptcy Institute Law Revenue 337.
Munro, Meredith Ann, Deregulation of the Practice of Law: Panacea or Placebo?, 242 Hastings Law Journal 203 (1990).
Morrison, Alan,
Defining the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Some New Ways of Looking at an Old Question, 4 Nova L. J. 363 (1980).
Breaking Up the Legal Monopoly, 1 New Directions in Legal Services 113 (1976).
Nuffer, David, The Future of Legal Systems, the Legal Profession and the Rule of Law: A Paraddigm for a Season of Change, 13 Utah Bar
Journal 9 (May, 2000)
Podgers, James
Chasing the Ideal: As More Americans Find Themselves Priced Out of the System, the Struggle Goes on to Fulfill the Promise of Equal Justice
for All, 80 American Bar Association Journal 56 (1994)
Crumbling Fortress: Legal Profession Faces Rising Tide of Nonlawyer Practice, 79 ABA Journal 51 (Dec. 1993)
Quigley, William P., The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of the Poor in Louisiana, 19 Southern University Law Review 273 (1992).
Ries, Robert R., The Unauthorized Practice of Law, 60 Texas Bar Journal 37 (Jan. 1997)
Rhode, Deborah L.
Legal Ethics, 3rd ed., with David Luban (2001)
Opening Remarks: Professionalism (Spring, 2001), 52 South Carolina Law Review 458.
Professionalism in Perspective: Alternate Approaches to Nonlawyer Practice, 1 Journal of the Institute for the Study of Lethal
Ethics 197 (1996)
The Delivery of Legal Services by Non-Lawyers, 4 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 209 (1990).
The Rhetoric of Professional Reform, 45 Maryland Law Review 274 (Winter, 1986)
Policing the Professional Monopoly: A Constitutional and Empirical Analysis of Unauthorized Practice Prohibitions, 34 Stanford
Law Review 1 (1981).
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2617
387ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
14 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
Project: The Unauthorized Practice of Law and Pro Se Divorce: An Empirical Analysis, 86 The Yale Law Journal 104 (1976).
Romagnoli, Joseph, Note: What Constitutes a Judicial Act for Purposes of Judicial Immunity, 53 Fordham Law Review 1503 (1985).
Sales, Bruce D., Connie J. Beck, and Richard K. Haan, Is Self-Representation A Reasonable Alternative To Attorney Representation In
Divorce Cases? (1992), 37 Saint Louis University Law Journal 553.
Sell,_______, Pro Se Divorce: A Low Cost Alternative to the High Cost of Leaving, 3 New Directions in Legal Services 163 (1978).
Seven, Kay Hennessy, and Perry A. Zirkel, In the Matters of Arons: Construction of the IDEAs Lay Advocate Provision too Narrow?, 9
Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy 193 (Winter 2002).
Talamante, Ryan J., We Cant all be Lawyersor Can We? Regulating the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Arizona, 34 Arizona Law Review
873 (1992).
Revised: October 28, 2002 .
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2618
388ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
15 of 15 6/25/2008 3:20 PM
CLD - 1 7 0 M a r ch 2 7 , 2 0 0 8
UN I TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH E TH I RD CI RCUI T
C.A. N o. 0 7 - 4 4 7 4
STAN LEY J. CATERBON E

v.
LAN CASTER COUN TY PRI SON , e t a l.
( E.D . Pa . Civ. N o. 0 5 - cv- 0 2 2 8 8 )
Present : AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

Subm it t ed ar e:
( 1) By t he Clerk for possible dism issal due t o a j urisdict ional defect ;
( 2) By t he Clerk for possible dism issal under 28 U.S.C. 1915( e) ( 2) or

for possible sum m ary act ion under I .O.P. 10.6;
( 3) Appellant s j urisdict ional response;
( 4) Jurisdict ional response of Appellee, Fult on Bank;
( 5) Mot ion by Appellee, Manheim Township Police Depart m ent , t o

dism iss appeal; and
( 6) Appellant s m ot ion for appoint m ent of counsel

in t he above - capt ioned case.
Respect fully,
Clerk
MMW/ JSN/ clc
CLD- 170 March 27, 2008
Page 1 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2619
389ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
v .
LANCASTER COUNTY PRI SON, et al.
C.A. No. 0 7 - 4 4 7 4
Pa ge 2
______________________________________
ORDER
The quest ion of j ur isdict ion, and t he m ot ion t o dism iss for lack of j ur isdict ion, ar e r efer r ed t o t he m er it s
panel. See I .O.P. 10.3.5. We do not dism iss t he appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1915( e) or t ak e sum m ar y act ion
under I . O. P. 10. 6. The Cler k is dir ect ed t o issue a br iefing schedule. We not e, how ev er , t hat t his or der
does not r epr esent a finding of appellat e j ur isdict ion in t his m at t er . As in all cases, t he panel of t his Cour t
t hat r ev iew s t he appeal on it s m er it s w ill m ak e a final det er m inat ion of appellat e j ur isdict ion. I n addit ion
t o any ot her issues t he par t ies w ish t o r aise in t heir br iefs, t he par t ies shall addr ess w het her t he Dist rict
Cour t er r ed in dism issing t he case w it hout addr essing t he fact or s set for t h in Poulis v . St at e Far m Fir e &
Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 ( 3d Cir . 1984) .
The m ot ion for appoint m ent of counsel is denied.
By t he Cour t ,
/ s/ Julio M. Fuent es
Cir cuit Judge
Dat ed: April 22, 2008
clc \ cc: Mr . St anley J. Cat er bone

Chr ist opher S. Under hill, Esq.
George M. Gowen, I I I , Esq.
Rober t W. Hallinger , Esq.
Page 2 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2620
390ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
UN I TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH E TH I RD CI RCUI T
07- 4474
Cat erbone v. Lancast er Ct y Prison, et al
05- cv - 02288
BRI EFI N G AN D SCHEDULI N G ORDER
I t is ORD ERED t hat t he br ief for Appellant ( s) and t he j oint appendix shall be filed and ser v ed
on or before 0 6 / 0 2 / 2 0 0 8 .
I t is FU RTH ER ORD ERED t hat t he br ief( s) for Appellee( s) shall be filed and ser v ed
w it hin t hirt y ( 30) day s of ser v ice of Appellant 's ( Appellant s') br ief.
I t is FU RTH ER ORD ERED t hat a r eply br ief, if any, shall be filed and ser v ed w it hin
four t een ( 14) day s of ser v ice of Appellee's ( Appellees') br ief( s) .
I t is FU RTH ER ORD ERED t hat in t he ev ent of default by Appellant in filing t he brief and
appendix as dir ect ed, t he appeal m ay be dism issed w it hout fur t her not ice.
I t is FU RTH ER ORD ERED t hat if Appellee fails t o file a br ief w it hin t he t im e dir ect ed,
t he m at t er w ill be list ed on Appellant 's br ief only and Appe llee m ay be subj ect t o such sanct ions
as t he Cour t deem s appr opr iat e.
I t is n ot e d t h a t , w h e r e a p p lica b le , p a r t ie s m u st com p ly w it h 3 r d Cir . LAR 3 1 . 2 w h ich

pr ov ide s: A local, st at e or feder al ent it y or agency , w hich w as ser v ed in t he dist r ict cour t and
which is t he appellee, m ust file a br ief in all cases in w hich a br iefing schedule is issued unless
t he cour t has gr ant ed a m ot ion seeking per m ission t o be excused fr om filing a br ief. The r ule
does not apply t o ent it ies or agencies t hat ar e r espondent s t o a pet it ion for r eview unless t he
ent it y or agency is t he sole r espondent or t o ent it ies or agencies w hich act ed solely as an
adj udicat ory t ribunal.
This Cour t r equir es t he filing of br iefs by counsel in bot h elect r onic and paper for m at . 3r d Cir .
LAR 31.1( b) . Pr o se lit igant s ar e ex em pt fr om t he elect r onic filing r equir em ent . Appendices ar e
not r equir ed t o be filed elect r onically.
Checklist s r egar ding t he r equir em ent s for filing a br ief and appendix ar e available on t he Cour t 's
w ebsit e at w w w .ca3.uscour t s.gov .
For t he Cour t ,
Mar cia M. Waldr on, Cler k
Dat ed: April 22, 2008
cc: St ephanie Car fley , Esq.

George M. Gowen I I I , Esq.
Rober t W. Hallinger , Esq.
William H. Howard, Esq.
Chr ist opher S. Under hill, Esq.
Mr . St anley J. Cat er bone, Esq.
Page 3 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2621
391ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
747 F.2d 8 63
40 Fed.R.Ser v .2d 313

Left er i POULI S and At hena Poulis, his w ife, Appellant s,
v.
STATE FARM FI RE AND CASUALTY COMPANY.
No. 83- 5600.
Un it e d St a t e s Cou r t of Appe a ls, Th ir d Cir cu it .
Argued April 3, 1984.
Decided Nov. 5, 1984.
George Ret os, Jr. ( Argued) , Ret os, Held & Associat es, Washingt on, Pa., for appellant s.
Paul K. Geer ( Argued) , Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, Pit t sburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before GI BBONS, SLOVI TER, Circuit Judges, and BI SSELL, Dist rict Judge * .
OPI NI ON OF THE COURT
SLOVI TER, Cir cuit Judge.

1
This appeal, as well as anot her decided t oday involving t he sam e at t orney and dist rict court
j udge, Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d 871, is brought from a final order dism issing t he
com plaint wit h prej udice due t o counsel's failure t o m eet court -im posed deadlines and ot her
procedural requisit es.
I.
Background
Left eri and At hena Poulis filed suit against St at e Farm Fire and Casualt y Com pany ( St at e
Farm ) in Novem ber 1981, in t he Court of Com m on Pleas of Washingt on Count y, Pennsylvania, t o
recover under an insurance policy aft er fire dam aged t heir hom e. St at e Farm rem oved t he case
t o t he Unit ed St at es Dist rict Court for t he West ern Dist rict of Pennsylvania based on diversit y of
cit izenship. I n it s answer, it denied liabilit y, assert ing t hat plaint iffs had int ent ionally caused t he
fire, had concealed and m isrepresent ed inform at ion, and had not filed t heir act ion in t im e.
On March 12, 1982, t he dist rict court ordered t hat discovery would close June 14, 1982; t hat
plaint iffs' pre -t rial st at em ent would be due July 5; and t hat defendant 's st at em ent would be due
July 26. A pre -t rial conference was set for August 13. The do cket reveals no act ion by plaint iffs
seeking discovery. On April 15, St at e Farm filed not ice of service of int errogat ories on plaint iffs.
No answers t o t hese int errogat ories were or have ever been filed, and plaint iffs did not file t heir
pre -t rial st at em ent by July 5 as required. Therefore defendant filed it s pre -t rial st at em ent first ,
on July 28, t oget her wit h a m ot ion t o com pel answers t o int errogat ories. A m em ber of t he
dist rict j udge's st aff advised plaint iffs' counsel, George Ret os, Jr., t hat t he st at em ent was
overdue and Ret os prom ised t o subm it a st at em ent by t he next day. He neit her did so nor
request ed any ext ension. On August 5 t he dist rict court , sua spont e, dism issed t he case wit h
prej udice for plaint iffs' failure t o com ply wit h t he orders t o file the pre-t rial st at em ent .
Page 4 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2622
392ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4
Ret os filed a pre -t rial st at em ent on August 9, t oget her wit h a m ot ion under Rule 60( b) t o
reconsider and set aside t he dism issal, alleging t hat an illness prevent ed him from working
bet ween July 6 t hrough July 17; t hat ot her at t orneys could not have t aken over because only
Ret os spoke Greek and could com m unicat e wit h plaint iff Left eri Poulis; t hat Ret os' pregnant wife
went int o false labor on July 29 and 30, and t hat he had " inadvert ent ly set aside t he required
work for t he inst ant case on July 29, 1982, due t o his concern for his wife" and was "render[ ed]
unable t o prepare t he necessary Pre -Trial St at em ent ; " t hat on his ret urn t o work ot her t asks had
backlogged; and t hat alt hough he had dict at ed a st at em ent on August 4, it had been m ailed on
August 6 when it was t yped and ready.
The dist rict court denied reconsiderat ion. On appeal, t his court vacat ed t he order of dism issal.
Poulis v. St at e Farm Fire & Casualt y Co., 714 F.2d 124 ( 3d Cir.1983) ( Poulis I ) ( per curiam ) . We
not ed t here was " no allegat ion t hat plaint iffs, as dist inguished from t heir counsel, were in any
way responsible for t he failure t o com ply wit h t he court 's order." We recognized t hat in Nat ional
Hockey League v. Met ropolit an Hockey Club, I nc., 427 U.S. 639, 96 S.Ct . 2278, 49 L.Ed.2d 747
( 1976) , a dism issal was upheld where plaint iffs had act ed in "flagrant bad fait h" and counsel
" had behaved wit h 'callous disregard' of [ his] responsibilit ies," id. at 643, 96 S.Ct . at 2781, but
observed t hat "[ t ] he case at hand is not as ext rem e."
We point ed out t hat in an earlier opinion, Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d
339, 342 ( 3d Cir.1982) , we had st at ed t hat " dism issal is a drast ic sanct ion and should be
reserved for t hose cases where t here is a clear reco rd of delay or cont um acious conduct by t he
plaint iff." However, because Ret os' excuses failed t o account for m any days on which a pre -t rial
st at em ent could have been filed, we observed t hat som e sanct ion was "am ply j ust ified."
Accordingly, w e vacat ed t he dism issal and rem anded t o perm it t he dist rict court t o consider
alt ernat ives t o dism issal, st at ing, " Alt ernat ives are part icularly appropriat e when t he plaint iff has
not personally cont ribut ed t o t he delinquency."
On rem and, t he dist rict court ordered t he part ies t o file briefs on appropriat e alt ernat ive
sanct ions. Plaint iffs' brief, filed four days lat e, st at ed t hat such sanct ions would be cost s,
at t orneys' fees, and m onet ary penalt ies im posed on him , but argued t hat " [ s] ince t he Third
Circuit has specifically assessed t he cost s of t he appeal in t his m at t er against plaint iffs' counsel
personally, it has ruled on t he sanct ions which are t o be applied in t he inst ant m at t er [ and]
alt ernat ive sanct ions are now inappropriat e." App. at 10 -11.
I n it s brief St at e Farm t ook a m ore reasonable posit ion. I t not ed t hat "[ i] n t his case t he
defendant has been m ore prej udiced by plaint iffs' failure t o answer int errogat ories t hen [ sic] by
it s counsel's failure t o file t he Pre -Trial St at em ent on t im e." App. at 16. St at e Farm urged t he
court t o reopen discovery so t hat it could " have t he opport unit y t o exam ine plaint iffs' Answers t o
I nt errogat ories, conduct furt her invest igat ion if necessary, and depose t he plaint iffs or ot her
wit nesses known t o plaint iffs if such act ion is deem ed necessary and appropriat e." App. at 15.
St at e Farm suggest ed, "I f discovery is reopened, St at e Farm believes t here would be no need t o
ut ilize t he som ewhat harsh rem edy of lim it ing or rest rict ing plaint iffs' wit nesses at t rial." App. at
16 ( em phasis added) . I n light of t his court 's order, St at e Farm request ed an award of $750.00 in
Page 5 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2623
393ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
at t orneys' fees which it incurred because of t he dism issal and appeal, and sought a prospect ive
lim it at ion on int erest due should it ult im at ely be held liable on plaint iffs' claim .
Significant ly, in it s brief St at e Farm furt her st at ed, " St at e Farm st rongly believes t hat t he m ost
expedit ious m anner of disposing of t his case can be provided by ruling on t he Defendant 's
Mot ion t o Dism iss which was filed on July 7, 1982," approxim at ely t hree weeks following t he
close of discovery and which was denied by t he dist rict court because of it s policy not t o consider
m ot ions t o dism iss filed m ore t han t wo weeks aft er t he close of discovery. App. at 16.
10
Not wit hst anding t he defendant 's subm ission, t he dist rict court reinst at ed it s sua spont e
sanct ion of dism issal, st at ing t hat t here was no appropriat e alt ernat ive:
11
There are no cost s which can be charged t o plaint iffs' counsel at t his point . Furt her, t his was
not a sit uat ion in which defense counsel was forced t o m ake an unnecessary t rip t o court
because of plaint iffs' counsel's failure t o appear. The defendant has only been required t o incur
fees in an am ount t hat would have been incurred if t he case norm ally proceeded t o t his point .
Thus, t his is not an appropriat e case for at t orney's fees. Finally, t he court finds no aut horit y for
levying a fine against plaint iffs' counsel as a penalt y. Rat her t han im posing fines and cost s of
[ sic] ot her sanct ions prior t o dism issal, plaint iffs' counsel was afforded m any opport unit ies t o
cure t he problem s, but he has failed t o do so. Sanct ions not being appropriat e, t he court has no
alt ernat ive but dism issal t o m ot ivat e plaint iff's counsel t o com ply wit h deadlines.
12
App. at 3-4 ( foot not es and cit at ion om it t ed) . The dist rict court int im at ed it s displeasure wit h
t he rem and in Poulis I but it was unequivocal in it s disagreem ent wit h t he rem and in a sim ilar
case from anot her dist rict , Tit us v. Mercedes Benz of Nort h Am erica, 695 F.2d 746 ( 3d
Cir.1982) . The dist rict court st at ed: "Judge Gart h's dissent in Tit us, indicat es t hat deliberat e,
dilat ory act ion is a basis for dism issal, even under Donnelly, and furt her indicat es t hat t he Circuit
Court should only reverse such a decision for abuse of discret ion.... [ T] his Court finds Judge
Gart h's dissent persuasive and adopt s his dissent , and t he cases cit ed t herein, as furt her support
for t his decision." App. at 5 ( em phasis added) .
13
We t reat t his ext raordinary st at em ent at t he out set . What ever m ay be the personal views of
t he dist rict court as t o t he m erit s vel non of a decision of t his court , t he dist rict court is not free
t o " adopt " t he dissent . This court is st rict in it s adherence t o t he precedent of it s earlier opinions.
Our own I nt ernal Operat ing Procedures are explicit and provide,
14
I t is t he t radit ion of t his court t hat report ed panel opinions are binding on subsequent panels.
Thus, no subsequent panel overrules a published opinion of a previous panel. Court in banc
considerat ion is required t o overrule a published opinion of t his court .
15
Page 6 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2624
394ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
I nt ernal Operat ing Procedures of t he Court of Appeals for t he Third Circuit , Chapt er 8.C. I f t he
j udges of t his court are bound by earlier panels, a fort iori dist rict court j udges are sim ilarly
bound. Recognit ion of t he hierarchical nat ure of t he federal j udiciary requires no less.
16
Moreover t he report ed decisions of t his court over t he past t wo years evidence t he consist ency
of t his court 's rulings em phasizing t he ext rem e nat ure of a dism issal wit h prej u dice or default
j udgm ent . See Hrit z v. Wom a Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 ( 3d Cir.1984) ; I n re MacMeekin, 722 F.2d
32 ( 3d Cir.1983) ; Madesky v. Cam pbell, 705 F.2d 703 ( 3d Cir.1983) ; Gross v. St ereo
Com ponent Syst em s, I nc., 700 F.2d 120 ( 3d Cir.1983) ; Tit us v. Merce dez Benz of Nort h
Am erica, 695 F.2d 746 ( 3d Cir.1982) ; Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., 691 F.2d 653 ( 3d
Cir.1982) ; Farnese v. Bagnasco, 687 F.2d 761 ( 3d Cir.1982) ; Donnelly v. Johns- Manville Sales
Corp., 677 F.2d 339 ( 3d Cir.1982) .1
17
We recognize t hat recent lit erat ure exhort ing t he dist rict j udges t o m ove lit igat ion
expedit iously by t aking firm cont rol and t he 1983 am endm ent s of t he Federal Rules of Civi l
Procedure wit h t heir num erous references t o sanct ions m ay have cont ribut ed t o prem at ure
dism issals or default s. Alt hough sanct ions are a necessary part of any court syst em , we are
concerned t hat t he recent preoccupat ion wit h sanct ions and t he use of dismissal as a necessary
" weapon" in t he t rial court 's " arsenal" m ay be cont ribut ing t o or effect ing an at m osphere in
which t he m erit orious claim s or defenses of innocent part ies are no longer t he cent ral issue. I t
does not furt her t he goal of a court syst em , t hat of delivering evenhanded j ust ice t o lit igant s, t o
suggest , as did t he dist rict court here, t hat t he plaint iffs would have a rem edy by suing t heir
counsel for m alpract ice, App. at 5, since t his would only m ult iply rat her t han dispose of
lit igat ion.
18
We reit erat e what we have said on num erous occasions: t hat dism issals wit h prej udice or
default s are drast ic sanct ions, t erm ed "ext rem e" by t he Suprem e Court , Nat ional Hockey
League, 427 U.S. at 643, 96 S.Ct . at 2781, and are t o be reserved for com parable cases.
II.
Analysis
19
I n exercising our appellat e funct ion t o det erm ine whet her t he t rial court has abused it s
discret ion in dism issing, or refusing t o lift a default , we will be guided by t he m anner in which
t he t rial court balanced t he following fact o rs, which have been enum erat ed in t he earlier cases,
and whet her t he record support s it s findings: ( 1) t he ext ent of t he part y 's personal
responsibilit y; ( 2) t he prej udice t o t he adversary caused by t he failure t o m eet scheduling orders
and respond t o discovery; ( 3) a hist ory of dilat oriness; ( 4) whet her t he conduct of t he part y or
t he at t orney was willful or in bad fait h; ( 5) t he effect iveness of sanct ions ot her t han dism issal,
which ent ails an analysis of alt ernat ive sanct ions; and ( 6) t he m erit oriousness of t he claim or
defense.
20
We t urn t o apply t hese fact ors in t he circum st ances of t his case.
21
Page 7 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2625
395ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
1. The ext ent of t he part y's personal responsibilit y.
22
There has been no suggest ion by any part y or by t he dist rict court t hat t he Poulis plaint iffs are
personally responsible for t he lat e pret rial st at em ent , which was t he basis for t he dism issal.
I ndeed, Ret os has acknowledged t he delays were his responsibilit y and assigned as t he reason
his illness from July 6 t hrough 17 and t he subsequent false labor of his wife on July 29 and 30.
23
This is t herefore unlike t he Nat ional Hockey League case where t he Suprem e Court upheld t he
" ext rem e sanct ion of dism issal" aft er not ing t hat t here had been " flagrant bad fait h" on t he part
of t he plaint iffs as w ell as " ca llous disregard" by t heir counsel of t heir responsibilit ies. 427 U.S.
at 643, 96 S.Ct . at 2781. However, t he Poulis' lack of responsibilit y for t heir counsel's dilat ory
conduct is not disposit ive, because a client cannot always avoid t he consequences of t he act s or
om issions of it s counsel. See Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct . 1386, 1390,
8 L.Ed.2d 734 ( 1962) .
24
2. Prej udice t o t he adversary.
25
As t he dist rict court st at ed, t here has been prej udice t o t he defendant by t he plaint iffs'
counsel's conduct . The int errogat ories were never answered nor were obj ect ions filed; defense
counsel was obliged t o file a m ot ion t o com pel answers, and was obliged t o file it s pret rial
st at em ent wit hout t he opport unit y t o review plaint iffs' pret rial st at em ent which was due t o be
filed first . App. at 4. The court 's finding t hat " defendant encount ered lack of cooperat ion from
t he plaint iff in areas where t he plaint iff should cooperat e under t he spirit of t he federal
procedural rules," id., is support ed by the record.
26
3. A hist ory of dilat oriness.
27
As not ed above, t his lit igat ion has been charact erized by a consist ent delay by plaint iffs'
counsel. Unlike t he Donnelly case, for exam ple, where t here was only one failure t o com ply in a
t im ely m anner, i.e. in obt aining local counsel, in t his case t here has been a pat t ern of
dilat oriness. Tim e lim it s im posed by t he rules and t he court serve an im port ant purpose for t he
expedit ious processing of lit igat ion. I f com pliance is not feasible, a t im ely request for an
ext ension should be m ade t o t he court . A hist ory by counsel of ignoring t hese t im e lim it s is
int olerable.
28
4. Whet her t he at t orney's conduct was willful or in bad fait h.
29
Alt hough t he dist rict court concluded t hat " plaint iffs' counsel's conduct [ was] of such a dilat ory
and cont um acious nat ure t o require dism issal," App. at 5, t here is not hing in t he record t o
Page 8 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2626
396ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
support t he " cont um acious" finding. Not hing in t he court 's discussion preceding t his conclusion is
direct ed t oward t he willfulness issue but only t oward dilat oriness. There has been no suggest ion
or indicat ion t hat counsel's illness during July 1982 and his wife's lat e pregnancy and false labor
at t he end of t hat m ont h did not occur as he represent ed.
30
I n t he appellant s' brief, counsel charact erizes his conduct as "excusable neglect " and seeks t o
explain t he dist rict court 's charact erizat ion of his conduct as "deliberat e" and "cont um acious" as
t he result of a " personalit y conflict " bet ween counsel and t he dist rict j udge. Appellant s' brief at
8. He refers us t o four recent appeals in which he allegedly " clashed" wit h t he sam e dist rict
j udge.2 However, even in t hose cases in which we vacat ed t he d ism issal, t he record showed t hat
counsel failed t o com ply wit h t he rules and deadlines im posed by t he dist rict court . Thus, while
som e disaffinit y has apparent ly been engendered bet ween t he dist rict j udge and counsel we see
no basis t o hold t he dist rict j udge responsible. Nonet heless, as not ed at t he beginning of t his
sect ion, we also find no basis for t erm ing counsel's conduct in t his case "cont um acious".
31
5. Alt ernat ive sanct ions.
32
The dist rict court concluded t hat it had "no alt ernat ive but dism issal" because no ot her
sanct ions were appropriat e. The dist rict court st at ed t hat t here was no aut horit y for levying a
fine against plaint iffs' counsel as a penalt y. See Gam ble v. Pope & Talbot , I nc., 307 F.2d 729 ( 3d
Cir.) ( in banc) , cert . denied, 371 U.S. 888, 83 S.Ct . 187, 9 L.Ed.2d 123 ( 1962) .3 However, t he
court also st at ed t hat " t here are no cost s which can be charged t o plaint iffs' counsel at t his
point ." This finding was erroneous. Defendant 's counsel had asked t he court t o im pose as a
sanct ion t he $750 at t orney fee which it had incurred in defending t he appeal in Poulis I . The
dist rict court apparent ly assum ed t hat t he cost s of t hat appeal had already been charged t o
plaint iffs' counsel. However, we had not assessed any at t orney's fee as part of our im posit ion of
appeal cost s on plaint iffs' counsel personally. 4 The dist rict court also could have im posed on
plaint iffs' counsel t he cost s, including at t orney's fees, of preparing t he m ot ion t o com pel answers
t o int errogat ories and t he brief on alt ernat ive sanct ions, all of which were incurred because of
t he dilat oriness of plaint iffs' counsel.
33
Under t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and t he 1983 am endm ent s, t he dist rict court is
specifically aut horized t o im pose on an at t orney t hose expenses, including at t orneys' fees,
caused by unj ust ified failure t o com pl y wit h discovery orders or pret rial orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
16( f) , 37( a) ( 4) , 37( b) , 37( d) and 37( g) . See also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927. The m ost direct and
t herefore preferable sanct ion for t he pat t ern of at t orney delay such as t hat which t he dist rict
cour t encount ered in t his case would be t o im pose t he excess cost s caused by such conduct
direct ly upon t he at t orney, w it h an order t hat such cost s are not t o be passed on t o t he client ,
direct ly or indirect ly. This would avoid com pelling an innocent part y t o bear t he br unt of it s
counsel's derelict ion. Dism issal m ust be a sanct ion of last , not first , resort .
34
6. Merit oriousness of t he claim .
35
I n considering whet her a claim or defense appears t o be m erit orious for t his inquiry, we do not
purport t o use sum m ary j udgm ent st andards. A claim , or defense, will be deem ed m erit orious
when t he allegat ions of t he pleadings, if est ablished at t rial, would support recovery by plaint iff
Page 9 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2627
397ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
or would const it ut e a com plet e defense. See Unit ed St at es v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728
F.2d at 195; Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., 691 F.2d at 657; Farnese v. Bagnasco, 687 F.2d at
764.
36
I n t his case, t he defendant suggest ed t o t he dist rict court t hat t he m ost expedit ious way t o
process t his lit igat ion was t o rule on it s m ot ion t o dism iss plaint iffs' claim as unt im ely because it
was not brought wit hin a year of t he loss, as required by t he policy. The dist rict court 's denial of
t hat m ot ion because of it s " policy ... not t o consider m ot ions t o dism iss filed m ore t han t wo
weeks aft er t he close of discovery," Order of August 2, 1982, appears t o conflict wit h
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12( h) ( 2) which perm it s a defense of failure t o st at e a claim upon which relief can be
grant ed t o be raised by m ot ion as lat e as at t he t rial on t he m erit s. Since t he m ot ion was t im ely
under Rule 12( h) because it was pleaded in t he answer, it s considerat ion by t he dist rict court
m ight have avoided t he ent ire cont roversy regarding t he pret rial proceedings and t he t wo
appeals t o t his court , and could have given t he part ies a disposit ion on t he m erit s.5
37
Cert ainly, t he defense t hat t he plaint iffs' claim m ust fail because it has not been brought
wit hin t he one year lim it at ion provision of t he policy is, on it s face, com pelling. See Schreiber v.
Pennsylvania Lum berm an's Mut ual I ns. Co., 498 Pa. 21, 444 A.2d 647 ( 1982) . I n t heir com plaint
plaint iffs m ade no allegat ion t hat would avoid t his facial unt im eliness by invoking Pennsylvania's
law of waiver of t he t im e lim it set fort h in an insurance policy. See Com m onwealt h v.
Transam erica I ns. Co., 462 Pa. 268, 341 A.2d 74 ( 1975) . Moreover, plaint iffs filed no answer t o
t he m ot ion t o dism iss. For t he purpose of evaluat ing t he facial validit y of t he claim or defense,
we cannot rely on t he vague and nonspecific st at em ent s in plaint iffs' pret rial m em orandum t hat
t hey would produce wit nesses t o show t hat defendant led t hem t o believe t hey would not be
bar r ed fr om filing an act ion on t he claim m ore t han 12 m ont hs from t he dat e of t he fire. While
we express no opinion on whet her sum m ary j udgm ent or dism issal would have been warrant ed
on t his gr ound, t he exist ence of a pr im a facie defense is a fact or t o be w eighed along w it h t he
foregoing fact ors.
III.
Conclusion
38
The above fact ors should be weighed by t he dist rict court s in order t o assure t hat t he
"ext rem e" sanct ion of dism issal or default is reserved for t he inst ances in which it is j ust ly
m erit ed. I n t his case, alt hough t here was no co nt um acious behavior, t he pat t ern of dilat ory
behavior is com pounded by t he plaint iffs' failure t o file any answers t o int errogat ories, defendant
was com pelled t o file it s pret rial st at em ent wit hout such answers and wit hout seeing plaint iffs'
pret rial st at em ent , and t here is a prim a facie defense t o t he claim . Under t hese circum st ances,
alt hough we m ight not have reached t he sam e result as did t his dist rict court j udge, we cannot
say t hat t he dist rict court abused it s discret ion in ordering t he dism issal. Therefore, we will
affirm t he j udgm ent of t he dist rict court .
*
Hon. John W. Bissell, Unit ed St at es Dist r ict Cour t for t he Dist r ict of New Jer sey , sit t ing by designat ion
1
We believ e it im por t ant t o point out t hat w e hav e not hesit at ed t o affir m t he dist r ict cour t 's im posit ion of
sanct ions, including dism issals in appr opr iat e cases, cf. Unit ed St at es v . $55,518.05 in U.S. Cur r ency , 728
F.2d 192 ( 3d Cir .1984) ( default j udgm ent ) ( in w hich Judge Gar t h dissent ed on t he gr ound t hat t he disput e
Page 10 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2628
398ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
w as pr em at ur ely ended w it hout being r ev iew ed on t he m er it s) , alt hough under our pr ocedur es t hat is
oft en done by j udgm ent or der affir m ance
2
I n t w o of t hese cases, t his one and Scar bor ough v . Eubank s, also decided t oday , 747 F.2d 871 ( 3d
Cir . 1984) , t he dist r ict cour t dism issed t he com plaint , and in t he t hir d, t he cour t ent er ed a default
j udgm ent against Ret os' client , Miller v. Blow er , No. 82- 0757 ( W.D.Pa. Feb. 2, 1983) , v acat ed and
r em anded, 732 F. 2d 146 ( 3d Cir . 1984) ( unr epor t ed) . The four t h case, Unit ed St at es v . Golna, No. 81- 179
( W. D. Pa. ) aff'd, 714 F. 2d 125 ( 3d Cir . 1983) ( unr epor t ed) , w as not appealed on t he basis of any sanct ions
im posed by t he dist r ict cour t
3
This issue is pr esent ly pending befor e t his cour t in Eash v . Riggins Tr uck ing, I nc. , No. 83- 5664 ( or der for
in banc consider at ion filed Oct . 11, 1984)
4
I t w as a non sequit ur for plaint iff t o hav e ar gued in his br ief on alt er nat iv e sanct ions filed w it h t he dist r ict
cour t t hat since w e specifically assessed t he cost s of t he appeal against him per sonally , w e alr eady r uled
on t he sanct ions t o be applied. I f so, t her e w ould hav e been no basis for us t o hav e r em anded for
pr ecisely t his pur pose
5
I n t his connect ion w e not e t he com m endable pr ocedur e follow ed by Judge Gr ady of t he U.S. Dist r ict Cour t
for t he Nor t her n Dist r ict of I llinois, w ho has found t hat at t ent ion t o som e of t he legal issues dur ing a
discov er y confer ence called under Rule 26( f) has subst ant ially r educed t he need for discov er y . See Gr ady ,
Finding Our Way Thr ough t he Discov er y Jungle, 21 The Judges' Jour nal 4, 42- 43 ( 1982) .
CC | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
Page 11 of 11
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2629
399ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
747 F.2d 8 63
40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 313
Lefteri POULIS and Athena Poulis, his wife, Appellants,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY.
No. 83 -560 0 .
U n ite d State s Co u rt o f Ap p e als , Th ird Circu it.
Argued April 3, 1984.
Decided N ov. 5, 1984.
George Retos, Jr. (Argued), Retos, Held & Associates, Washington, Pa., for appellants.
Paul K. Geer (Argued), Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before GIBBONS, SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and BISSELL, District Judge * .
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

1
This appeal, as well as another decided today involving the same attorney and district court judge,
Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d 871, is brought from a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice
due to counsel's failure to meet court- imposed deadlines and other procedural requisites.
I.
Background
Lefteri and Athena Poulis filed suit against State Farm Fire and Casualty Com pany (State Farm) in
November 1981, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania, to recover under an
insurance policy after fire damaged their home. State Farm removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on diversity of citizenship. In its answer, it denied
liability, asserting that plaintiffs had intentionally caused the fire, had concealed and misrepresented
information, and had not filed their action in time.
On March 12, 1982, the district court ordered that discovery would close J une 14, 1982; that plaintiffs' pre-
trial statement would be due J uly 5; and that defendant's statement would be due J uly 26. A pre-trial
conference was set for August 13. The docket reveals no action by plaintiffs seeking discovery. On April 15,
State Farm filed notice of service of interrogatories on plaintiffs. No answers to these interrogatories were or
have ever been filed, and plaintiffs did not file their pre-trial statem ent by J uly 5 as required. Therefore
defendant filed its pre-trial statement first, on J uly 28, together with a motion to compel answers to
interrogatories. A member of the district judge's staff advised plaintiffs' counsel, George Retos, J r., that the
statement was overdue and Ret os promised to submit a statement by the next day. He neither did so nor
requested any extension. On August 5 the district court, sua sponte, dismissed the case with prejudice for
plaintiffs' failure to comply with the orders to file the pre-trial statem ent .
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2630
400ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Retos filed a pre-trial statement on August 9, together with a motion under Rule 60 (b) to reconsider and set
aside the dismissal, alleging that an illness prevented him from working between J uly 6 through J uly 17; that
other attorneys could not have taken over because only Retos spoke Greek and could communicate with
plaintiff Lefteri Poulis; that Retos' pregnant wife went into false labor on J uly 29 and 30 , and that he had
"inadvertently set aside the required work for the instant case on J uly 29, 1982, due to his concern for his wife"
and was "render[ed] unable to prepare the necessary Pre-Trial Statement;" that on his return to work other
tasks had backlogged; and that although he had dictated a statement on August 4, it had been mailed on August
6 when it was typed and ready.
The district court denied reconsideration. On appeal, this court vacated the order of dismissal. Poulis v. State
Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 714 F.2d 124 (3d Cir.1983) (Poulis I ) (per curiam). We noted there was "no
allegation that plaintiffs, as distinguished from their counsel, were in any way responsible for the failure to
comply with the court's order." We recognized that in National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club,
Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 96 S.Ct. 2278, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976), a dismissal was upheld where plaintiffs had acted in
"flagrant bad faith" and counsel "had behaved with 'callous disregard' of [his] responsibilities," id. at 643, 96
S.Ct. at 2781, but observed that "[t]he case at hand is not as extreme."
We pointed out that in an earlier opinion, Donnelly v. J ohns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 342 (3d
Cir.1982), we had stated that "dismissal is a drastic sanction and should be reserved for those cases where there
is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff." However, because Retos' excuses failed to
account for many days on which a pre-trial statement could have been filed, we observed that some sanction
was "amply justified." Accordingly, we vacated the dismissal and remanded to permit the district court to
consider alternatives to dismissal, stating, "Alternatives are particularly appropriate when the plaintiff has not
personally contributed to the delinquency."
On remand, the district court ordered the parties to file briefs on appropriate alternative sanctions. Plaintiffs'
brief, filed four days late, stated that such sanctions would be costs, attorneys' fees, and monetary penalties
imposed on him, but argued that "[s]ince the Third Circuit has specifically assessed the costs of the appeal in
this matter against plaintiffs' counsel personally, it has ruled on the sanctions which are to be applied in the
instant matter [and] alternative sanctions are now inappropriate." App. at 10-11.
In its brief State Farm took a more rea sonable position. It noted that "[i]n this case the defendant has been
more prejudiced by plaintiffs' failure to answer interrogatories then [sic] by its counsel's failure to file the Pre-
Trial Statement on time." App. at 16. State Farm urged the court to reopen discovery so that it could "have the
opportunity to examine plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories, conduct further investigation if necessary, and
depose the plaintiffs or other witnesses known to plaintiffs if such action is deemed necessary and
appropriate." App. at 15. State Farm suggested, "If discovery is reopened, State Farm believes there would be
no need to utilize the somewhat harsh remedy of limiting or restricting plaintiffs' witnesses at trial." App. at 16
(emphasis added). In light of t his court's order, State Farm requested an award of $750 .0 0 in attorneys' fees
which it incurred because of the dismissal and appeal, and sought a prospective limitation on interest due
should it ultimately be held liable on plaintiffs' claim.
Significa ntly, in its brief State Farm further stated, "State Farm strongly believes that the most expeditious
manner of disposing of this case can be provided by ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss which was
filed on J uly 7, 1982," approximately three weeks following the close of discovery and which was denied by the
district court because of its policy not to consider motions to dismiss filed more than two weeks after the close
of discovery. App. at 16.
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2631
401ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
10
Notwithstanding the defendant's submission, the district court reinstated its sua sponte sanction of
dismissal, stating that there was no appropriate alternative:
11
There are no costs which can be charged to plaintiffs' counsel at this point. Further, this was not a situation
in which defense counsel was forced to make an unnecessary trip to court because of plaintiffs' counsel's failure
to appear. The defendant has only been required to incur fees in an amount that would have been incurred if
the case normally proceeded to this point. Thus, this is not an appropriate case for attorney's fees. Finally, the
court finds no authority for levying a fine against plaintiffs' counsel as a penalty. Rather than imposing fines
and costs of [sic] other sanctions prior to dismissal, plaintiffs' counsel was afforded many opportunities to cure
the problems, but he has failed to do so. Sanctions not being appropriate, the court has no alternative but
dismissal to motivate plaintiff's counsel to comply with deadlines.
12
App. at 3-4 (footnotes and citation omitted). The district court intimated its displeasure with the remand in
Poulis I but it was unequivocal in its disagreement with the remand in a similar case from another district,
Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North America, 695 F.2d 746 (3d Cir.1982). The district court stated: "J udge Garth's
dissent in Titus, indicates that deliberate, dilatory action is a basis for dismissal, even under Donnelly, and
further indicates that the Circuit Court should only reverse such a decision for abuse of discretion.... [T]his
Court finds J udge Garth's dissent persuasive and adopts his dissent, and the cases cited therein, as further
support for this decision." App. at 5 (emphasis added).
13
We treat this extraordinary statement at the outset. Whatever may be the personal views of the district court
as to the merits vel non of a decision of this court, the district court is not free to "adopt" the dissent. This court
is strict in its adherence to the precedent of its earlier opinions. Our own Internal Operating Procedures are
explicit and provide,
14
It is the tradition of this court that reported panel opinions are binding on subsequent panels. Thus, no
subsequent panel overrules a published opinion of a previous panel. Court in banc consideration is required to
overrule a published opinion of this court.
15
Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Chapter 8.C. If the judges of this
court are bound by earlier panels, a fortiori district court judges are similarly bound. Recognition of the
hierarchical nature of the federal judiciary requires no less.
16
Moreover the reported decisions of this court over the past two years evidence the consistency of this court's
rulings emphasizing the extreme nature of a dismissal with prejudice or default judgment . See Hritz v. Woma
Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir.1984); In re MacMeekin, 722 F.2d 32 (3d Cir.1983); Madesky v. Campbell, 70 5
F.2d 70 3 (3d Cir.1983); Gross v. Stereo Component Systems, Inc., 70 0 F.2d 120 (3d Cir.1983); Titus v.
Mercedez Benz of North America, 695 F.2d 746 (3d Cir.1982); Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., 691 F.2d 653
(3d Cir.1982); Farnese v. Bagnasco, 687 F.2d 761 (3d Cir.1982); Donnelly v. J ohns-Manville Sales Corp., 677
F.2d 339 (3d Cir.1982).1
17
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2632
402ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
We recognize that recent literature exhorting the district judges to move litigation expeditiously by taking
firm control and the 1983 amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with their numerous references
to sanctions may have contributed to premature dismissals or defaults. Although sanctions are a necessary part
of any court system, we are concerned that the recent preoccupation with sanctions and the use of dismissal as
a necessary "weapon" in the trial court's "arsenal" may be contributing to or effecting an atmosphere in which
the meritorious claims or defenses of innocent parties are no longer the central issue. It does not further the
goal of a court system, that of delivering evenhanded justice to litigants, to suggest, as did the district court
here, that the plaintiffs would have a remedy by suing their counsel for malpractice, App. at 5, since this would
only multiply rather than dispose of litigation.
18
We reiterate what we have said on numerous occasions: that dismissals with prejudice or defaults are drastic
sanctions, termed "extreme" by the Supreme Court, National Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643, 96 S.Ct. at 2781,
and are to be reserved for comparable cases.
II.
Analysis
19
In exercising our appellate function to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion in
dismissing, or refusing to lift a default, we will be guided by the manner in which the trial court balanced the
following factors, which have been enumerated in the earlier cases, and whether the record supports its
findings: (1) the extent of the party 's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the
failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the
conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than
dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or
defense.
20
We turn to apply these factors in the circumstances of this case.
21
1. The extent of the party's personal responsibility.
22
There has been no suggestion by any party or by the district court that the Poulis plaintiffs are personally
responsible for the late pretrial statement, which was the basis for the dismissal. Indeed, Retos has
acknowledged the delays were his responsibility and assigned as the reason his illness from J uly 6 through 17
and the subsequent false labor of his wife on J uly 29 and 30 .
23
This is therefore unlike the National Hockey League case where the Supreme Court upheld the "extreme
sanction of dismissal" after noting that there had been "flagrant bad faith" on the part of the plaintiffs as well as
"callous disregard" by their counsel of their responsibilities. 427 U.S. at 643, 96 S.Ct. at 2781. However, the
Poulis' lack of responsibility for their counsel's dilatory conduct is not dispositive, because a client cannot
always avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of its counsel. See Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S.
626, 633, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).
24
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2633
403ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
2. Prejudice to the adversary.
25
As the district court stated, there has been prejudice to the defendant by the plaintiffs' counsel's conduct.
The interrogatories were never answered nor were objections filed; defense counsel was obliged to file a motion
to compel answers, and was obliged to file its pretrial statement without the opportunity to review plaintiffs'
pretrial statem ent which was due to be filed first. App. at 4. The court's finding that "defendant encountered
lack of cooperation from the plaintiff in areas where the plaintiff should cooperate under the spirit of the
federal procedural rules," id., is supported by the record.
26
3. A history of dilatoriness.
27
As noted above, this litigation has been characterized by a consistent delay by plaintiffs' counsel. Unlike the
Donnelly case, for example, where there was only one failure to comply in a timely manner, i.e. in obtaining
local counsel, in this case there has been a pattern of dilatoriness. Time limits imposed by the rules and the
court serve an important purpose for the expeditious processing of litigation. If compliance is not feasible, a
timely request for an extension should be made to the court. A history by counsel of ignoring these time limits
is intolerable.
28
4. Whether the attorney's conduct was willful or in bad faith.
29
Although the district court concluded that "plaintiffs' counsel's conduct [was] of such a dilatory and
contumacious nature to require dismissal," App. at 5, there is nothing in the record to support the
"contumacious" finding. Nothing in the court's discussion preceding this conclusion is directed toward the
willfulness issue but only toward dilatoriness. There has been no suggestion or indication that counsel's illness
during J uly 1982 and his wife's late pregnancy and false labor at the end of that month did not occur as he
represented.
30
In the appellants' brief, counsel characterizes his conduct as "excusable neglect" and seeks to explain the
district court's characterization of his conduct as "deliberate" and "contumacious" as the result of a "personality
conflict" between counsel and the district judge. Appellants' brief at 8. He refers us to four recent appeals in
which he allegedly "clashed" with the same district judge.2 However, even in those cases in which we vacated
the dismissal, the record showed that counsel failed to comply with the rules and deadlines imposed by the
district court. Thus, while some disaffinity has apparently been engendered between the district judge and
counsel we see no basis to hold the district judge responsible. Nonetheless, as noted at the beginning of this
section, we also find no basis for terming counsel's conduct in this case "contumacious".
31
5. Alternative sanctions.
32
The district court concluded that it had "no alternative but dismissal" because no other san ctions were
appropriate. The district court stated that there was no authority for levying a fine against plaintiffs' counsel as
a penalty. See Gamble v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 30 7 F.2d 729 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 888, 83
S.Ct. 187, 9 L.E d.2d 123 (1962).3 However, the court also stated that "there are no costs which can be charged
to plaintiffs' counsel at this point." This finding was errone ous. Defendant's counsel had asked the court to
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2634
404ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
impose as a sanction the $ 750 attorney fee which it had incurred in defending the appeal in Poulis I. The
district court apparently assumed that the costs of that appeal had already been charged to plaintiffs' counsel.
However, we had not assessed any attorney's fee as part of our imposition of appeal costs on plaintiffs' counsel
personally.4 The district court a lso could have imposed on plaintiffs' counsel the costs, including attorney's
fees, of preparing the motion to compel answers to interrogatories and the brief on alternative sanctions, all of
which were incurred because of the dilatoriness of plaintiffs' counsel.
33
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 1983 amendments, the district court is specifically
authorized to impose on an attorney those expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by unjustified failure to
comply with discovery orders or pretrial orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f), 37(a)(4), 37(b), 37(d) and 37(g). See
also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927. The most direct and therefore preferable sanction for the pattern of attorney delay
such as that which the district court encountered in this case w ould be to impose the excess costs caused by
such conduct directly upon the attorney, with an order that such costs are not to be passed on to the client,
directly or indirectly. This would avoid compelling an innocent party to bear the brunt of its counsel's
dereliction. Dismissal must be a sanction of last, not first, resort.
34
6. Meritoriousness of the claim.
35
In considering whether a claim or defense appears to be meritorious for this inquiry, we do not purport to
use summary judgment standards. A claim, or defense, will be deemed meritorious when the allegations of the
pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff or would constitute a complete defense.
See United States v. $ 55,518.0 5 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d at 195; Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., 691 F.2d at
657; Farnese v. Bagnasco, 687 F.2d at 764.
36
In this case, the defendant suggested to the district court that the most expeditious way to process this
litigation was to rule on its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim as untimely because it was not brought within a
year of the loss, as required by the policy. The district court's denial of that motion because of its "policy ... not
to consider motions to dismiss filed more than two weeks after the close of discovery," Order of August 2, 1982,
appears to conflict with Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(2) which permits a defense of failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted to be raised by motion as late as at the trial on the merits. Since the motion was timely
under Rule 12(h) because it was pleaded in the answer, its consideration by the district court might have
avoided the entire controversy regarding the pretrial proceedings and the two appeals to this court, and could
have given the parties a disposition on the m erits.5
37
Certainly, the defense that the plaintiffs' claim must fail because it has not been brought within the one year
limitation provision of the policy is, on its face, compelling. See Schreiber v. Pennsylvania Lumberman's
Mutual Ins. Co., 498 Pa. 21, 444 A.2d 647 (1982). In their complaint plaintiffs made no allegation that would
avoid this facial untimeliness by invoking Pennsylvania's law of waiver of the time limit set forth in an
insurance policy. See Commonwealth v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 462 Pa. 268, 341 A.2d 74 (1975). Moreover,
plaintiffs filed no answer to the motion to dismiss. For the purpose of evaluating the facial validity of the claim
or defense, we cannot rely on the vague and nonspecific statements in plaintiffs' pretrial memorandum that
they would produce witnesses to show that defendant led them to believe they would not be barred from filing
an action on the claim more than 12 months from the date of the fire. While we express no opinion on whether
summary judgment or dismissal would have been warranted on this ground, the existence of a prima facie
defense is a factor to be weighed along with the foregoing factors.
III.
Conclusion
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2635
405ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
38
The above factors should be weighed by the district courts in order to assure that the "extreme" sanction of
dismissal or default is reserved for the instances in which it is justly merited. In this case, although there was
no contumacious behavior, the pattern of dilatory behavior is compounded by the plaintiffs' failure to file any
answers to interrogatories, defendant was compelled to file its pretrial statement without such answers and
without seeing plaintiffs' pretrial statement, and there is a prima facie defense to the claim. Under these
circumstances, although we might not have reached the same result as did this district court judge, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the dismissal. Therefore, we will affirm the
judgment of the district court.
*
H on . J oh n W. Bissell, Un ited States District Court for th e District of New J ersey, sittin g by design ation
We believe it im portan t to poin t out th at we h ave n ot h esitated to affirm th e district court's im position of san ction s,
in cludin g dism issals in appropriate cases, cf. Un ited States v. $ 55,518 .0 5 in U.S. Curren cy, 728 F.2d 192 (3d Cir.198 4)
(default judgm en t) (in wh ich J udge Garth dissen ted on th e groun d th at th e dispute was prem aturely en ded with out bein g
reviewed on th e m erits), alth ough un der our procedures that is often don e by judgm en t order affirm an ce
2
In two of th ese cases, th is on e an d Scarborough v. Euban ks, also decided today, 747 F.2d 8 71 (3d Cir.198 4), the district
court dism issed th e com plain t, an d in th e th ird, the court en tered a default judgm en t again st Retos' clien t, Miller v.
Blower, No. 8 2-0 757 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 2, 198 3), vacated an d rem an ded, 732 F.2d 146 (3d Cir.198 4) (un reported). Th e fourth
case, Un ited States v. Goln a, No. 8 1 -179 (W.D.Pa.) aff'd, 714 F.2d 125 (3d Cir.198 3) (un reported), was n ot appealed on th e
basis of an y san ction s im posed by th e distr ict court
This issue is presen tly pen din g before this court in Eash v. Riggin s Truckin g, In c., No. 8 3 -5664 (or der for in ban c
con sider ation filed Oct. 11, 198 4)
It was a n on sequitur for plain tiff to have argued in his brief on altern ative san ction s filed with the district court that sin ce
we specifically assessed th e costs of th e appeal again st h im person ally, we already ruled on th e san ction s to be applied. If
so, th ere would h ave been n o basis for us to h ave rem an ded for precisely th is purpose
In this con n ection we n ote th e com m en dable procedure followed by J udge Grady of th e U.S. District Court for th e
North ern District of Illin ois, wh o h as foun d th at atten tion to som e of th e legal issues durin g a discovery con feren ce called
un der Rule 26(f) h as substan tially reduced the n eed for discovery. See Grady, Fin din g Our Way Through the Discovery
J un gle, 21 The J udges' J ourn al 4, 42 -4 3 (19 8 2)
CC | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2636
406ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights - Findlaw for the Public - http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-mis..
Fin dLa w | For t h e Pu blic | For Sm a ll Bu sin e ss | For Le ga l Pr ofe ssion a ls | Fin d a La w ye r Search Public
Overview Race Gender Disabilit y Em ploym ent Housing Enforcem ent More Laws and
Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Topics Resources
Br ow se Civil Righ t s FindLaw > Public > Civil Right s > More Topics
My current locat ion: La n ca st e r , PA | Ch a n ge loca t ion
Ove r vie w
Ra ce D iscr im in a t ion
Ge n de r D iscr im in a t ion Fe a t u r e d At t or n e ys
D isa bilit y
D iscr im in a t ion Fin dLa w La w ye r D ir e ct or y
Em ploym e n t Search FindLaw's database of 1,000,000 lawyers to find attorneys in your area.
D iscr im in a t ion
H ou sin g D iscr im in a t ion
En for ce m e n t
M or e Topics
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights
Age D iscr im in a t ion
Am e r ica n I n dia n s & False Arrest
Ala sk a N a t ive s The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this
Cit ize n s a n d t h e
claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable
Police
Civil Libe r t ie s seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime,
Cr e dit / Le n din g the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest
D iscr im in a t ion without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states
Cr im in a l Civil Righ t s also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the
Viola t ion s
D isa st e r Vict im s a n d
officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false,
Civil Righ t s the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on
Edu ca t ion a n d a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause,
D iscr im in a t ion that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been
Se x u a l Or ie n t a t ion committed.
H a t e Cr im e s
H I V / AI D S Pa t ie n t s
Malicious Prosecution
I m m igr a n t s A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the
I n st it u t ion a lize d Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show
Pe r son s four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the
M e dica l Pa t ie n t s proceeding ended in the victim's favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable
N a t ion a l Or igin
cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false
Police M iscon du ct arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings.
Pu blic
Accom m oda t ion s Excessive Force
Righ t s Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive
Re ligiou s
force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the
Se x u a l H a r a ssm e n t
officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances.
La w s a n d Re sou r ce s The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was
reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. But the reverse is also
Fin d A La w ye r true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force
claim will not be dismissed.

Se le ct t ype of pr a ct ice :
Civil Rights
En t e r Cit y or Zip: Page 2 of 3 Prev Page Next Page
Lancaster
Pennsylvania M or e Spon sor e d Se r vice s
Fin d Wills, Divorce, I ncorporat ion & More: Fast and friendly service from LegalZoom , t he # 1 online legal docum ent service.
Br ow se Lawyers by St at e
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2649
407ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP Page 15 of 16 04.07.2007
1
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights - Findlaw for the Public - http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-mis...
Fin dLa w | For t h e Pu blic | For Sm a ll Bu sin e ss | For Le ga l Pr ofe ssion a ls | Fin d a La w ye r Search Public
Overview Race Gender Disabilit y Em ploym ent Housing Enforcem ent More Laws and
Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Discrim inat ion Topics Resources
Br ow se Civil Righ t s FindLaw > Public > Civil Right s > More Topics
My current locat ion: La n ca st e r , PA | Ch a n ge loca t ion
Ove r vie w
Ra ce D iscr im in a t ion
Ge n de r D iscr im in a t ion Fe a t u r e d At t or n e ys
D isa bilit y
D iscr im in a t ion Fin dLa w La w ye r D ir e ct or y
Em ploym e n t Search FindLaw's database of 1,000,000 lawyers to find attorneys in your area.
H ou sin g D iscr im in a t ion
En for ce m e n t
M or e Topics
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights
Age D iscr im in a t ion
Am e r ica n I n dia n s & Failure to Intervene
Ala sk a N a t ive s Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers.
Cit ize n s a n d t h e
Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional
Police
Civil Libe r t ie s rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene.
Cr e dit / Le n din g
D iscr im in a t ion The Qualified Immunity Defense
Cr im in a l Civil Righ t s
Viola t ion s Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense
D isa st e r Vict im s a n d
of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from
Civil Righ t s
Edu ca t ion a n d
inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against
D iscr im in a t ion the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or
Se x u a l Or ie n t a t ion statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from
D iscr im in a t ion engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation. In order
H a t e Cr im e s
to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that
H I V / AI D S Pa t ie n t s
I m m igr a n t s
the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional
I n st it u t ion a lize d rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim.
Pe r son s
M e dica l Pa t ie n t s Police Misconduct: If You've Been Affected
N a t ion a l Or igin
D iscr im in a t ion Civil rights claims are an important part of our legal system, providing a balance between
Police M iscon du ct
Pu blic
the duty of law enforcement to uphold the laws, and the rights of individuals to be free from
Accom m oda t ion s police misconduct. Yet cases against police officers can be difficult. Officers may be
Righ t s immune from suit, even though an individual feels he or she was mistreated. Claims against
Re ligiou s police departments can also be expensive to bring because a lot of evidence must be
D iscr im in a t ion secured, including records, statements of police, statements of witnesses, and various other
Se x u a l H a r a ssm e n t
La w s a n d Re sou r ce s
documentation, to prove the misconduct.
The evidence supporting your claim is the most important element in a police misconduct
Fin d A La w ye r
suit. If you feel you've been the victim of police misconduct, contact a Civil Rights

Se le ct t ype of pr a ct ice : Attorney promptly so that valuable evidence does not disappear. Take photographs of any
Civil Rights injuries or damage caused by the police, and set aside clothing or other objects that was
En t e r Cit y or Zip: torn or stained with blood from the incident. Try to get the names and addresses or
Lancaster telephone numbers of anyone who may have witnessed the incident. Also, write down
Pennsylvania exactly what happened as soon as you can, so that you don't forget important details.
Fin d
Br ow se Lawyers by St at e
Page 3 of 3 Prev Page
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2650
408ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP Page 16 of 16 04.07.2007
!
"
#
# $%&'%&( )* & +,
-
# . &) !/ 0 /1 . !
! "# !$ %&&#'()*+ !, !- %&&#'()*+ !
..-/ 0 - - !1 -., . 2 (34) !
. 5%6417 " 48'4) ,
, 7 9 :, 0
, 7 9 :,
- 33426 5)"8 &+4 )14) 2&41 (6; !, !, "<=4&41 (6; >,

!, %? &+4 "()& "5 "88"? 642# "5 642)5%461 "(?&;, )%8%?26, "
!@! @ 33426 5)"8 &+4 )14) 2&41 (6; !, !, "<=4&41 (6;
>, !, %? &+4 "()& "5 "88"? 642# "5 642)5%461 "(?&;, )%8%?26,
" !@! !@
> 945")47 94<=, A466;, 2?1 "5582?,
/ (&+")7 A466;
3%?%"? 9 A , 7
+%# 233426 2#=# (# &" 14&4)8%?4 B+4&+4) &+4 1%#&)%<&

2&&")?4; 2336%41 &+4 3)"34) #&2?12)1 %? 2##4##%?* 2?1 1%#233)" %?*
2334662?&C#, %<+2)1 4'4)6%?*C#, 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# 2?1
B+4&+4) &+4 &)%26 <"()& 3)"34)6; 5"(?1 &+2& &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C#
+2?16%?* "5 &+%# 82&&4) B2# 5)44 5)"8 2?; %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<& "5
%?&4)4#& 334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# 2664*41 2 +"#& "5
<)%8%?26 "554?#4# 2*2%?#& &B" 3"6%<4 "55%<4)# %? <"??4<&%"? B%&+ &+4%)
&4#&%8"?; 5") &+4 "88"?B426&+ 2*2%?#& 2334662?&C# B%54, )#
4'4)6%?*, '45")4 2 D(); &+2& <"? %<&41 +4) "? <+2)*4# "5 )4#%#&%?*
2))4#& 5&4) 2 <2)45(6 )4 %4B "5 &+4 34)&%?4?& 62B 2# 2336%41 &" &+4
52<&# +4)4%?, B4 255%)8 &+4 1%#233)" 26 "5 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4
<)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# 2?1 2*)44 &+2& &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# 1%#3"#%&%"?
"5 &+4 82&&4) B2# 5)44 5)"8 2?; %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<& "5 %?&4)4#&
4 3)452<4 "() )42#"?%?* B%&+ &+%# #(882); "5 &+4 )464 2?&
52<&# 2?1 3)"<41()26 +%#&"); ? 4<48'4) >, , )# 4'4)6%?* B4?&
&" &)%26 '45")4 2 D(); "? &+4 <+2)*4 "5 )4#%#&%?* 2))4#& )""34) ();
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2651
409ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
5%641 &+4 <+2)*4 2*2%?#& )# 4'4)6%?* 2?1 &4#&%5%41 2& &)%26 "6%<4
+%45 (&64) 26#" &4#&%5%41 5") &+4 "88"?B426&+ 2& &+4 &)%26,
<"?<4)?%?* )# 4'4)6%?*C# <"?1(<& "? 4')(2); !!, B+%<+ *2 4
)%#4 &" &+4 <)%8%?26 <+2)*4 "5 )4#%#&%?* 2))4#& +4 D(); 5"(?1 )#
4'4)6%?* *(%6&; 2# <+2)*41
! +4 )464 2?& 52<&# 5)"8 )# 4'4)6%?*C# 2))4#&, &)%26 2?1

<"? %<&%"?, )462&% 4 &" &+4 %?#&2?& 3)"<441%?*#, 2)4 2# 5"66"B#
)""34) (); 3(6641 )# 4'4)6%?*C# 4+%<64 " 4) &" &+4 #%14 "5 &+4
)"21 "? (6; , // )""34) (); 3)"<44141 &" *% 4 )# 4'4)6%?* 2
<%&2&%"? 5") 52%6%?* &" +2 4 2 26%1 )4*%#&)2&%"? 5") &+4 /$ "1*4
2? #+4 B2# 1)% %?* )# 4'4)6%?* #('#4E(4?&6; 52%641 &" 32; &+4
5%?4# 2?1 <"#&# 2##"<%2&41 B%&+ &+4 (6; , // <%&2&%"? (4 &"
&+%# "8%##%"?, &+4 55%<4 "5 &+4 %#&)%<& (#&%<4 %66%28 2%#+4)
%##(41 2 B2))2?& 5") )# 4'4)6%?*C# 2))4#& )""34) (); #&"3341
)# 4'4)6%?* "? 4')(2); !!, 5") &+4 3()3"#4 "5 #4) %?* &+4
B2))2?& +%45 (&64) 2##%#&41 )""34) (); 2& &+4 #<4?4 ? 4')(2);
!-, , )""34) (); 5%641 2 <+2)*4 "5 )4#%#&%?* 2))4#&F5? 2*2%?#&
)# 4'4)6%?* 5") +4) 56%*+& "? 4')(2); !!, , 2664*%?* &+2& )#
4'4)6%?* 645& &+4 #<4?4 %? 2 82??4) <)42&%?* 2 #('#&2?&%26 )%#= "5
'"1%6; %?D(); &" )""34) ();
? 2)<+ ! , , &+4 1%#&)%<& D(#&%<4 +42)1 &4#&%8"?; ';

)""34) (); 2?1 1454?#4 B%&?4##4# 2& 2 #(882); +42)%?* 5&4)
)4 %4B%?* &+4 4 %14?<4, &+4 1%#&)%<& D(#&%<4 5"(?1 3)"'2'64 <2(#4 &"
)4E(%)4 )# 4'4)6%?* &" #&2?1 &)%26 "? &+4 <+2)*4 "5 )4#%#&%?*
2))4#& ? 4<48'4) >, , )# 4'4)6%?* B2# &)%41 '45")4 2 D();,
B+%<+, 25&4) +42)%?* 266 &+4 4 %14?<4 3)4#4?&41 '; &+4 "88"?B426&+
2?1 &+4 1454?#4, )4&()?41 2 *(%6&; 4)1%<&
. ('#4E(4?& &" )# 4'4)6%?*C# &)%26 2?1 <"? %<&%"?,

2334662?&, )# 4'4)6%?*C# #3"(#4, 5%641 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&#
2*2%?#& )""34) (); 2?1 +%45 (&64), 2664*%?* 8%#<"?1(<& "? &+4 32)&
"5 &+4 "55%<4)# 2# )462&41 &" )# 4'4)6%?*C# &)%26 2?1 <"? %<&%"?
+4 2664*2&%"?# "5 8%#<"?1(<& %?<6(141 G 4)D();, 26#4 B42)%?*,
?#B")? 26#%5%<2&%"? &" (&+")%&%4#, 26#4 43")&# &" 2B
?5")<484?&, '#&)(<&%?* 18%?%#&)2&%"? "5 2B, 55%<%26 33)4##%"?,
2834)%?* B%&+ ('6%< 4<")1# 2?1 )%8%?26 "?#3%)2<; G 334662?&C#
9)%45 2& % 34<%5%<266;, &+4 2664*41 8%#<"?1(<& <4?&4)41 2)"(?1
1%#3(&41 &4#&%8"?; <"?<4)?%?* &+4 ")%4?&2&%"? "5 &+4 &B" 3"6%<4
<)(%#4)# 2?1 )# 4'4)6%?*C# 4+%<64 )462&% 4 &" &+4 )"21B2; B+4?
55%<4) (); 2&&483&41 &" #4) 4 &+4 2))4#& B2))2?& "? 4')(2); !!,
& &)%26, &+4#4 &B" 3"6%<4 "55%<4)# &4#&%5%41 &+2& )#
4'4)6%?*C# 4+%<64 B2# 34)34?1%<(62) &" 2?1 52<%?* 2B2; 5)"8 &+4
)"21B2;, #" &+2& #+4 +21 &" 82=4 2 #+2)3 (@&()? %? ")14) &" )4@4?&4)
&+4 #&)44& )# 4'4)6%?*C# &4#&%8"?;, 4<+"41 '; "?4 4;4B%&?4## 5")
&+4 1454?#4, 2##4)&41 &+2& +4) 4+%<64 B2# 32)26646 &" &+4 )"21B2;
92#41 "? &+%# 1%#<)432?<; %? &+4 &4#&%8"?; "5 &+4 32)&%4#C B%&?4##4#,
2334662?& 2&&483&41 &" 5%64 +%# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?& 2*2%?#& &+4
"55%<4)#
$ 9; 64&&4) 12&41 2)<+ ., !, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;

1%#233)" 41 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <"8362%?&# +4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C#
1%#233)" 26 B2# #(33")&41 '; &+4 <)41%'%6%&; 2?1 52<& 14&4)8%?2&%"?#
8214 2& &+4 D(); &)%26, <"(3641 B%&+ &+4 2##4##84?& &+2& &+4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2652
410ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
"88"?B426&+ <"(61 ?"&, B%&+ &+4 4 %14?<4 2##4)&41 '; 2334662?&, 3)" 4
%&# <2#4 '4;"?1 2 )42#"?2'64 1"('&
- "66"B%?* 1%#233)" 26 '; &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;, 2334662?&

5%641 +%# <"8362%?&# B%&+ &+4 &)%26 <"()& #44=%?* 2 )4 %4B "5 &+4
1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# 1%#233)" 26 "5 &+4 <"8362%?&# 3()#(2?& &"
2 )%8 ' ! 334662?& 26#" #"(*+& 2 <"()& 14&4)8%?2&%"? "5
B+4&+4) &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# %? "6 484?& %? &+4 233)" 26 3)"<4##
)43)4#4?&41 2? %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<& "5 %?&4)4#& 5&4) &+4 D(1*4# "5
&+4 "()& "5 "88"? 642# "5 642)5%461 "(?&; 1%#E(26%5%41 &+48#46 4#
5)"8 &+4 )4 %4B 3)"<4##, &+4 "?")2'64 A4%&+ 9 H(%*64; "5 4));
"(?&; #34<%266; 3)4#%141 " 4) &+4 )4 %4B 3)"<4## 2?1 <"?<6(141 &+2&
&+4)4 B2# ?" *)"## 2'(#4 "5 1%#<)4&%"? ") <"?56%<& "5 %?&4)4#& 3)4#4?&
%? &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# 1%#233)" 26 <<")1%?*6;, &+4 1%#233)" 26
"5 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# B2# 255%)841 +%# &%846;
233426 5"66"B41 F5?!
+4 3)"34) 3)"<41()4 5") #44=%?* 233)" 26 "5 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26

<"8362%?&# %# #4& 5")&+ %? 2 )%8 2# 5"66"B#7
2 +4? &+4 255%2?& %# ?"& 2 62B 4?5")<484?& "55%<4) 2?1 &+4 "554?#4 # <+2)*41 %?<6(14 #
2 8%#14842?") ") 546"?; B+%<+ 1"4# ?"& %? "6 4 2 <642) 2?1 3)4#4?& 12?*4) &" 2?; 34)#"? ") &"
&+4 <"88(?%&;, &+4 <"8362%?& #+266 '4 #('8%&&41 &" 2? 2&&")?4; 5") &+4 "88"?B426&+, B+" #+266
233)" 4 ") 1%#233)" 4 B%&+"(& (?)42#"?2'64 1462;
' 5 &+4 2&&")?4; 5") &+4 "88"?B426&+
33)" 4# &+4 <"8362%?&, &+4 2&&")?4; #+266 %?1%<2&4 &+%# 14<%#%"? "? &+4 <"8362%?& 5")8
2?1 &)2?#8%& %& &" &+4 %##(%?* 2(&+")%&;0
! %#233)" 4# &+4 <"8362%?&, &+4 2&&")?4; #+266 #&2&4 &+4 )42#"?# "? &+4 <"8362%?& 5")8
2?1 )4&()? %& &" &+4 255%2?& +4)425&4) &+4 255%2?& 82; 5%64 &+4 <"8362%?& B%&+ 2 D(1*4 "5 2 "()& "5
"88"? 642# 5") 233)" 26 ") 1%#233)" 260
"4# ?"& 233)" 4 ") 1%#233)" 4 B%&+%? 2 )42#"?2'64 34)%"1 "5 &%84, &+4 255%2?& 82; 5%64
&+4 <"8362%?& "? 2 #432)2&4 5")8 B%&+ &+4 %##(%?* 2(&+")%&;, ?"&%?* &+4)4"? &+2& 2 <"8362%?& %#
34?1%?* '45")4 2? 2&&")?4; 5") &+4 "88"?B426&+ +4 %##(%?* 2(&+")%&; #+266 14&4)8%?4 B+4&+4)
2 )42#"?2'64 34)%"1 +2# 4623#41, 2?1 B+4? 233)"3)%2&4, #+266 1454) 2<&%"? &" 266"B &+4 2&&")?4;
5") &+4 "88"?B426&+ 2? 211%&%"?26 34)%"1 "5 &%84 &" )4#3"?1
? 14&4)8%?%?* B+4&+4) &" 233)" 4 ") 1%#233)" 4 2 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&, &+4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4; 82; )46; "? 4%&+4) 2 64*26 2##4##84?& "5 &+4 <"8362%?&, ") B+"66; 1%#<)4&%"?2); 82&&4)#
"5 3"6%<; "88"?B426&+ 94?I$! 2 ! , $-$ !1 >-. / +4? &+41%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;
)4#&# &+4 1%#233)" 26 "5 2 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?& "? B+"66; 1%#<)4&%"?2); 82&&4)# "5 3"6%<;, &+%#
"()& B%66 ?"& 1%#&()' &+2& 14&4)8%?2&%"?, 2'#4?& 2 *)"## 2'(#4 "5 1%#<)4&%"? "88"?B426&+
)%&<+2)1,. / 2 (34) !! , $ - !1 /!> 44 26#" ? 4 ""1, 2 (34) $ >,
- !, ./! !1 , - /$ E("&%?* "88"?B426&+ %#482??, !>- 2 (34) $. , .
!1 $ / 3)"#4<(&")%26 1%#<)4&%"? 82; 1434?1 "? 3"6%<; 82&&4)# B+"66; 232)& 5)"8 &+4
4J%#&4?<4 ") ?"?@4J%#&4?<4 "5 3)"'2'64 <2(#40 <"()&# 2)4 B2); "5 #(34) %#%?* 4J4)<%#4 "5 #(<+
1%#<)4&%"? +4? &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; '2#4# 2 1%#8%##26 #"646; "? 2 62<= "5 4 %14?<4,+"B4 4), &+%#
"()& B%66 2336; 2 14 ?" " #&2?12)1 "5 )4 %4B '4<2(#4 #(<+ 2 14<%#%"? %# ?"& 4?&%&641 &" &+4 #284
1454)4?<4 255")141 2 3"6%<; 14<%#%"? ?"& &" 3)"#4<(&4, 4 4? B+4)4 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4 4J%#&#
"88"?B426&+ 94?I, #(3)2 2& ! / ? .,$-$ !1 2& >-> ? . +4 #34<%26 1454)4?<4 4J&4?141 &"
2 3"6%<; 14<%#%"? ?"& &" 3)"#4<(&4 2)%#4# 5)"8 &+4 1454)4?<4 2<<")141 &+4 1%#<)4&%"?2); (#4 "5
4J4<(&% 4 3"B4)# <"?54))41 %? &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 1 +4 3"B4) &" 233)" 4 ") 1%#233)" 4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2653
411ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# *)2?&41 (?14) 2 )%8 &" &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; %# <"?#%#&4?&
B%&+ &+4 2(&+")%&; B+%<+ &+2& "55%<4 )4*(62)6; 4J4)<%#4# %? 14<%1%?* &" %?%&%2&4 ") 1%#<"?&%?(4
3)"#4<(&%"?# ? )4 4&%&%"? "5 %#<2?%",! $ 2 (34) . , . ., .. !1 -$/, -- >$ +4
)4E(%)484?&# 5") &+4 %##(2?<4 "5 3)"<4## 3()#(2?& &" 2 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?& 2)4 3)" %141 %?
2 )%8 .
+4 <"8362%?& +2# '44? 3)"34)6; <"8364&41 2?1 4J4<(&410
! +4)4 %# 3)"'2'64 <2(#4 5") &+4 %##(2?<4 "5 3)"<4##, %? &+4 5")8 "5 2? 255%12 %&0 2?1
+4? 3)%") #('8%##%"? &" 2? 2&&")?4; 5") &+4 "88"?B426&+ %# )4E(%)41, &+2& 2?
2&&")?4; +2# 233)" 41 &+4 <"8362%?&
334662?&C# 5%)#& 2##4)&%"?, &+2& &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 2336%41 &+4 B)"?* #&2?12)1 B+4?
)4 %4B%?* 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&#, B2))2?&# <"?#%14)2&%"? +4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;
#&2&41 &+2& &+4 2334662?&C# <"8362%?&# 5466 #+")& "5 4#&2'6%#+%?* #(55%<%4?& 4 %14?<4 &" 3)" 4 +%#
2664*2&%"?# '4;"?1 2 )42#"?2'64 1"('& 334662?& 82%?&2%?#, +"B4 4), &+2& &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;
8(#& %4B &+4 4 %14?<4 3)" %141 2<<")1%?* &" 2 G3)"'2'64 <2(#4GF5? #&2?12)1
5 &+4 "88"?B426&+ %?&4?1# &" 3)"<441 B%&+ 3)"#4<(&%"?, %& 8(#& 3)"1(<4 4 %14?<4
4?"(*+ &" 4#&2'6%#+ 2& 642#& 2 3)%82 52<%4F5?. <2#4 &+2& 2 <)%84 +2# '44? <"88%&&41 2?1 &+2& &+4
2<<(#41 %# 3)"'2'6; &+4 34)34&)2&") "88"?B426&+ "D12=, $ ! 2 $ , .-- !1
/ 0 "88"?B426&+ (664?, .- 2 -, !1 >$$ >$ 0 "88"?B426&+ 2) %?,
.- 2 (34) $>$, $ !1 / /$ "B4 4), &+4 (6&%82&4 14&4)8%?2&%"? "5 &+4 #(55%<%4?<;
"5 &+2& 4 %14?<4 %# 2 &)%26 <"()& D(1*84?& 2& B+%<+ &%84 &+4 &)%4) "5 52<& )4 %4B# &+4 )4<")1 52<&# &"
2#<4)&2%? B+4&+4) 2?1 &" B+2& 4J&4?& &+4 3)"#4<(&%"? +2# #2&%#5%41 %&# G'4;"?1 2 )42#"?2'64
1"('&G '()14? "5 34)#(2#%"? F5?$ "88"?B426&+ +2 4), $ 2 ->, .- !1 >.! /
+4 3)4&)%26 3)"<4##, "? &+4 <"?&)2);, )4E(%)4# &+4 2336%<2&%"? "5 B+2& %# =?"B? %? <)%8%?26 62B 2#
&+4 3)"'2'64 <2(#4 #&2?12)1 ") 2 3)%82 52<%4 #&2?12)1 44 2 )%8 .0 "88"?B426&+
2) %?, #(3)2 "88"?B426&+ +2# '()14? &" 4#&2'6%#+ 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4 2& &+4 3)46%8%?2);
+42)%?* '(& ?441 ?"& 3)" 4 2<<(#41C# *(%6& '4;"?1 2 )42#"?2'64 1"('& %? ")14) &" '%?1 2<<(#41
" 4) 5") 3)"#4<(&%"?
! "?&%?(41 5)"8 3)4 %"(# 32*4 962<=C# 2B %<&%"?2);, $&+ 1 >
?#&2?&6;, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; "5 642)5%461 "(?&; #&2&41

%? +%# %#233)" 26 &2&484?& 3()#(2?& &" 2 )%8 7
G <<")1%?*6;, &+4 2664*2&%"?# '; &+4 255%2?& <2??"& '4 3)" 4? '4;"?1 2
)42#"?2'64 1"('& 2?1 2)4 +4)4'; 1%#233)" 41 3()#(2?& &" (64 G ?
#" #&2&%?*, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 2336%41 2? %?233)"3)%2&4 64*26
#&2?12)1 &" &+%# 2#34<& "5 &+4 3)4&)%26 3)"<4## +%# #&2?12)1 2#
2336%41 B"(61 )4E(%)4 3)% 2&4 <"8362%?2?&# &" 3)" 4 &+4%) <2#4# &" &+4
1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;, B+4)4, %? 52<&, &+4 <"8362%?& ?441 "?6; 2 4)
4 %14?<4 #(55%<%4?& &" 8"(?& 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4 <<")1%?*6;, B4
<"?<6(14 &+2& &+4 3)"34) #&2?12)1 &" '4 2336%41 B+4? )4 %4B%?* 3)% 2&4
<)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# %# B+4&+4) &+4 <"8362%?& 4#&2'6%#+4# 2 3)%82 52<%4
<2#4 "? 266 &+4 46484?&# "5 &+4 <+2)*4 <"?&2%?41 %? &+4 <"8362%?&
")4" 4), '4<2(#4 &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 4J4)<%#41 2 64*26 D(1*84?&, B4
2)4 )4E(%)41 &" )4 %4B &+4 233)"3)%2&4?4## "5 +%# 14<%#%"? 44
"88"?B426&+ 94?I, #(3)2 2& ! /@ ,$-$ !1 2& >->@-/ B+4)4 &+4
"88"?B426&+ 14<%14# ?"& &" 3)"#4<(&4 5") 62<= "5 4 %14?<4 #(55%<%4?&
&" 4#&2'6%#+ 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4, &+4 <"()& %# )4E(%)41 &" )4 %4B &+4
233)"3)%2&4?4## "5 &+2& 14<%#%"?, 2?1 #(<+ 2 )4 %4B "5 &+2& 64*26
D(1*84?& %# ?"& 2? %?&)(#%"? (3"? 3)"#4<(&")%26 1%#<)4&%"?
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2654
412ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
334662?& 2##4)&# &+2& &+4 3)"3"#41 &4#&%8"?; "5 2 #4<"?1
4;4B%&?4## B"(61 <"))"'")2&4 &+4 &)%26 &4#&%8"?; 5") &+4 1454?#4 &+2&
)# 4'4)6%?*C# 4+%<64 B2# %?1441 32)26646 &" &+4 )"21B2; 1()%?* &+4
4')(2); ! , %?<%14?& +4 &+)(#& "5 2334662?&C# <"8362%?& %#
&+2& &+4 3"6%<4 "55%<4)C# &4#&%8"?; 2& )# 4'4)6%?*C# &)%26 B2#
%?<"?#%#&4?& B%&+ &+4 1454?#4 B%&?4##4#C &4#&%8"?; +4 3)"3"#41
&4#&%8"?; "5 2 #4<"?1 4;4B%&?4##, <"?<6(14# 2334662?&, 4#&2'6%#+4# 2
3)%82 52<%4 <2#4 2*2%?#& &+4 3"6%<4 "55%<4)# "? 42<+ "5 &+4 4%*+&
"554?#4# <+2)*41F5?- %? +%# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?& 4 1%#2*)44
5") &+4 5"66"B%?* )42#"?#
! %)#&, &+4 &)%4) "5 52<& %# &" )4#"6 4 2?; 4J%#&%?*

%?<"?#%#&4?<%4# 2?1 <2? '46%4 4 266, 32)&, ") ?"?4 "5 &+4 &4#&%8"?;
3)4#4?&41 "88"?B426&+ ());, / 2 (34) . , .-$ !1 --
/ +4 D(); 26)421; +42)1 &+4 #('#&2?<4 "5 2334662?&C# 3)"3"#41
B%&?4##C &4#&%8"?; 2 %?* 26)421; B4%*+41 &+4 4 %14?<4 2334662?&
2##4)&# %? #(33")& "5 +%# 3)% 2&4 <"8362%?&, &+4 D(); )42<+41 &+4
<"?<6(#%"? &+2& )# 4'4)6%?* )4#%#&41 2? 2))4#& 94<2(#4 &+4 B4%*+&
2<<")141 &+4 4 %14?<4 '; 2 D(); %# ?"& 2 82&&4) "5 82&+482&%<26
3)4<%#%"?, &+4 52<& &+2& "?4 8")4 34)#"? <2? #2; &+2& )# 4'4)6%?*C#
2? B2# 32)26646 &" &+4 )"21B2; 1"4# ?"& ?4<4##2)%6; %? 26%12&4 &+4
D();C# 5%?1%?*# "5 <)41%'%6%&;
4<"?1, 2 <"662&4)26 2&&2<= "? 2 52<& 5%?14)C# <)41%'%6%&;

14&4)8%?2&%"? %# ?"& B2))2?&41 (?64## &+4 211%&%"?26 4 %14?<4 2##4)&41
B2# ?"& 1%#<" 4)2'64 2& &+4 &%84 "5 &+4 <)41%'%6%&; 14&4)8%?2&%"?,
! %# ?"& 84)46; 5") <(8(62&% 4 ") %8342<+84?& 3()3"#4#, 2?1 &+4
?4B 4 %14?<4 <"8346# 2 1%554)4?& "(&<"84 "88"?B426&+ +28'4)#,$!/
2 $$/, $ !1 - , <4)&%")2)% 14?%41, , ! &
!! , 1 !1 ! . ! ?26"*"(#6;, &+4 3)"3"#41 &4#&%8"?;
+4)4%? B2# 2 2%62'64 &" &+4 1454?#4 2& )# 4'4)6%?*C# &)%26 '(& B2#
?"& (&%6%I41 ")4" 4), &+4 3)"3"#41 &4#&%8"?; 2##4)&# ?"&+%?* &+2&
&+4 D(); 1%1 ?"& 26)421; +42) %?266;, &+4 3)"3"#41 &4#&%8"?; 1"4#
?"& ?4<4##2)%6; <"8346 2 1%554)4?& )4#(6&, ?") 1"4# &+4 4 %14?<4 %?
&+4 2334662?&C# <"8362%?& )2%#4 4 4? 2? %?54)4?<4 &+2& &+4 D();C#
4)1%<& B2# 3()4 #34<(62&%"? +4)45")4, B4 <"?<6(14 &+2&, '2#41 "?
&+4 3)"3"#41 &4#&%8"?; B+%<+ %# 84)46; <(8(62&% 4 "5 &+2& &4#&%8"?;
+42)1 2& &)%26, 2334662?& +2# ?"& 4#&2'6%#+41 4 4? 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4
"? &+4 <+2)*4# 2664*41 2*2%?#& &+4 3"6%<4 "55%<4)# 44 "88"?B426&+
()"#=%, $! 2 (34) $, $ - !1 ! /- 4? '2?< 2
3)% 2&4 <"8362%?2?&C# 1(&; %# &" 3)" %14 &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; B%&+
4?"(*+ 52<&# &" 4?2'64 2? %?5")841 14<%#%"? "? B+4&+4) &" <"884?<4
<)%8%?26 2<&%"? 334662?&C# 2664*2&%"?# "5 <"66(#%"?, <"?#3%)2<; 2?1
526#4 #B42)%?* )4E(%)4 8")4 52<&(26 #(33")& &+2? B+2& +4 +2# "554)41
'; B2; "5 64*26 <"?<6(#%"?# <<")1%?*6;, B4 2*)44 B%&+ &+4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4;C# 5%?26 14<%#%"? &" 1%#233)" 4 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26
<"8362%?&# 2?1 +"61 &+2& &+4 "()& "5 "88"? 642# <"))4<&6; 255%)841
&+2& 1%#233)" 26
. 334662?&C# 5%?26 <"?&4?&%"? )4#&# %? &+4 2##4)&%"? &+2& &+4

+2?16%?* "5 &+%# 82&&4) '; &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; "5 642)5%461 "(?&;
<"?#&%&(&41 2? %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<& "5 %?&4)4#& %# <"8362%?&#,
2 4)# 2334662?&, #+"(61 ?"& +2 4 '44? )4 %4B41 '; &+4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4; ") 2?; 848'4) "5 +%# #&255 5") &B" )42#"?# %)#&, &+4
1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# %? "6 484?& %? &+4 <)%8%?26 3)"#4<(&%"? *% %?*
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2655
413ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
)%#4 &" &+4 5%6%?* "5 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# #+"(61
'2) %? "6 484?& %? &+4 )4 %4B 3)"<4## "5 &+"#4 <"8362%?&# 4<"?1,
2?"&+4) 848'4) "5 &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# "55%<4 23342)41 5") &+4
"88"?B426&+ 2& 2? 4 %14?&%2); +42)%?* 2##"<%2&41 B%&+ &+4 233426 "5
&+4 ")%*%?26 <)%8%?26 <2#4 2*2%?#& )# 4'4)6%?* 334662?& <"?<6(14#
&+2& &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# "55%<4 %#, &+4)45")4, %? "6 41 %? &+4
)43)4#4?&2&%"? "5 32)&%4# 21 4)#4 &" 2334662?& 2?1 %# ?"& %? 2 3)"34)
3"#%&%"? &" 233)" 4 ") 1%#233)" 4 <+2)*4# 2)%#%?* 5)"8 &+4 ")%*%?26
<)%8%?26 <2#4
$ +4 "88"?B426&+ %# &+4 32)&; 362%?&%55 %? 2 <)%8%?26

3)"#4<(&%"? "88"?B426&+ 266";, . 2 (34) ! >, .$ !1 -/
/! +4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# 5(?<&%"? %# &" )43)4#4?& &+4
"88"?B426&+ %? &+4#4 3)"<441%?*# 1 2& !@ , .$ !1 2& - ! &
%# %? &+4 <232<%&; 2# &+4 "88"?B426&+C# 2&&")?4; &+2& &+4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4; 5(65%66# &+4 "'6%*2&%"? &" %? 4#&%*2&4 2?1 3)"#4<(&4 <)%84
? 4 4&%&%"? "5 %#<2?%", #(3)2 2& . ., .. !1 2& -- +4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4; 4J4<(&4# +%# 1(&; "5 4 26(2&%?* <"8362%?&# &" 14&4)8%?4
B+4&+4) 2?1 B+4? &" 3)"#4<(&4, <"?&%?(4 ") 1%#<"?&%?(4 2 <2#4, %? &+4
?284 "5 &+4 "88"?B426&+, ?"& &+4 %<&%8 1 0 "88"?B426&+ 266";,
#(3)2 2& ,.$ !1 2& -
- ?#&2?&6;, 2334662?& )46%4# "? (64# > 2?1 "5 &+4 9

"146 (64# "5 )"54##%"?26 "?1(<& B+%<+ %? 34)&%?4?& 32)& 5")'%1 &+4
)43)4#4?&2&%"? "5 21 4)#4 <6%4?& %?&4)4#&# +4 %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<&
"5 %?&4)4#& B+%<+ 2334662?& 2##4)&# 2)%#4# 5)"8 2334662?&C#
8%#34)<43&%"? &+2& &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; )43)4#4?&41 &+4 3"6%<4
"55%<4)# %? &+4 ")%*%?26 <)%8%?26 <2#4 2*2%?#& )# 4'4)6%?*
%? "6 %?* &+4 <+2)*4 "5 )4#%#&%?* 2))4#& +4 3"6%<4 "55%<4)#,
+"B4 4), B4)4 B%&?4##4# 5") &+4 3)"#4<(&%"? "5 )# 4'4)6%?*, ?"&
<6%4?&# "5 &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; # #(<+, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;
<2??"& '4 #2%1 &" +2 4 4?*2*41 %? &+4 )43)4#4?&2&%"? "5 21 4)#4 <6%4?&
%?&4)4#&# (?14) 4%&+4) (64 > ") 21 2334662?& 3)4#4?&41
#(55%<%4?& 52<&# &" 148"?#&)2&4 &+2& &+4 3"6%<4 "55%<4)#C &4#&%8"?;
B2# 526#4 "? 2 82&4)%26 82&&4) 2?1 &+2& &+4 "55%<4)# =?4B ") '46%4 41
&+2& &+4%) #&2&484?&# B4)4 526#4 B+4? 8214 (?14) "2&+, &+4
"88"?B426&+C# 2&&")?4; <"(61 )42#"?2'6; 3)"<441 B%&+ 2? 2<&%"?
2*2%?#& &+4 "55%<4)# B%&+"(& *% %?* )%#4 &" 2? %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<&
"5 %?&4)4#& " &"", 82; &+4 "88"?B426&+C# 2&&")?4; )45(#4 &" 3)"<441
2*2%?#& &+4#4 "55%<4)# B+4)4 &+4 2334662?& 3)"554)41 "?6; <(8(62&% 4
4 %14?<4 B+%<+ #+41 ?" 6%*+& "? &+4 82&&4) 2664*41
> +4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 2?1 &+4 &)%26 <"()& +2 4 2

)4#3"?#%'%6%&; &" 3)4 4?& &+4 8%#(#4 "5 3)"#4<(&")%26 2?1 D(1%<%26
)4#"()<4# ? 4 ""1, #(3)2 2& - ,./! !1 2& > E("&%?*
"88"?B426&+ %#482??, #(3)2 2& $.-@.>, . !1 2& $ +4)4, 2#
+4)4, 2 &)%26 14&4)8%?2&%"? "? &+4 <)41%'%6%&; "5 &+4 B%&?4##4# +2#
26)421; "<<())41, 2334662?& <2??"& '4 34)8%&&41 &" )46; "? 3)"554)41
&4#&%8"?;, B+%<+ B2# 2 2%62'64 2& &+2& &)%26, &" 4?*2*4 %? 2 5(&%64
2&&483& &" 1%#&()' &+"#4 <)41%'%6%&; 5%?1%?*#
/ ? &+%# "88"?B426&+, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 4?D";# B%14

62&%&(14 B+4? 14<%1%?* B+4&+4) &" 1%#233)" 4 2 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26
<"8362%?&, 2?1 82; 1" #" 5") 3"6%<; )42#"?# B+"66; 232)& 5)"8 2
3)46%8%?2); 2##4##84?& "5 &+4 4 %14?<4 4? &+"(*+ 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2656
414ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
82; 4J%#& "? &+4 52<4 "5 &+4 <"8362%?&, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; %# ?"&
'"(?1 &" 3)"#4<(&4, 2?1 82;, %? 2 3)"34) 4J4)<%#4 "5 1%#<)4&%"?, #&%66
1%#233)" 4 &+4 <"8362%?& B+"66; 5") 3"6%<; )42#"?# (<+ 2 3"6%<;
14<%#%"? %# #('D4<& "?6; &" 2? 2'(#4 "5 1%#<)4&%"? #&2?12)1 '; &+4
)4 %4B%?* <"()& 44 "88"?B426&+ 94?I, #(3)20 "88"?B426&+
)%&<+2)1, #(3)2 +4)4, 2# +4)4, &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# 1%#233)" 26
%# '2#41 "? 2 64*26 2##4##84?& "5 &+4 4 %14?<4 <"?&2%?41 %? &+4
<"8362%?&, &+4 233)"3)%2&4 64*26 #&2?12)1 5") 2##4##%?* &+2& 4 %14?<4
%# B+4&+4) 4?"(*+ 52<&# 2)4 2664*41 %? &+4 <"8362%?& &" 4#&2'6%#+ 2
3)%82 52<%4 <2#4 "? &+4 <+2)*4# <"?&2%?41 &+4)4%? 2?1 ?"& B+4&+4) &+4
52<&# #4& 5")&+ <2? '4 3)" 4? '4;"?1 2 )42#"?2'64 1"('& 4 <"?<6(14
&+2& &+4 1%#233)" 26 "5 2334662?&C# <"8362%?&# '; &+4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4; 2?1 &+4 "()& "5 "88"? 642# B2# <"))4<& &" &+4 4J&4?& &+2&
&+4 52<&# 2664*41 %? &+4 <"8362%?& 1%1 ?"& 4#&2'6%#+ 2 3)%82 52<%4
<2#4 %?266;, 2# &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; )43)4#4?&# &+4 "88"?B426&+ %?
<)%8%?26 3)"#4<(&%"?#, ?" %834)8%##%'64 <"?56%<& "5 %?&4)4#& 2)"#4 2#
2 )4#(6& "5 &+4 1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4;C# 4J4)<%#4 "5 +%# 1(&; &" )4 %4B &+4
<)%8%?26 <"8362%?&# %? &+%# <2#4 <<")1%?*6;, B4 255%)8 &+4
1%#233)" 26 "5 2334662?&C# 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?&#
)14)# 255%)841
. %#3"#%&%"?
. 55%)841
3%?%"? ""&?"&4#
.! F5? / 2 K$ .
4#%#&%?* 2))4#& ") "&+4) 62B 4?5")<484?& 34)#"? <"88%&# 2

8%#14842?") "5 &+4 #4<"?1 14*)44 %5, B%&+ &+4 %?&4?& "5 3)4 4?&%?* 2
3('6%< #4) 2?& 5)"8 4554<&%?* 2 62B5(6 2))4#& ") 1%#<+2)*%?* 2?; "&+4)
1(&;, &+4 34)#"? <)42&4# 2 #('#&2?&%26 )%#= "5 '"1%6; %?D(); &" &+4
3('6%< #4) 2?& ") 2?;"?4 46#4, ") 4836";# 842?# D(#&%5;%?* ")
)4E(%)%?* #('#&2?&%26 5")<4 &" " 4)<"84 &+4 )4#%#&2?<4
. F5?! 44 ? 4 ""1, 2 (34) $ >, ./! !1 /.

+"61%?* &+2& 2 3)% 2&4 34)#"? +2# #&2?1%?* &" 233426 B+4)4 &+4
1%#&)%<& 2&&")?4; 1%#233)" 4# &+4 3)% 2&4 <)%8%?26 <"8362%?& 2?1 &+2&
14<%#%"? %# )4 %4B41 '; 2 "()& "5 "88"? 642#, 3()#(2?& &"
2 )%8 9 %% , 21 4)#46; &" &+4 3)% 2&4 <"8362%?2?& 0
2<<")1 "88"?B426&+ ()"#=%, $! 2 (34) $, $ - !1 ! /-
4? '2?< "832)4 "88"?B426&+ 266";, . 2 (34) ! >, .$
!1 -/ /! +"61%?* &+2& &+4 %<&%8 "5 2? 2664*41 <)%84 62<=# &+4
2(&+")%&; 2?1 3"B4) &" 233426, B%&+"(& &+4 <"?#4?& "5 &+4 1%#&)%<&
2&&")?4;, 2 D(1%<%26 14&4)8%?2&%"? 1%#8%##%?* 2 <"8362%?& 5") 52%6()4
"5 &+4 3)"#4<(&%"? &" 4#&2'6%#+ 2& &)%26 2 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4
.. F5? )"'2'64 <2(#4 %# 145%?41 2#7
42#"?2'64 <2(#40 +2 %?* 8")4 4 %14?<4 5") &+2? 2*2%?#& )42#"?2'64

*)"(?1 5") '46%45 %? &+4 4J%#&4?<4 "5 52<&# B2))2?&%?* &+4 3)"<441%?*#
<"8362%?41 "5 ? 2332)4?& #&2&4 "5 52<&# 5"(?1 &" 4J%#& (3"?
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2657
415ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
)42#"?2'64 %?E(%); &+2& %#, #(<+ %?E(%); 2# &+4 *% 4? <2#4 )4?14)#
<"? 4?%4?& 2?1 3)"34) , B+%<+ B"(61 %?1(<4 2 )42#"?2'64 %?&466%*4?&
2?1 3)(14?& 82? &" '46%4 4, %? 2 <)%8%?26 <2#4, &+2& &+4 2<<(#41
34)#"? +21 <"88%&&41 &+4 <)%84 <+2)*41, ") %? 2 <% %6 <2#4, &+2& 2
<2(#4 "5 2<&%"? 4J%#&41 962<=C# 2B %<&%"?2);, $&+ 1 >
.$ F5?. G 3)%82 52<%4 <2#4 <"?#%#&# "5 #(55%<%4?& 4 %14?<4 %?

&+4 &;34 "5 <2#4 &" *4& 362%?&%55 32#& 2 8"&%"? 5") 1%)4<&41 4)1%<&
%? 2 D(); <2#4 ") 8"&%"? &" 1%#8%## %? 2 ?"?@D(); <2#4 G 962<=C# 2B
%<&%"?2);, .&+ 1 >
.- F5?$ +4 &4)8 G'()14? "5 3)""5G 4?<"832##4# &B" #432)2&4

'()14?#0 &+4 '()14? "5 3)"1(<%?* #2&%#52<&"); 4 %14?<4 "5 2 32)&%<(62)
52<& %? %##(40 2?1 ! &+4 '()14? "5 34)#(21%?* &+4 &)%4) "5 52<& &+2&
&+4 52<& 2664*41 %# %?1441 &)(4 < ")8%<= "? %14?<4 K - 2& .!$@!-
.&+ 1 ! ? 2 <)%8%?26 &)%26, &+4 3)"#4<(&%"? +2# &+4 '()14? "5
34)#(21%?* &+4 52<& 5%?14) "5 &+4 <)%8%?26 1454?12?&C# *(%6& '4;"?1 2
)42#"?2'64 1"('& 1 K . 2& ..$
.> F5?- +4 255%2?& )4E(4#&41 &+2& 2 B2))2?& "5 2))4#& '4 %##(41
5") &+4 3"6%<4 "55%<4)# "? &+4 5"66"B%?* <+2)*4#7
/ 2 K . ! 4)D(); 2 554?#4 145%?41 @@ 34)#"? %#

*(%6&; "5 34)D();, 2 546"?; "5 &+4 &+%)1 14*)44, %5 %? 2?; "55%<%26
3)"<441%?* +4 82=4# 2 526#4 #&2&484?& (?14) "2&+ ") 4E(% 264?&
255%)82&%"?, ") #B42)# ") 255%)8# &+4 &)(&+ "5 2 #&2&484?& 3)4 %"(#6;
8214, B+4? &+4 #&2&484?& %# 82&4)%26 2?1 +4 1"4# ?"& '46%4 4 %& &" '4
&)(4 / 2 K. 26#4 #B42)%?* 2 26#4 #B42)%?* %?
"55%<%26 82&&4)# @@ 34)#"? B+" 82=4# 2 526#4 #&2&484?& (?14) "2&+ ")
4E(% 264?& 255%)82&%"?, ") #B42)# ") 255%)8# &+4 &)(&+ "5 #(<+ 2
#&2&484?& 3)4 %"(#6; 8214, B+4? +4 1"4# ?"& '46%4 4 &+4 #&2&484?& &"
'4 &)(4 %# *(%6&; "5 2 8%#14842?") "5 &+4 #4<"?1 14*)44 %57 &+4
526#%5%<2&%"? "<<()# %? 2? "55%<26 3)"<441%?* / 2 K
. . ?#B")? 526#%5%<2&%"? &" 2(&+")%&%4# 2 ? *4?4)26 @@ 34)#"?
<"88%&# 2 8%#14842?") "5 &+4 #4<"?1 14*)44 %5, B%&+ %?&4?& &" 8%#6421
2 3('6%< #4) 2?& %? 34)5")8%?* +%# "55%<%26 5(?<&%"?, +47 82=4#
2?; B)%&&4? 526#4 #&2&484?& B+%<+ +4 1"4# ?"& '46%4 4 &" '4 &)(40
/ 2 K . - 26#4 )43")&# &" 62B 4?5")<484?& 2(&+")%&%4#
2 26#46; %?<)%8%?2&%?* 2?"&+4) @@ 34)#"? B+" =?"B%?*6; *% 4#
526#4 %?5")82&%"? &" 2?; 62B 4?5")<484?& "55%<4) B%&+ %?&4?& &"
%836%<2&4 2?"&+4) <"88%&# 2 8%#14842?") "5 &+4 #4<"?1 14*)44 '
%<&%&%"(# )43")&# @@ 34)#"? <"88%&# 2 8%#14842?") "5 &+4 &+%)1
14*)44 %5 +47 )43")&# &" 62B 4?5")<484?& 2(&+")%&%4# 2? "554?#4 ")
"&+4) %?<%14?& B%&+%? &+4%) <"?<4)? =?"B%?* &+2& %& 1%1 ?"& "<<()0 ")
/ 2 K$ '#&)(<&%?* 218%?%#&)2&%"? "5 62B
34)#"? <"88%&# 2 8%#14842?") "5 &+4 #4<"?1 14*)44 %5 +4
%?&4?&%"?266; "'#&)(<&#, %832%)# ") 34) 4)&# &+4 218%?%#&)2&%"? "5 62B
") "&+4) *" 4)?84?&26 5(?<&%"? '; 5")<4, %"64?<4, 3+;#%<26
%?&4)54)4?<4 ") "'#&2<64, ')42<+ "5 "55%<%26 1(&;, ") 2?; "&+4)
(?62B5(6 2<&, 4J<43& &+2& &+%# #4<&%"? 1"4# ?"& 2336; &" 56%*+& '; 2
34)#"? <+2)*41 B%&+ <)%84, )45(#26 &" #('8%& &" 2))4#&, 52%6()4 &"
34)5")8 2 64*26 1(&; "&+4) &+2? 2? "55%<%26 1(&;, ") 2?; "&+4) 842?#
"5 2 "%1%?* <"836%2?<4 B%&+ 62B B%&+"(& 255%)82&% 4 %?&4)54)4?<4 B%&+
*" 4)?84?&26 5(?<&%"?# / 2 K$ 55%<%26 "33)4##%"?
34)#"? 2<&%?* ") 3()3")&%?* &" 2<& %? 2? "55%<%26 <232<%&; ") &2=%?*
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2658
416ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
21 2?&2*4 "5 #(<+ 2<&(26 ") 3()3")&41 <232<%&; <"88%&# 2 8%#14842?")
"5 &+4 #4<"?1 14*)44 %5, =?"B%?* &+2& +%# <"?1(<& %# %664*26, +47
#('D4<&# 2?"&+4) &" 2))4#&, 14&4?&%"?, #42)<+, #4%I()4, 8%#&)42&84?&,
1%#3"##4##%"?, 2##4##84?&, 6%4? ") "&+4) %?5)%?*484?& "5 34)#"?26 ")
3)"34)&; )%*+&#0 / 2 K )%8%?26 <"?#3%)2<; 2
45%?%&%"? "5 <"?#3%)2<; @@ 34)#"? %# *(%6&; "5 <"?#3%)2<; B%&+
2?"&+4) 34)#"? ") 34)#"?# &" <"88%& 2 <)%84 %5 B%&+ &+4 %?&4?& "5
3)"8"&%?* ") 52<%6%&2&%?* %&# <"88%##%"? +47 2*)44# B%&+ #(<+
"&+4) 34)#"? ") 34)#"?# &+2& &+4; ") "?4 ") 8")4 "5 &+48 B%66 4?*2*4
%? <"?1(<& B+%<+ <"?#&%&(&4# #(<+ <)%84 ") 2? 2&&483& ") #"6%<%&2&%"?
&" <"88%& #(<+ <)%840 ") ! 2*)44# &" 2%1 #(<+ "&+4) 34)#"? ")
34)#"?# %? &+4 362??%?* ") <"88%##%"? "5 #(<+ <)%84 ") "5 2? 2&&483&
") #"6%<%&2&%"? &" <"88%& #(<+ <)%84 - "(?&#
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2659
417ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Case 3:03-cv-06113-SRC-TJB Document 11 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
|
GEORGE ALLEN WARD, Pro Se, |
|
Plaintiff, | Civ. No. 03-6113 (SRC)
v. |
| OPINION
ARM & HAMMER and the |
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., |
|
Defendant. |
____________________________________|
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Church & Dwight Co., Inc.s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
grant Defendants motion and dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Ward is currently serving a 200 month sentence in the Petersburg Low Federal
Institution in Virginia for the distribution of crack cocaine.
Plaintiff filed this civil action against Defendant Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Church &
Dwight), the manufacturer of Arm & Hammer baking soda. Plaintiff asserts that Church &
Dwight should be held liable for failing to include a warning on the package regarding the
consequences of criminally misusing baking soda with cocaine to manufacture crack cocaine.
Plaintiff contends that in addition to the five (5) warnings currently on boxes of Arm &
Hammer baking soda, Church & Dwight should have included a warning to the effect that the
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2660
418ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
use of baking soda with illegal drugs is prohibited and punishable by law.1 Plaintiff further
contends,I feel [that] if I was forewarned by this company that Id never [have] used this
product like I was charged with .... (Pl. Complaint at 2).
DISCUSSION:
A. Motion to Dismiss Standard
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) all
allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc.,
v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 1998); Robb v. Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286,
290 (3d Cir. 1984). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
court may consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public
record, and undisputedly authentic documents if the plaintiffs claims are based upon those
documents. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d
Cir. 1993). If, after viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, it appears beyond doubt that no relief could be granted under any set of facts which
could prove consistent with the allegations, a court shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state
a claim. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Zynn v. ODonnell, 688 F.2d 940,
941 (3d Cir. 1982).
In the case of a pro se litigant, the court must find that it is clear beyond doubt that the
1
Plaintiffs suggested warnings are, the use of this product with illegal drugs is
punishable by law and is prohibited and the use of this product with illegal drugs is punishable
by enhanced penalties by the laws of the United States of America. (Pl. Complaint at 3)
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2661
419ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
Zynn v. ODonnell, 688 F.2d 940, 941 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
521 (1972)).
B. Duty to Warn of the Consequences of Criminal Misuse of Products
Nowhere in his complaint or response brief does Plaintiff assert that he was unaware that
distribution of crack cocaine was unlawful or that ingestion of crack cocaine was harmful.
Indeed, Plaintiff in his response brief implies that it is common knowledge that misuse of baking
soda with cocaine may be harmful.2 Furthermore, under New Jersey law, citizens are charged
with knowledge of the law, including the criminal laws. See, e.g., State v. DeMeo, 20 N.J. 1, 9
(1955). It follows that Church & Dwight had no duty to warn Plaintiff of that which he knew,
and that which the law already charged him with knowing.
Additionally, the law is clear that manufacturers have no duty to warn of the potential
consequences for criminal misuse of their products. As the Third Circuit stated in Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., manufacturers have no duty to prevent a
criminal misuse of their products which is entirely foreign to the purpose for which the product
was intended.3 Plaintiff himself acknowledges and concedes that baking soda is not a product
that its primary designed, is intended for the production for illegal drug use or distribution. [sic]
2
See, e.g., Pl. Response Br. at 14 (Crack Cocaine is still the most crazy and dangerous
street drug labeled by society today known to man.); Pl. Response Br. at 15 (The word when it
comes to baking soda is, yea he crazy he got Soda in him that means Cracked out! Thats the
image, so the gesture that Baking Soda is a quote, benign product is Old Archaic. [sic])
3
189 F.3d 305, 313 (3d Cir. 1999).
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2662
420ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
(Pl. Complaint at 2)(emphasis added). Plaintiff contends though, that it can not be said that the
use of this product to make Crack Cocaine is foreign anymore, this is well established knowledge
that is a commercial product now for years. (Pl. Response Br. at 11). However, the court in Port
Authority stated that the manufacturer of a raw material or component part that is not itself
dangerous has no legal duty to prevent a buyer from incorporating the material or part into
another device that is or may be dangerous. 189 F.3d at 313.
To require Church & Dwight to warn customers of potential criminal consequences for
the intentional misuse of baking soda would be analogous to requiring that all automobile
manufacturers place warnings on their products to the effect that you may be subject to
punishment if you use the cars for illegal drag-racing. Although the manufacturers in both
instances may be aware of the products potential for misuse, this itself does not give rise to a
duty to warn of the criminal consequences of such unintended activities.
CONCLUSION:
Having taken into account the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, the
Court is satisfied nonetheless that it is clear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.4 For the foregoing reasons, the
4
In addition to Plaintiffs failure to state a claim, the complaint must be dismissed as
untimely under the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury products liability claims.
See, N.J.S.A. 2A: 14-2. Plaintiff pleads in his complaint that he was sentenced for distribution of
crack cocaine on March 7, 1995. (Pl. Complaint at 1). This lawsuit was filed on or about
December 18, 2003. It is of no avail that Plaintiff avers in his response brief that it was just a
year or so [ago] when it was revealed to the plaintiff that it is not the cocaine hydrochloride
powder that was causing the harm and wrong the silent party that is responsible is Arm &
Hammer Baking Soda Co. (Pl. Response Br. At 8). Under New Jersey law, a cause of action
accrues when an injured person discovers, or should have discovered by the exercise of
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2663
421ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
Court will grant Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claim with prejudice.
s/
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
Dated: October 21st, 2004
reasonable diligence and intelligence, that he might have a basis for an actionable claim against
another person. The statute of limitations begins to run once an individual has knowledge or
should have knowledge that he has sustained an injury which is or may be attributable to the fault
of another. Wade v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 746 F.Supp. 493, 499 (D.N.J.
1990)(internal citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiffs actual time of discovery of his alleged
basis for this action is immaterial, and the lawsuit was therefore time-barred.
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 2664
422ofof2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
! " ! ! # ! !
# " $ ! " " " " %
! " & ! !! " "
" "
! ' " "( )* * + , *

- !! " # $ ! " . !
" # . # . #
! " ! "
$ $ )) ) / 0 / 1 2 !!
/ *) 3 ),) ++ 4 5 , ) /
! ' ' " ! !$
/ 6 " 7 " "

" %5 # ! ! 8 " # "
& 1 3 7 " # # ,
) 91 99 " " ! : %5 . . # ! !
" ! . ! " ;&
' ! ! !!< "

" . .# / 6 " 7 "
" " %5 # ! ! 8 " #
" & 1 3 7 " #
# , ) 9 1 99 " " ! : %5
. . # ! ! " ! . !
" ;&
0 ,* $ " ,3 " ! : %' #

! " ! " " " !
" . ! ! " !
" " " !! "
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORT OF APPEAL Page
Page 274
No. ofof
423 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
! ! ( . " . " !
! ! " ! "
! ! ! " & , 3 00 9 9 = 3 >
)*= * 9 ) ) 0 : 9 3 00 , ? , ,)
,, 1 $ " $ , 3
/ " ' ( # ) 1 *) "
%@ ! " ! 0 ,*
# ! $ .#
@!! " < . ! #
!! " $ 9 3 0 ,*
$" 0 *9 0 ,) / / 4 ' - 1 1
"#
/ " ! 3 "( *, 1 **, "

. # ! " " .# ! :
%2 " " . " "# "
" < ! # . 8 " " "
" "# " " !! . !! "
!! . " " ! " ! & '
# ! , " "# " ? # /
A " . "
3 # 4 " "# # . .# " " "

.# " " " " !! " ! "
! " . . ! ! ! " ! ! "
6 "( B 6 - * ) 1 / "
! : % <
< " !! " " " " " "#
! < " .# .C " .
! " " " " !! "
" ) ++ 9
++ ! " ( . " #&
' " " " "# " # 4
/ " ! " " "# " ! "

# 4 !!
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 275
No. ofof
424 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" . ! ! " ! "
.# ! ! ! " C D
# . / " !3 "( *, 1
**, " . # ! " " .#
! : %2 " " . " "#
" " < ! # . 8 "
" " " "# " " !! . !!
" !! . " " ! " !
&
0 ,* $ " ,3 " ! : %' #

! " ! " " " !
" . ! ! " !
" " " !! "
! ! ( . " . " !
! ! " ! "
! ! ! " & , 3 00 9 9 = 3 >
)*= * 9 ) ) 0 : 9 3 00 , ? , ,)
,, 1 $ " $ , 3
' 1 " ?' ' )

! 1 / ?' " !!
C # C #
" " ! C #
!! = !!< . " #
!! # " . . . #
! ! " # 1 E / " B 5 ' #
7 . / " 7 E 9 )
$ * * : %3 ! # #
. ! # ! # ! !! #
" # "
# " #. C " " " &
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 276
No. ofof
425 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
' ! ! " # $ %& %" ' " #
! 3 ! " !
8 ! " " ! ! "
F $/ @ " .# " + ! @ F
" ! + . 4 B ?9) ,9 @" ) + $/ @
" ! ! ' , ! 3 , 3 0
,3 0 ,
/ . " " # " #
! " " !
G$ " G ' ! ! . 2 $ . - ( # ! " !
# H I
" '
#
$/ @ !! !
*6 $/ @ .
91 "
)$ ! "
58 (
(( )
3 $/ @ " # ! *) " J !
" , " J +?# ! 3
# . " " "
" . " "( ' ! # ! "( " .
! K ) +++ D " + # /
"( ! ! ? #.
! G "( " #G ' " " " "
!! ! 6 3 # " "
$/ @ ! ( ?
C " ! ! # ! ! . #
L ! ! " . '
! " ! # . ! " ' !
G . #G "
G "( G ' . G G ' !
!
' . ! ! "! .
! ' ( 1 " " (
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 277
No. ofof
426 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" 1 " :DD ? F " D 8 M
" N9,
" ' ' !! % % %" '
% $ %*% ) :
# " . ( .. # . . #
8 . " " . "
" " ! " + ! . " " "
" . . .# ! # =
# " " " . # ! "!" ! , !
3 . . # ! ! . FF
! . " . " ! C " # "( .
# " ! ?! ? " # " " " .
3 " , "
# . F " )+ "
. FF ! ! # !! ! " " "
8" " " ) ! ! !
" ! ! " " " "
. # " . " " "
! " + ! . " " . #
! 3 # " " " . "# 1
' " $ " # " " " . /
B # " " 9 - . "
" " 3
" , ! ! ! "
" . " " ! " " " ! ! ! "
# " " . # " ** . )
- =
" % $ %*% ) L " ! "( " #
! " "" ! !! " ! " ! "
"" # 8" # ! !
" ! " ! "( " #=
+ ,' (%$+ - ## % !
! $/ @ " " 8 . "( !
"" ! " ! $/ @ . . # "
" ! . " "
" . ! " ! "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 278
No. ofof
427 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" " ' $/ @ " . " "
" " . " !
" ( ! "
" ! " " !
? 4 " . " " " .
" . . ! # .# "
F " . "
" O " $/ @ " . ! " . #
D " " " . " " " !" "
# . ! . . . !
" ' # " !" # . !
(" ' ' '

@ B . ,+ 1 ( G1 FG ' ! B . .
" " $/ @ " / ,, ! 1 ' / " / "
# 1 " ! L * !
! $ "( P " 7 L C
" $/ @ "
" " # /$ /$
! ! !! . ! ! ! /$ ! C
# ! . .# 3 E # " " .#
" " !E . ! 1 P B 7 "
! 1 " ! " # " ! " F !
! O ! " )
! # 2
# ! /$ ""
" " . ! " " " / ++
! # ! E Q 58 . . ! "
$/ @ " E C 4 - . " - !
58 P !! # 4 " 4 . # "
! . ! ! /! ! #
E C 4 - . " . ! . ! K*++
' "
! # "" ! # 58 O 6 " "
/ # . ! "
6 ( " ' .# !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 279
No. ofof
428 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
4 ! 1 E " !" ! " .
! 6 ! 58
. " !! " # " " ( # !! $/ @
" " "
C " ? . " # " # . "( ""
. " " / ++) ' # ! @
. ! ! " $ " .# $/ @
$/ . " " "
" 8 ! " " @ @
++ E ( / / " 6 "
" " !" ! " ! $/ @ E (/
# ! $/ @ ' " "
E ( / " " " O O
" . " $/ @
'
$/ @ :DD " D D " # D " :
7 " . ++9 $ ++ ?+*?
. % '
$/ @ " ! 3 #O 3 .
:DD " D " D D " ,D "R R+ R ,R +R/R +R
7 !' # O " "$ "
:DD " # . " D ++)D +D ? ? " ?! ?
. "(? $ !
:DD ( D ( D$ "( R/ ! " R R R@ F R "
: " S3 ! S@ F
" #
/ 0
' .# ! " L / " $" " " '
L . " L ! " !
" " / ! " ! $/ @ "
.# ! " :
%( " .%' % + -' " %(% %*% )1 '
# " " : " > $/ @ '
" 8 !" $/ @ " 5 # $/ @ " . . !
! " , 3 0 ' $/ @ " ! " "
" # "( " # $/ @ " " . . . " !
" " . ( " ! " " ! .
" # . ! ! " " #
" " ' . $/ @ " " . .
! " ! ' !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 280
No. ofof
429 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
# . " # ""
! . .# ! " !" #
# " ! " . " !" " "
" /! $/ @ " . # !
! " ( # .C " " "
" # ( ! .# $/ @ " . "
. " . . # ( "(. "( 8 . " ! C " " #
" " " .# !
!! '' ' " $ (2 " " '+" 2 %(% %*% )1 B #

$/ @ " . . " " # . " " "
G G ! " " # " " ? " " "
" " . " $/ @
" ' 3
" " " G G # ! #
" / . G G " " "
! " " .
! #. !! " #" ! " "
"" . ! ! !
' ! ! " ? =
! ? "" # ! # . C .#
" " # $/ @ " " " !
! " " # " %( ( ) - - ! -) + ' "
%(% %" ' % )" !%' "* ! " '" - ) '+" ! + * !%' "* ! )"
% 3 ) " " (" ) ' $"1 E # ( " $/ @ "
.C " ! ' ! "
! $/ @ " . 3
! ?# ! "
$/ @ " $" O ! . "
" .# " C # E # .
! # " " " ?
@ " " . ! C # "
! # " ! " .
" " ! ! ! ! " !( C
' . L . " #
! ! /! ! ! #
" " ! " " O . #
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 281
No. ofof
430 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
! ! #. / " ! " G! #
/O ( # G # ! !
" . ! " " " .
" O " . ! ! ! !
! ! "( "
C # # C
@! " # " #
! " !# " " $/ @ "
/
+ ! ' %('
'/'45 * E@B5T B7 1/B B 5
3-'/'45 /// 1/B B / 4 E B 25E5B'
'5$ * 4 /E
3- '5$ /// 4 /E 2 /B ' ' 5 3B/'57 ' '5 2@U5$BE5B'
* 3 0* ?**
0* 1 "
0 * *+ " ! ! "
0* * 1 " "
0* * 1 " C "
0 * **
0* 1 "
4 . #! " " # ??
( # " . !! " # !
3 2 . ! 1 " ! 3
! ! " ! # =
( # ( " . ! "
! ! " .# 2 =
* " ! 2 .# ! ! "
=
9 " # " ! # # . .#
2 ! 2 ! # " "
# " . # !
" " " !" " =
) F ( " " !# " ! #
. .# 2 ! 2 (
" " #( ! "
=
( # . # " ! . . . " #
! !! " # ! 2 . ! 1 "
! # # #=
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 282
No. ofof
431 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
( # ( " . ! "
" " " . # #
# 2 . 3 2 ! "
# ! K) +++ K + +++ *
! " 2 . " ! " ! 8"
! " ! J
" ! . " ! !! " !
3 . ! ! " !
( " . *+ # ! "
! ! . ! =
- " ! # " # 2 ! "
=
" ! 3 ! .
" " " " "
" " " "
" ( ! 8 " ! " =
" # ! "
2 . " ! " !
. " . . 3 2 ! " ! "
" . " # " #
. V ( # ! 1 ! "
G( G G( #G " ! ??
" ( ! ! =
" . " ! ! # ! ! =
* " "( ! ! # ! ! !
! "!"
! L
" ! 1 ! " G" G " # L
" " ! # # "
" "
" ! 3 2 # ! #
# " L ! 2 . "
" " " ! # ! # #
" L
58 ! " # ! ! .
! . " . 8 ! " " )) ! )
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 283
No. ofof
432 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
58" ' " # " "
/ $ ! ,
0 * *+ " ! ! "
$ . ! # 2 ' # 2 #
" * /! # 2 !
" * # 2 # .
" " "
. " .#
# . " " ! ! " * !
! 3 2 ' " . . !
2 '
" # . # ! " # 2
" ! "
" # ! " " ! . #
" ! . 2
$ 9 9 ! 1 $ ! " ' "
. ! " ! + # .
! " ' 2 # "
" " + # ! " .
" " !
* ' 2 # ! " " ! 8 !
" " # " #

. .# !! . " ' !
. L # " ! " + # !
"
! $ 9 ! 1 $ ! "
9 - ! 8 ! +? # # 8 .
*
2 ??
" " " " " . " " .#
2 =
- !# " " ( " " "
.
" " " "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 284
No. ofof
433 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
) 6 . " . "
2
# . " . ! " #
"
" $ ! L "
/! 2 " " #
. # ! " " . . .# " !
. " " " #
" .C " !
' 2 # " .C " !
" ! . ! .# 2 !
! ! " #!
- ' 2 # " !
.C " ! " ! " !
! L .
" " " 3 ! " " #. "
3 .# 2 " "
" ! .# " !
# # 2 O " ! " .
! ! " # "
O " " ??
. ! #" =
! # ! " =
O " ? 8 ! =
" .#
7 3 .# ! " "
" ! .# " . ! !
" ! . " # 8
" # " .#
* /! 2 " " "
" " " " /! 2 L
. " ! ! " .
" ! " 2 O 8 6
" " " !
" # 2
! "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 285
No. ofof
434 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 6 2 " " .#
2
" " ! " # .# " !
2 O " ! " "
! ! " " # # " " # ! !
+ # " . " " " ' " #
8 +? # !
" 2 " "
" . " # " # " "
!
" " "
) B . " . 2 # " "
# # . 2 " #
" " # # /! # "
# " "
" " " ! "
" " #! !! " " " !
" " . " ! . " "
" " 1 ! " "
! " " ! ! . ! #
" ! 3 ! ! ! "
" ! " " 8 ! ! " "
.C " C "
L !!
/! 2 " " . .# . "
. " .C " " " ! "
) " .
) " ! " ! " ! "
8 " . # " .
" ! " 6 " " " ! . .
# " ! "!" ! ! .#
. " " "
" " 2
H2 I "" @!! " !
" # " " . "
+ " ! " ( "" !" " !
! !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 286
No. ofof
435 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
. " " " # #
! " " ! . ! " #

" " ! . 8 " "
! . " # " . # O! "
" 8 ! " . !
/! 2 " " "
. " " " " "
" . ! " " " # '
. ) " *+ " ! " !
" . ! " " "
" ! . 8 " " ! .
" # " . # O ! " " 8
! " . !
* 6 2 " " ! " !
" . .# ! "
* " " . " # 8 "
" " ! " ! " "
" ! . " (
"" ! " " #
" " " /! . "
" " ! " " " ! ! "
* . ! " " " #
! " ! " " C " !
3 " " .# 7 !P "
9 /! 2 " " .
" " " " " # ! .
# O ! 8 ! ! " "
! " ! . " " # ! " #
8 . #! !
" .
B " C " " . .# !
. ! ! " . " . ! " .
! ! " ! " O " ! "
B " C " " . . " .
E . ! . ! C " # 8 "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 287
No. ofof
436 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
. " !! " ! " . " ! (
2 " .
- 1 ! G 8 " . " !! " G #
!! " # , ! " + ! !
5 " 2 " !
, )3
* / # . " . " . " .
" " .C " ! "
" # # " " 2 #
#
9 B " C " " " .
. " " ! " " "
" 2 H2 I
"" @!! " !
" . .# # 2 .
" " ! !
- 1 ! G " G
" ( ! ! "
. #
! 2 . ! ! " "
" . !
! 2 . ! " 8 ' 2 . !
8 " " . " "
1 8 ! / " " .
" .# 3 ! " 9 ! , #
# # "
# " " !
# .# # . " ! ! " .# #
. ! ! # ! " ! " "
" ! ! #! " " !
. ! " . ! " # (
# " ! " #
" # . ! "
! . "( # . "( # " ! # "
! " " " .
# O ! # # . " " " !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 288
No. ofof
437 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
3 ! ! . " 0 * * 1 "
"
. H . I L " !
" " " * *+ ! # . # " 3
. " " " * *+ # . . ??

# ! " ! " *
"
* # ! ! " ! "
( .# . ( .# !! " ! 3
" . # " " " " . +
# ! " " " ""
" / # " . " * *+ 3 . L
! " ! " " .#
" ! "
B # ! 1 $ !
" 1 $ ! 5 " ! C ! !
3 # " " " ! !
" ! !
# " ! ! #
! !! # " " "
" " " . . " . ! "
* *+
0* * 1 " C "
" " * *+ # " " * *+ # . .
#C " " " ! " ! ! #
! " . ! " . " # "
" . .# " * "" L .# 1 $ !
" . .# " " #
" 3
. ' " " C " # "
. ! # ! " # !! .# "
! " ! " "" " "
. " * *+ 0 * **
/
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 289
No. ofof
438 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
/ " " 6 # 2 .
# #. " # " ! # " #
! ! " # 2 #
. ! " " " " " * *+ ! "
" . " "
L " ??
" " " # ! " " #
- " " " #
!
#" " " " # !
7 ! #" . ! " #
' # 2 # # "
. " 6 " 8
! # " ! " # # 2 7 # #
2 # 2 " . #
F .# " " # ! " !
" # . !# "
! " " " #
5 " "
! " " " ! ! " "
" . ! .
- /! " ! " ! " # ?
" . " " ! " # . " "
! " # " . ! # ! =
" . ! " " " " .
! " # . .
. ! " " # =
!# ! " " .
.
/! " ! ??
! "!" # . =
" . " .
. =
!# ! " " .
.
7 /! " ! ! # ??
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 290
No. ofof
439 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" . " " # . " " =
!# ! " " " 8
" " ! " 8 . . =
" !# " " # " # " " !
=
!# " ! . "" .#
# #
=
" . ! " .
! # " # ! L # " .
(
5 # " " " 8
! # " ! " # . . +
# ! " # ! " . !
" # .
1 ' " . ! " " ! # "
" . "
# ! " " #2
#2 .# #2
8" " " " " " " ! "
# !
2 ' #2 F " " !
" ! # .#
L # 2 !
! ! #
" # ' # 2 # " ) + ! ,
F ! " .# # !! " # "# ! #
! " #2 .
. " !
/ " . " #
L " ! # " # . ! #
! # # ! "
# . " ! " ??
" . . . " " .#
" ! 3 C # =
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 291
No. ofof
440 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
- " . " # L 1 $ !
" 8 " ! " # "
" ! "
5!! " # " " 8
! # " ! " # # "
! " " ! "
" ! " # # 7 " ! # " ! " #
# " 8 " ! #
" ( " " # . (
" # !
" " =C "
-# #" . " #
. .# ! " .# 3
# #
" C " ! #" ! 3
" ! " # " # !
. " C #. # !
C " ! # " ! 3 " 1 $ !
" " . ! " ! " # ' 8
" ! 3 " C " # " "
" 3 7 " ! 7 " ! .
C " ( # " " " " "
.# # " " " ! " #
C " ! " "
"
4 " ! # " . "
! # ! . " C # .
" " # .#??
8 " " # ! " # 8 "
!! " ! "
" # # F .# .#
" " ! " . ! ! " " "
#=
- 8 " " # ! " " !! "
" !. ! " " #=
8 " " # ! " 3
.# " ! " L
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 292
No. ofof
441 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" " " # " !! " " !
.
B " ! # " #. #
.#??
8 " " # ! " =
- 8 " " # ! " 3
.# " ! " L
O " " !! " " !.
! ! " ! .# # "
. " # ! . " C
! ! " " . ! ! " " / " ! "
.# " ! " . "" .#
!! " " ! # ! "
! 7 " #
" !" ' " ! " # "
" .
" !" " ! .#??
" ! "
- " ! (
! ! " " " " " " F "
. ! ! " ' " !" ! " #
L .# " # " !
" . " . !
" !
" ! # # "
! " ! " # . "
( " . ! " " # ! "
! " " " ! . ! "
" " ! "
! # " . " # "
. " C " . .
"! " " ! "
# " . " # .
! " . " ! !
# ! "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 293
No. ofof
442 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
/ 5 " # "
" . # ! # .
. " !" " ! .#??
" ! "
" !
. ! " # /! # # .C "
! .C " . " !" ! '
" !" ! L .#
" # " ( !
" . . ' 8 # ! !
! . ! ! " #
# ! !
@ 8
" ' 8 ! # "
! # " . ( . ! !! "
F !! .# ! 3
! " 8 ' !! " . ! #
. ( !! # .#
" " ! !! " !! " O " "
# ! ' # . ( " #
. " . 6 # ! # " . !! " . !
# ( # " # ! " ! #
" ' . " " ( ! # .# #
F .# " 1 $ !
"
' ! " " " 8
8" ! " 8 8"
# # ! # !
# #! 2 # #
. .# # ! 2
# !! " . ! # . ( #
( " #
* 6 # ( ' # ! # (
" " . ( C "
" ! 3 " " ! "
. " " # . .# ! "
" " 8 "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 294
No. ofof
443 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 ' " ! # 6 # ! # " . ! "
!! " . ! # ( !!
# . "" .# " . # 8
" " 8 .#
# " ! . " " (
. ! " .# !! " ! "
! .# ! ( "
" ' " . .#
" . ! ! /! "
.# *+ # ! . !! .
# 8 !! " ! "
" ! " ! . " !
! ! # !
) !" # " ' !! " . ! #
( " !# " .# !! "
" " ! # .#
!! " ! " # "
" .# " ! "
1 " ! " .# 3 # ! .
" ! ! " ! " # !
" # 8" #2 7 # #
2 #2 # ! " "
" ! !! " " ! O #
" ! #
# " ! # "
. " #. ""
.# " # " " ! " " #
L ( ! " " " # .C " "
#L . !# ! " !
.C " .C " # . " "
" " ! L
! # " "
!? " " # .C "
! # L # " # "
8 /! " ! # L
#. ! " " ! 3 . " C
! " " " L
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 295
No. ofof
444 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
- /! " ! # L !
!? " # ! " # . "
"" " ! U ! ,H ,3 00 ++ LI
, 6 ! " # ! #
" . " .
! " " " " ! 3
! " "
7 ' # 2 ! "
" ! " #
" ! # " " "
! " # 2 !
. " # "
$ . #! = "
! " " # " #
" ! # "
" ' " ( # " ! "
" . . ! ! !
! " # 9
- ' " # " ! " " ! " " #
" ! # # .
L ! !! " .# # ! " !! "
# ! 7 ! P " F ! "
" # 2 "
" #. .# # " F ! "
!! " # " " ( ! #
"
58" . " " #
" ! # " !
! " . . ! 8 .# #
! " !! " # !
7 !P " F . - ' .
" " . # ! "
# ! " .# " "
" " ! # " ! " # "
8 ! " " .# !
" # . B .
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 296
No. ofof
445 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" " # " ." !
# "# ! 3 ! .# " "#
! " ! # . 7 " ! ! # "
"# . # " .# # 2
3 " " . ! !
! .# " "# ! " ! # .
7 6 ! " " .
" #2 " . ??
" # . . !
8 .# " " .#
! F .# 8 "
=
" ! # . . ! 8 .#
" " # .# ! F .#
8 " "
* 3 ! " " 6 #
# ! 7 ! P " . . ! #
" C # 1 "# #" " " ! #
" # " ! #
" " # " # "
" ! !! " " " # " " " "
# . L 3 " ! # " "
" " # " # "
" " " ! " "
C # "# " " ! " "
"
9 ! ! /! # " # . "
.# # " ! # ! " "
" ??
# " " . ! " C # ! "
# " . ! # 1 "# "
. "
- " " " " #. . " "
. ! " ! 8 # !
" # ! . " ! "
" L ! "
" " # " " !
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 297
No. ofof
446 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
! " . " ! !
7 !P " - " "
! #" C # "# " " ! " "
"
) ! "" " / ! . #
! " 7 ! P " ! " ! #
" # " ! #
" " "
! !! " ! ! " " ! . # ! " # "
! " " #2 #??
! " " ! "
"
- " "
# " ! # ! ""
# . ""
" "
. .# " O "
!! " 8" "" . . ! # !
" " "" . !
C P " "
! ! " 6 # ! " # # "
. " ! " # " #
" ! # L " " . "
! " # 2 # !
" " ! 3 ! # C " " " "
! " . " !
! " " ! ! " ! "
!#
# " "
. " # ! " " ! 3 ! C "
" " " ! " .
! " ! " !
! " !# "
/ " ! 8 ! # " !
" # !# " #. . #
" " ! 3 ! C " " " "
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 298
No. ofof
447 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" " " # . #
. . ! ??
+ # ! ! " ! "
# . ! "! "
" #. " . .# #! "
!
- ' " !# " " (
! .
#. . #! ! " #
! " #" !
"
7 "# ! " " # #
! ! " "
8" ! " # # !
. !
* !# ! " ! " #
/ " ! #" . " "
8 ! # " ! " # ! "
" # . # ! " " ! 3 !
C " " " " " " " # .
# ! " !
" ! ! ! " "
!# ! L " ! # "
" ! " # # . . ! ??
+ # ! ! " ! " #
. ! "! "
" #. " . .# #! "
!
- ' " !# " " (
! . #. . #! ! !
! " ! " # ! "
# " ! 7
"# ! " # # " "
! ! " "
9 L ! " .# " ! # "

# " " # " ! # " #
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 299
No. ofof
448 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
" " ! # .# #
" " # " . " "
" ! 8 ! # " ! " #
! " " # . #! " " !
3 ! C " " " !! " ! " "
" " ! ! " "
L ! " .# " ! # # " .#
"
) P " 6 # ! # " " ! 3
. " " " C "
" # . L
" # ! " #! . .C "
" ! , # . " ! # !
" .# #" . " ! "
" . # ! 1 $ ! " ' 1 $ !
" # # . " 8 "
" ! "
( 7 " 8 # " #
# # "
. " . 8 ! " " )) !
)
7 ! 1 ! " ??
G! " G ??
" " * * * =
- # " ! " ! ! " ! "
H " @" , I " . ( . 3
# " ! 3 # " # " # ! "
. . # ! " ! # !! " # ! 3 =
G! " G # L # " " .# #
! " ! ! " #
. # ! ! " =
* G! " G # #
# .# 7 !P " " # ! ! "
" # !! " # ! " # !! " # ! 3
" " ! " #
" " ! " =
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 300
No. ofof
449 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
9 G G # "
" # " # " . !
=
) G " # G " # " # ! # . (
" " " . "
" " "" . "
! # "
" # " " # " ! " #=
G" G " # # "
.# #2 . " =
G " ! " #G " ??
" ! # # "
! " ! # 8 "
. .# # ! " # # C " " !
=
- # # " " ! #
.
=
# 8 ! "" # .
Stan J. Caterbone
Page 301
No. ofof
450 2664
Wednesday June23,
7, 2016
2017
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
A LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF TORTURE, EXTORTION, AND THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Stan J. Caterbone

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 327-1566
JUNE 7, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
UPDATED ON WEDNESDAY MAY 24, 2017
___________________
JUNE 7, 2017
Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of
misconduct and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC
pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992).
Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the aid of
law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious
attacks on our person, our property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice
through the Courts, and some communications are a means of protecting our rights to
continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member of the media.
Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC
Scandal (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
_______________________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 327-1566
STAN J. CATERBONE
17-01233 BRIEF IN SUPPORT
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4521 of 1224
24 Wednesday June 7, 2017
FINANCIAL RESOURCES SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY MONTHLY BENEFIT

AMOUNT IS $1,379.00 NET PER MONTH AFTER DEDUCTING MEDICARE AND
SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE STAN J. CATERBONE has been collecting Social
Security Benefits for symptoms and illnesses as a direct result of the SYMPTOMS AND
ILLNESSES RELATED TO U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES since 2008,
and the Social Security Administration declared STAN J. CATERBONE PERMENENTLY
DISABLED on December 5, 2005; the date that STAN J. CATERBONE declared a victim of
24/7 synthetic telepathy. Stan J. Caterbone applied for benefits in April of 2009 and on
August 26, 2009 received a check for $21,456.00 REPRESENTING one year of
retroactive benefits, monthly benefits began in September of 2009 and MEDICARE
Benefits began in April of 2010. THE COMPLETE 200 PAGE CASE FILE IS AVAILABLE AND
HAS BEEN POSTED ON SEVERAL SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.
I) In May of 2015 Stan J. Caterbone's CASH RESERVES were approximately $60,000 in

various cash accounts. This fact is evidenced in the Application for Homeowners
Rehabilitation Program with the City of Lancaster. In January when the Trump
Administration entered the White House the cash reserves were approximately
$11,200.00.
The cash reserves have been depleted to approximately $5,000 through a systematic
and calculated program of vandalisms, thefts, fraud, and extortions. The Preliminary
Injunctions for Emergency Relief filed in Federal and State Courts are ATTEMPTS TO
MITIGATE these programs. Injunctions have been filed for the past 10 years in various
courts. See the Stan J. Caterbone Court CORECTED Matrix as of APRIL 18, 2017 for
details.
II) In 2005 Stan J. Caterbone filed a Chapter 11 Reorganization Bankruptcy Case in the
U.S Bankruptcy Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Reading, Pennsylvania,
Case No. 05-23059. The Chapter 11 case was filed exactly one week after filing in U.S.
District Court Case No. 05-2288. The purpose of the Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan
was to alert the creditors from 1987 to date that all accounts would be paid in full from
the future settlements from the claims of CATERBONE v. The Lancaster County Prison,
et.al., No. 05-2288. The initial bankruptcy plan was dismissed in August of 2011
without any resolution and without any creditors being paid any funds.
III) As the federal and state claims were litigated and preserved from ORDERS of the
U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Cases No. 07-4474 and 07-4475 in 2008, further
attempts to litigate all claims again became futile due to the efforts of the COINTELPRO
PROGRAM, which is responsible for the computer and electronic hacking, the
HARASSMENT Program, and ultimately the LANDMARK OBSTRUCTION OF PROCESS AND
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Cases.
IV) Finally a REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN was filed on February 7, 2017
for Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan 17-6015. Unfortunately, the case is again tied up in
APPEALS Courts awaiting resolution in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Case No. 17-01233, with Judge Edward G. Smith presiding.
THE INTERNET, COMPUTER, FILES, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES
I) The following capabilities have been seriously degraded or destroyed completely:
1. INTERNET CONNECTION AT 1250 FREMONT STREET DESTROYED (ATT HOTSPOT

SIGNAL JAMMED) FORCED TO USE THE LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY WHICH
COSTS TIME AND PARKING FEES, NOT TO MENTION THE HARASSMENT AND
HACKING PROGRAM THAT EXISTS AT THAT FACILITY, SEE CATERBONE v. Duke
Street Business Center, et.al., Case No. CI-08-13373 Which Is an OPEN Case.
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4532 of 1224
A. LOST ACCESS TO FEDERAL ELECTRONIC FILING PACER ACCOUNT (FORCED

TO TRAVEL TO FEDERAL COURTHOUSES IN PHILADELPHIA AND READING FOR
COURT DOCKETS AND TO FILE MOTIONS, EXHIBITS, APPEALS, ETC.,
B. LOST ACCESS TO EBAY, AMAZON, ETC., - CAN NO LONGER PURCHASE ITEMS AT
DISCOUNT COST IS IN THE THOUSANDS ALONE
C. LOST ACCESS TO COMCAST CABLE FRAUDULENT BILLING PRACTICES
D. LOST ACCESS TO PAID SOFTWARE ADOBE PDF PROFESIONAL; WORD, EXCEL
(FORCED TO USE GENERI FREE THIRD PARTY DUPLICATES)
E. SPORADIC ABILITY TO PRODUCE DVD'S COMPUTER HACKERS
F. INABILITY TO UPLOAD CRITIC DOCUMENTS TO SCRIBD.COM ACCOUNT FOR
PUBLIC VIEW
G. PRINTING CAPABILITIES WERE TAKEN AWAY IN OCTOBER OF 2016 WHEN
THE $500.00 COSTCO XEROX COPIER/SCANNER/FAX WAS VANDALIZED
FORCING TRIPS TO STATE STREET COPY IN HARRISBURG FOR $.06 PER PAGE.
H. IN FEBRUARY A CANNON B/W PRINTER WAS PURCHASED HOWEVER THE
SCANNER CAPABILITIES WAS DISABLED UPON PURCHASE FORCING THE USE
THE LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY WHICH COSTS TIME AND PARKING FEES,
NOT TO MENTION THE HARASSMENT AND HACKING PROGRAM THAT EXISTS
AT THAT FACILITY, SEE CATERBONE v. Duke Street Business Center, et.al.,
Case No. CI-08-13373 Which Is an OPEN Case
I. ALL WIRELESS HEADPHONE CAPABILITIES WERE LOST IN FEBRUARY OF 2017.
J. NO LESS THAN 5 SMARTWATCHES PURCHASED AT KOHLS HAD TO BE
RETURNED DUE TO COMPUTER HACKING SOMEONE DID NOT WANT THAT
ELECTRONIC DEVICE USED.
K. ON MAY 1, 2017 MY MOTOG SMARTPHONE WAS RENDERED USELESS WITH
ONLY CAPABILITIES TO READ EMAILS. ON MAY 1, 2017 I WENT TO COSTCO
WHERE I PURCHASED THE PHONE. COSTCO SAID THE 90 INSTORE
WARRANTY EXPIRED IN FEBRUARY AND THEY GAVE ME A CONSIERE
TECHNICAL NUMBER TO CALL FOR A REPLACEMENT. OF COURSE, WITHOUT
PHONE SERVICE, THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. ON MAY 3, 2017 I ACTIVATED MY
OWN ATT GOPHONE AT THE ATT STORE FOR $31.00 ON ROHRERSTOWN ROAD
AND THE STORE STAFF GAVE ME A PHONE NUMBER TO CALL MOTOROLA
WARRANTY DEPARTMENT FOR A NEW PHONE. ( I was busy finishing building
my bench seat storage locker under the patio so I did not make the calls right
away) SO NOW I HAD 2 OPTIONS FOR A REPLACEMNT, ATT WARRANTY
DEPARTMENT AND COSTCO CONSIERE TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT. THEY TOLD
ME THE PHONE WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY AND THEY WOULD SEND A
REPLACEMENT. AFTER 2 DAYS WITHOUT PHONE SERVICE I AT LEAST HAD
THAT. SO NOW I HAD 2 OPTIONS FOR A REPLACEMNT, ATT WARRANTY
DEPARTMENT AND COSTCO CONSIERE TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT.IN THE
EARLY MORNING OF MAY 4, 2017 MY ATT GOPHONE AND MY FLASH DRIVE
FOR LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT WAS STOLEN FROM MY HOME. I NOW AGAIN
HAVE NO PHONE SERVICE TO CALL AND GET MY REPLACEMENT FOR MY MOTO
G SMARTPHONE. On May 9, 2017 at COSTCO the KIOSK MANAGER, WHO
ORIGINALLY SOLD ME THE MOTO G PHONE, WAS ABLE TO GIVE ME THE
NUMBER TO MOTOROLA FOR A FREE REPLACEMENT UNDER THE WARRANTY.
THE ATT STORE ON ROHRERSTOWN ROAD GAVE ME A FABRICATED NUMBER.
L. ON THE EARLY MORNING OF TUESDAY, MAY 9, THE COMPUTER HACKERS
AGAIN DESTROYED MY 2 GB BACK-UP DRIVE, WHICH CONTAINED THE ONLY
COPY OF THE 9 GB THAT WAS FILED YESTERDAY IN THE U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR CASE NO. 17-1904. BEING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMPS
SISTER, ...TRUMP BARRY SITS ON THE U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT AND THE FACT
THAT THE CLERKS WOULD NOT PROVIDE ME WITH A METHOD TO GET A COPY
OF THE FLASH DRIVE WHEN I CALLED THEM TODAY, IT COULD VERY WELL BE
A MAJOR FORM OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION.
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4543 of 1224
II) SCANNING OF DOCUMENTS CAPABILITIES DESTROYED; FORCED TO USE THE

LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY WHICH COSTS TIME AND PARKING FEES, NOT TO
MENTION THE HARASSMENT AND HACKING PROGRAM THAT EXISTS AT THAT FACILITY,
SEE CATERBONE v. Duke Street Business Center, et.al., Case No. CI-08-13373 Which
Is an OPEN Case.
2. ANTENNA TV RECEPTION DEGRADED TO ONLY A FEW STATIONS DOWN FROM

11, NO MORE WGAL-TV 8, NO MORE NEWS BROADCASTS
3. SMARTPHONE NO MORE BOOKMARKED PDF CAPABILITIES, COMPUTER HACKED

24/7 WHILE SEARCHING DOCUMENTS, PHONE CALLS, CANNOT ANSWER ANY
PHONE CALLS GOES DIRECTLY TO MESSAGE
4. DOCUMENTS AND FILES CONSTANTLY ALTERED, MODIFIED, DELETED, AND/OR

STOLEN (On April 17, 2017 approximately 17 Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas CIVIL CASES WERE DELETED FROM THE COURT MATRIX AND HAD TO BE
ENTERED AGAIN INTO THE DATABASE)
5. FORCED TO ADD ANOTHER LOCKED CLOSET
LITIGATION AND COURT CASES
I) In January Stan J. Caterbone took the LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT HABEUS CORPUS
CASE, No. 14-02559 from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal Court to
the United States Supreme Court in Case No. 16-6822. The United States
Supreme Court Justices held CONFERENCE on Friday January 6, 2017 and
reviewed the case and DENIED the Petition to rehear the case. In February Stan
J. Caterbone was GRANTED VISITING PRIVLEDGES BY SUPERINTENDANT
HAYLETT AFTER SUBMITTING A PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE BACKGROUND
CHECK. THE VISITING PRIVLEDGES ARE OPEN ENDED.
II) IN ADDITION STAN J. CATERBONE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE LANCASTER
COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CI-17-00210 in SAVAGEv. BROWN,
et.al.,. DAVE BROWN IS THE CO-AUTHOR WITH LISA MICHELLE AMBERT OF THE
NEWLY RELEASED BOOK TITLED LOVE, MURDER, AND CORRUPTION
NLANCASTER COUNTY MY STORY. STAN J. CATERBONE HAS BEEN
COMMUNICATING WITH DAVE BROWN FOR ALMOST 10 MONTHS. STAN J.
CATERBONE ALSO SENT A REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION TO PRESIDENT BARRACH
OBAMA IN DECEMBER. IN MARCH STAN J. CATERBONE PAID FOR AND RECIEVED
AN APPLICATION FOR PARDON FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD IN
HARRISBURG AND WILL HAND DELIVER TO LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT IN THE
NEAR FUTURE IN FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTES.
III) In the same month, January of 2017 Federal Judge Yavette Kane in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg favorably overturned a MAJOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF, Case No. 16-2513, which
was dismissed by Federal Judge Martin Carlson and TRANSFERRED the Case to
the Eastern District in Philadelphia on January 31, 2017. Several phone calls
were made for the new DOCKET NUMBER to both the Middle and Eastern District
Clerk of Courts without success to obtain the new CASE DOCKET NUMBER. Finally
a trip to Philadelphia to the Eastern District Clerk of Courts, THE CASE WAS
FINALLY DOCKETED AFTER SITTING ON A DESK FOR ALMOST 4 WEEKS. The was
DOCKETED AS 17-0867 AND ASSIGNED TO FEDERAL JUDGE EDWARD SMITH, IN
EASTON, PENNSYLVANIA. On March 28, 2017 Judge Smith ARBITRARILY
DISMISSED the case, and on APRIL 12, 2017 JUDGE SMITH DID THE SAME FOR A
MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION, WHICH AFTER LEGAL REVIEW, PROVES AT
LEAST GROSS INCOMPETENCE AND MOST LIKEY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND
PUBLIC CORRUPTION. TOMMORROW THE CASE WILL BE APPEALED TO THE
UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4554 of 1224
IV) In 2005 Stan J. Caterbone filed a Chapter 11 Reorganization Bankruptcy Case in

the U.S Bankruptcy Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Reading,
Pennsylvania, Case No. 05-23059. The Chapter 11 case was filed exactly one
week after filing in U.S. District Court Case No. 05-2288. The purpose of the
Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan was to alert the creditors from 1987 to date that
all accounts would be paid in full from the future settlements from the claims of
CATERBONE v. The Lancaster County Prison, et.al., No. 05-2288. The initial
bankruptcy plan was dismissed in August of 2011 without any resolution and
without any creditors being paid any funds.
V) Stan J. Caterbone is currently the AMICUS for Former ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

PENNSYLVANIA, KATHLEEN KANE in Case No. 3576 EDA 2016 in the Eastern
District of the Superior Court. Briefs are due on June 16, 2017 by the KATHLEEN
KANE Legal Team, headed by Joshua Lock. As AMICUS, the COURT and ALL
PARTIES must copy all legal filings to Stan J. Caterbone.
VI) In the LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS there are 4 Civil Cases
DESIGNATED AS OPEN on the Court Dockets,
1. CI-16-08472 in CATERBONE v. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, et.al., an

INJUNCTION FOR PAIN MEDICATIONS;
2. CI-16-05815 in CATERBONE v. THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE, an INJUCTION
for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE now in the PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT with
ORAL ARGUEMENTS SCHEDULE FOR THE SUMMER OF 2017;
3. CI- 15-10167 in CATERBONE v. HOTEL BRUNSWICK, et.al., A Case for ANTI-
TRUST VIOLATIONS for the FILM AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY; and
4. CI-08-13373 in CATERBONE v. The Duke Street Library, et.al., a case involving

the early existence of COMPUTER HACKING, HARASSMENT, ETC.,
VII) SUMMARY APPEALS were filed in the LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS for
FABRICATED CRIMINAL TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS and FRUADULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS IN
2016 AND 2017. The most CORRUPT CASE WAS Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA October 28, 2016 when
the following occurred:
1. The Appeal was never DOCKETED BY THE CLERK OF COURT

2. THE $75.00 PNC BANK MONEY ORDER WAS EXTORTED
3. The FABRICATED CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS REMAIN ON THE RECORD
4. THIS CASE IS A CLASSIC VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, PUBLIC CORRUPTION,
EXTORTION, FALSE ARREST, AND PROVES THAT THE LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OPERATES AS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
VIII) STAN J. CATERBONE LETTER TO THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATORS

February 15, 2017
__________________________
FEBRUARY 15, 2017
To: PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATORS

Re: STATE OF AFFAIRS AND FOLLOW-UP TO ANTI-STALKING LEGISLATION EFFORTS
As you many of you know I have been visiting your legislative staff over the past 18
months on many occasions and distributing materials, including my proposed legislation for more
effective and comprehensive ANTI-STALKING laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Due to the severity of the HARASSMENT AND TORTURE PROGRAM that I am forced to experience
on a daily basis, and the continued ESCALATION by Lancaster City Residents, Neighbors, Law
Enforcement, Court Staff, Judges, and those of Elected Office, I find that I must again refresh your
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4565 of 1224
office staff with a renewed sense of urgency to hear my pleas for help, and serve as a voice of
others that are victims of the same said crimes, possibly by the same said perpetrators.
In order to UPDATE YOU WITH THE CURRENT-STATE-OF-AFFAIRS I am providing the following

updated documents via links in an effort to remind you of your responsibility to me as your
constituent and to others like me.
_________________________
PHYSICAL PAIN, TORTURE, AND CRIPPLING
I) The following is from Case No. CI-16-08472 in CATERBONE v. LANCASTER GENERAL

HOSPITAL, et.al., an INJUNCTION FOR PAIN MEDICATIONS filed in September of 2016;
The PLAINTIFF has used the following treatments and therapies to counter the pain and
suffering in the back and groin areas with success:
1. Spa Therapies, hot tubs and whirlpool baths
2. Message Therapies
3. Laser-Light Therapies
4. Stretching and basic excising
5. Walking
6. Bicycling
THE FOLLOWING MEDICAL DEVICES WERE USED AND/OR INSTALLED

7. Handicap Rails for basement toilet
8. Toilet Seat Riser in upstairs bathroom
9. Tommy Copper back and knee braces
10. Standard Walker
11. PennDOT Handicap Placard
12. Elevated Computer on Desk to stand while using the computer
13. Shoe Inserts
14. (2) - 3ft pickers used to retrieve objects without bending over
15. Memory Foam Adjustable Bed with Vibrating at the lower and upper
regions
III) Today Stan J. Caterbone's physical capacity from the TORTURE PROGRAM has been
so degraded that walking has become so degraded that:
1. Walking is so difficult that on most days after 50 or so steps resting is vital

2. Bicycling is impossible
3. Several times a week a WALKER is used in the basement
bedroom,office,laundry, bathroom
4. It is impossible to tie shoes, put on socks (socks have not been worn since the
Spring of 2016), clip to nails (Visits to the NAIL SALON at the Manor Shopping
Center has occurred for one year), bending over is impossible.
THE FACT THAT A SUPPLY OF PAIN MEDICATIONS AND THE HOT TUB FOR SPA THERAPY
COULD RESOLVE MOST OF THE ABOVE IS A LANDMARK TORTURE CASE.
IV) One week ago upon waking up the PROGRESSIVE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES WERE
STOLEN resulting in Stan J. Caterbone wearing 2 different RETAIL READING GLASSES.
V) ON APRIL 24, 2017 THE LANCASTER YMCA HAD AN OPEN HOUSE FOR ALL UMPC
MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES. I ATTENDED AND UNDER MY CURRENT PLAN A FREE YEAR
LONG MEMBERSHIP WAS ISSUED SO THAT I COULD FINALLY GET A REGULAR
WHIRLPOON SPA TREATMENT. I TRIED TO USE THE LANCASTER YMCA WHIRLPOOL SPA
ABOUT ONE YEAR AGO WITHOUT SUCCESS. I STARTED TREATMENTS IMMEDIATELY ON
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4576 of 1224
APRIL 24, 2017 AND HAVE GONE EVERYDAY, SOMETIMES THREE TIMES PER DAY.
HOWEVER IT WAS NOT WITHOUT A COST THE STALKING AND HARASSMENT MADE IT
ALMOST INNEFFECTIVE. ON THE EVENING OF MAY 3, 2017 THE STAFF AT THE
LANCASTER YMCA GOT DESPERATE AND PUT A CLOSED FOR MAINTENANCE SIGN ON
THE WHIRLPOOL SO NOW I AM NOT ABLE TO GET ANYMORE TREATMENTS. ON MAY 3
2017 I STARTED ANOTHER INSURANCE CLAIM TO UMPC FOR ANOTHER WHIRLPOOL SPA
FOR MY HOME, IDENTICAL TO THE CLAIM MADE TO HUMANA ON JUNE 20, 2016; WHICH
WAS ALSO THE BASIS FOR THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
FILED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2016. UNFORTUNATELY, JUDGE DAVID ASHWORTH, THE
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE ASSIGNED TO THE CASE
REFUSES TO ADJUDICATE EVEN THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION. IN NOVEMBER
OF 2016 I FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, STILL NO RULING IN THE
CASE.
VI) THE LANCASTER CENTER CITY YMCA HAS BEEN A MIRACLE FOR MY PAIN. I AM
TAKING 2 TO 3 WHIRLPOOLS PER DAY HOWEVER IT IS NOT WITHOUT A COST IT
HAS BECOME A CLUB OF SEVERE COMMUNITY STALKING AND HARASSMENT. ON
FRIDAY MAY 5, 2017 I WAS AMBUSHED BY THE LOCAL ATTORNEYS WITH
CONVERSATIONS ALWAYS BAITING ME TO TALK ABOUT MY FEDERAL
WHISTLEBLOWING ACTIVITIES, US SPONSORED MIND COTROL AND MY RESUME.
RESUME LIKE IT IS NOT FACTUAL. MOST PERPS OF ORGANIZED STALKING HATE THE
TRUTH, WHICH IS ONE REASON THEY DO WHAT THEY DO.
V)OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS I HAVE HAD THE FOLLOWING STOLEN FROM MY
HOME OR CAR:
1. $31.00 - GO PHONE WITH $31.00 ON THE ACCOUNT SINCE MY MOTO G

PHONE WAS RENDERED USELESS I PURCHASED A PREPAID ACCOUNT FOR
MY GO PHONE, SO THE PERPS STOLE THAT LEAVING ME WITHOUT PHONE
SERVICE FOR 4 OR 5 DAYS. I NEEDED THE GO PHONE TO CALL MOTOROLA
FOR MY WARRANTY REPLACEMENT.
2. $10.99 - LISA MICHELLE LAMBERTS FLASH DRIVE WITH 9 GB OF DATA
(RETURNED, WHICH IS A TACTIC USED SEVERAL TIMES)
3. $19.00 - ONE GRAB STICK USED TO PICK THINGS UP AND FOR DRESSING
4. $6.99 - COMBINATION LOCK FOR MY LOCKER AT THE LANCASTER CENTER
CITY YMCA
5. $300.00 - MAY 8, 2017 TO MAY 9, 2017: APPLE 60GB IPOD
6. $20.00 - SOCIAL SECURITY MASTERCARD DEBIT CARD- SECOND TIME IT
WAS ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSE OF PAST ON MILLERSVILLE PIKE AT THE
MANOR SHOPPING CENTER
7. $19.99 - SPORT EARPODS WITH MIC
8. $6.99 - PAINTING SCREEN
9. $39.99 - MAY 9, 2017 TO MAY 11, 2017 256Gigabyte Flash Drive
10.$6.99 - New Unopened Laundry Detergent
11.$3.99 - Star Drill bit for installing new DECK in backyard
12.$19.99 TOMMY COPPER BACK BRACE
13.$39.00 - MAY 21, 2017 RECIPRICATING SAW BLADES
14.$9.98 MAY 8, 2017 LOCKED OUT OF FRONT HANDLE REPLACEMENT
15.$3.98 MAY 19, 2017 DRIVER BITS FROM DRIVER IN SANTA FE
16.5.99 MAY 15, 2017 BURNED OUT FLOOD LIGHT
17.$20.00 MAY 2017 BURNED OUT BUG LIGHTS BACK AND FRONT
18.100.00 MAY 2017 SPOILED FOOD
19.$9.98 MAY 21, 2017 (2) LATCHES TO NEW SCREENDOOR FOR BACK
20.$30.00 MAY 23, 2017 BROKEN DVD PLAYER REPLACED AT WALMART
21.$30.00 MAY 24, 2017 2ND GO TO PHONE BROKEN REPLACED AT BEST
BUY ON MAY 24, 2017
22.$200.00 MAY 25, 2017 MY DAD'S DARK BLUE SUIT STOLEN
23.$50.00TZE GO PHONE
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4587 of 1224
24.$15.00READERS.COM BIFOCAL GLASSES

25.$8.00 OUTDOOR BUG LIGHT
26.$9.00 (2) FLOOD LIGHTS
27.$20.00 COPPER FRYING PAN
28.$20.00 (4) SCREENDOOR LATCHES, AGAIN
29.$200.00 YMCA CAR SCRAPING ($834 ESTIMATE, SETTLE FOR $200 DIY)
30.$200.00 PRINTING DUE TO LOCKED COMPUTER
31.$20.00 COPPER GRILL MATTS
32.
TOTAL $ 1,586.93 TOTAL
PREVIOUS CLAIMS OF VANDALISMS AND THEFTS FROM 2015
Dishwasher $476.00
Front and Back Door Locks $400.00
Apple Video Ipod $400.00
Bluetooth Headset for Phone $60.00
Hammer Drill $100.00
Reciprocating Saw $100.00
Iphone 5C $600.00
Screen Door Locks $30.00
Sleepy's Foam Memory Mattress and Base $2,300.00
Laptop Computers $800.00
Cost to Repair Computers from Hacking $400.00
Wet/Dry Vac $65.00
Cordless Phone $40.00
Cable Boxes and Modem $100.00
Sakrete 3 bags $12.00
Miscellaneous Clothes $100.00
Vapor Electronic Cigarettes 5 $280.00
HVLP Tips 2 $45.00
Staple Air Gun $30.00
Belt $9.00
36 X 100Ft of Black Screen $44.95
1 pair work gloves 9.99
_______
$6,466.94
CLAIMS FROM 2015 TO 2017 $5,000.00
APRIL AND MAY OF 2017TOTAL $ 1,586.93
TOTAL $13,052.94
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4598 of 1224
SOCIAL AND PUBLIC ACCESS

I) Community Stalking and Organized Libel/Slander Campaign Strategy Issue a few
FABRICATED NO TREPASS NOTICES every year to support false arrests; false imprisonment;
fabricated mental illness history. In addition to isolate by prohibiting entrance to major
entertainment venues with good live music. Prohibit from defending against the lies and slander
in public to a minimum. Also, destroy history of strong Christian values and church attendance on
a weekly basis by keeping away from church. The Millersville University Graduate Studies No
Trespass Notice was accommodated by the denial of entitled benefits of LETA Job Training
Education Course of the Paralegal program at HACC during the same time period.
1. David Pflumm Properties by David Pflumm Served by State Constable in June of

2005, original not signed by David Pflumm
2. Eden Resort Inn, by Drew Anthon, Owner Sent via 1st Class Mail in 2005.
3. Barley Snyder, LLC Lancaster Office, by Shawn Long, Esq., Attorney representing
Fulton Bank in 2006 Sent via 1st Class Mail
4. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., by Steve Weaver, Manager in 2006, No Notice,
Corraborated by Jack Buckwalter, Chairman and CEO and George Warner, Atty with Barley
Snyder, LLC, No Formal Notice, allowed to reenter in 2015.
5. Ruby Tuesday, Manor Shopping Center, Lancaster, by Manager and Lancaster City
Police in 2006, No Formal Notice, allowed to reenter in 2015.
6. Alley Kat Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster by Bartender Ms. Santinello, Brett Stabley,
and Lancaster City Police, No formal Notice in 2006
7. Village Nightclub, Lancaster by George in 2008, No Formal Notice
8. Marion Court Restaurant, Lancaster, by Security Personnel, corroborated by Michael
Geesey, in 2008, No Formal Notice, allowed to enter in 2015.
9. Valentinos Cafe, Lancaster, by Jeanine, Bartender,in 2008, corroborated by John
Valentino, Owner, No Formal Notice
10.Brunswick Hotel, Lancaster, by Staff Employees, in 2008, No Formal Notice
11.Lancaster County Library and Duke Street Business Center, by Executive Director in
March of 2009, by 1st Class Mail
12.Anne Bailey's Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster, by Manager in 2009, No Formal Notice
13.Millersville University Graduate Studies and Millersville University, Millersville, by
Lori Austin, Judicial Affairs, via Certified Mail in June of 2009.
14.TGIF Friday's, Lancaster, by Manager, in January of 2010, No Formal Notice
15.Lucky Dog Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster, by Robert Donnelly, in January of 2010, No
Formal Notice
16.Saint Mary's Catholic Church, Lancaster, by Don Spica, Usher and Lancaster City Police
Department in Feb of 2010, No Formal Notice
17.O'Halloran's Bar, Lancaster, March 25, 2010 by Male Staff Employee. No Formal Notice.
18.Fulton Bank, Fulton Financial Corporation, March 26, 2010 by Susan Follmer, Security
Officer.
19.Lancaster General Hospital, Gary S. Gehman, MD, May 25, 2010, for recording Dr. Brian
Sullivan of Abbeyville Family Health re U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and posting on my
Wordpress Blog.
20.Tobias Frog Restaurant and Bar, August 8, 2015 by Owner of Establishment, reason
was for complaining of harassment and stalking.
21. Millersville University, July 9, 2015, served notice by Millersville University Police
Chief Pete Anders, for negotiating a civil rights complaint with Assistant to the President,
Debra Hoeckler
22.Village Nightclub, July of 20015, by George..........., Owner, tried to enter several times,
with no reason and no written notice.
23.Lucky Dog Bar, August of 2015, met Abby and Keagan Pflumm outside, went inside and
was told by bartender to leave and not come back.
24.Barley Snyder, LLC Lancaster Office, receptionist Ms. Woods refused to let me
communicate with Attorney George Werner, who in 2011 entered appearance in 05-2288
for Fulton Bank in U.S. District Court.
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4609 of 1224
25.Wennerstrom Property Management Company, June 2015, went to complain

regarding harassment, threats, etc., at 1252 Fremont Street and told to leave building.
26.Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Northwest Office Building, November 23, 2015,
Harrisburg, PA, Delivered COMPLAINT re Bars and Restaurants in Lancaster engaged in
Discrimination, Stalking, Harassment, Assaults, etc., Would not allow access to Legal
Counsel, and female who took complaint would not provide ID.
27.Southeast Medical Facilities and Brightside Church Office, February 2016, Would not
issue pain medication and filed a Private Criminal Complaint with the Lancaster County
District Attorney, no opinion as of yet.
28.Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office in Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA I
arbitrarily received a phone call while delivering a CD-ROM to PA Attorney General Kathleen
Kane re CORRUPTION OF JUDICIAL, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND POLITICIANS of
Pennsylvania.
29.U.S. Federal Facilities per the National Security Agency Interrogation of March 9, 2016
at the NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland. Handcuffed and Interrogated for over an
hour and finally let go and told not to continue on to Washington, D.C. And said I was no
longer permitted to visit any U.S. Federal Facilities.
30.Lancaster Newspapers In June of 2016 I arbitrarily received an email the day I was
supposed to participate in a town meeting at LNP and warned me that I was banned and
had been for years although in the year before I had meetings with editors regarding my
MOVANT standing in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case.
31.TELLUS360, May of 2016, I went to enter on a weekend night and the doorman told me
I could not enter that night without any explanation or reason.
32.Yorgos Restaurant and Bar, The owner, Mrs. Arbitrarily barred me during the month of
March, right before the false imprisonment at the NSA in Ft. Meade, Maryland
33.Annie Baily's Irish Pub, A bartender arbitrarily barred me in July, then they allowed me
in then again a so called Manager banned me again. I recorded the last incident.
34.Altana Club, Bar, and Meeting Space On Thursday, July 14, 2016 Scott, the bartender
arbitrarily banned me, which again I recorded.
35.The Press Room Bar and Restaurant A bartender arbitrarily barred me, then again on
Thursday July 14, 2016 another bartender banned me, which again I recorded.
36.THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB Another ASSUALT AND HARASSMENT ON SATURDAY,
MAY 6, 2017. ON FRIDAY, MAY 5, 2017 2 LANCASTER CITY POLICE PATROLMEN,
DE TORRES, (THE SHOOTER AND EXECUTIONER OF THE 2013 INCIDENT KILLING
THE HOMELESS PERSON BESIDE YORGEY'S) AND WEITEKER (ON OF THE
ORIGINAL POLICE WHO I HAD A MEETING WITH RE COMPUTER HACKING IN
2015) WERE WALKING OUT AS I WAS WALKING IN AT THE OPENING. I TALKED
TO THEM AND THEY LEFT. THAT NIGHT I WAS AT THE BAR NEAR THE
RESTROOMS AND WENT TO WALK AWAY AND COULD NOT. I GOT HIT WITH AN
ELECTROMAGNET WEAPON SO SEVER THAT IT TOOK OUT MY HIPS. I STRUGGLED
TO WALK AND LEFT. THE NEXT NIGHT I WENT AND THE HARASSMENT WAS AS
USUAL. I TOLD GEORGE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE AND SAID
THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE COULD HAVE PUT A HAND HELD DEVICE IN THERE
SOMEWHERE AND HE KEPT DENYING THAT ANYTHING LIKE THAT EXISTS. AFTER
BEING HARASSED ON SATURDAY NIGHT, I LEFT AND PUSHED THE BAR ON THE
EXIT DOOR HARD GEORGE WAS WAITING OUTSIDE AND GOT INTO A YELLING
AND SCREAMING MATCH WITH ME. I KEPT ASKING HIM WHY HE LETS PATRONS
HARASS ME. HE TOLD ME NOT TO COME BACK.
37.HOUSE OF PASTA, MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCSTER, JUNE 2, 2017 BY RANDY,
BARTENDER AND MANAGER
All of the above use the tactics of threats and harassment in order to invoke and provoke a
response worthy of arrest or involuntary psychiatric commitment. When the strategy fails they
resort in illegal verbal no trespass notices by low level employees. In the summer of 2015 a
Lancaster City Police Officer, while parked at the Sunoco convenience store on the corner of West
Orange and Prince Street informed me that the establishments were required to provide written
notice, or they could not be enforced.
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.461
10of
of1224
II) Downtown Lancaster Establishment's that have been endorsing and engaging in
WHOLESALE STALKING, HARASSMENT, AND COLLUSION TO PHYSICAL THREATS OF
VIOLENCE ON A REGULAR BASIS, 2005 to present:
Yorgos Restaurant and Bar
Mariott Bar at Penn Square
Annie Baily's Irish Pub
TELLIUS 360 Irish Pub, Nightclub, and now computer lab
Altana Club, Bar, and Meeting Space
Cigar Bar
O'Hallorans Bar and Restaurant
Lancaster Dispensing Company
The Press Room Bar and Restaurant
The Federal Taphouse
Lancaster City Police Department Headquarters
III) Again 1252 FREMONT STREET and SURROUNDING BLOCKS are used as PREMIER
STALKING/HARASSMENT CLUBS. Leaving and Entering the HOME AT 1250 FREMONT
STREET IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT STALKERS DOING THE SAME.
June 10, 2016 Statement re Pitt Bull Attack at 1252 Fremont Street
The spics (slang for entitled Spanish assholes) at 1252 Fremont Street were all outside in
the back yard when I started to work. My laborer, Norm showed up and then they all of a sudden
disappeared. I had to go into the backyard of 1252 to undo the temporary fence I erected
yesterday. I open the gate, close it behind me and the BLACK PITBULL and YORKIE come running
out of the house attacking me. The spics set it all up by leaving when they knew full well that I
would be coming into the yard to work on the fence. THAT IS THE SECOND TIME HE BIT ME,
THE FIRST TIME THEY LET HIM OUT AND HE CAME IN MY YARD AND SNAPPED AT ME
JUST MISSING MY FINGER!
ONE DAY WHEN I WAS WORKING THE spics PUT A BROWN PITTBULL IN THE YARD SO I
COULD NOT WORK!
Yesterday, the bitch offered to move an old freezer so I could work on the fence. I said "no, that
is alright, I can get it myself". That is the first time I talked to the bitch since she chased me in
my front lawn last fall because I blew the leaves and some floated into her pile of leaves on her
front lawn. THE BITCH DOES NOT OWN 1252 FREMONT STREET, AND AFTER I SET THE
POSTS AND INSTALLED THE FIRST SECTION OF FENCE, ME AND THE OWNER, DAVE
SHRECK, DISCUSSED MY PROJECT AND HE GAVE ME HIS PERMISSION TO ERECT AND
INSTALL THE FENCE. THAT WAS PROBABLY 4 WEEKS AGO!
ARE THE DOGS LICENSED? AND WHOS' ARE THEY? LIKE MOST PEOPLE IN THAT HOUSE
YOU DON'T KNOW WHO LIVES THERE AND WHO DOES NOT!
When I left for the Hospital at about 3:00pm on June 10, 2016 The Bitch yelled uncontrollable at
me from on of her windows as I went to my car, which was parked in the back of my yard. She
kept yelling I am not ever going to be allowed in her yard. The theme has been ever since I
started my project to thwart my attempts at progress every step of the way.
The breaking point came on Thursday when I declared the screened in porch would be done by
Monday, June 13, 2016. Too much privacy for me for all my neighbors to envision me having. To
this day and time, 6:00pm on Saturday, June 11, 2016 I have not gone out in my back yard since
the attack. I had my laborer Norm, bring in all the tools right after the attack.
_________________________________
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.462
11of
of1224
THE ABOVE RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING:
1. 4 HOUR EMERGENCY HOSPITAL VISIT TO LANCASTER REGIONAL

2. 10 VICODIN FOR PAIN WERE PRESCRIBED
3. A RABID DOG REPORT WAS ISSUED
4. WORK ON THE BACKYARD PROJECT WAS INTERUPTED AND STILL NOT
COMPLETED DUE TO THE THREATS AND THE USE OF DOGS AS DETERENTS
5. LOSS OF TIME AND CAPTIAL INVESTMENT IN MATERIALS TO COMPLETE PROJECT
6. HARASSMENT BY LANCASTER CITY ZONING OFFICIALS FOR MATERIALS STORED
IN THE BACK ORCHARD
7. THE PERCEPTION OR REALITY THAT THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE ARE USING
1252 FRIMONT STREET TO SUPPORT AND RECRUIT FOR THE COINTELPRO
HARASSMENT PROGRAM
8. SUPPORT AND RECRUITMENT FOR THE LANCASTER COUNTY COINTELPRO
HARASSMENT PROGRAM
IV) After 2 years of replanting the FRONT YARD IVY BED and THE IVY BED BEING IN
THE BEST CONDITION SINCE THE ORIGINAL PLANTING IN 1970'S SOMEONE
DELIBERATELY WITH MALICE DESTROYED THE IVY BED WITH MAJOR AREAS OF DEAD
SPOTS. SEVERAL FLATS OF IVY WERE PURCHASED AT STAUFFERS ON RHORESTOWN
ROAD.
V) FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS I CAN NO LONGER ENJOY THE OUTSIDE OF MY
HOME, FRONT OR BACK, DUE TO THE THREATS AND HARASSMENT OF 1252 FREMONT
STREET. I CAN'T EVEN SIT ON MY BACK OR FRONT PORCHES TO SMOKE A CIGARETTE
OR HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE. MOST DAYS I HAVE TO TRY TO STATEGICALLY PLAN WHEN
TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH, MOW THE GRASS, WATER MY PLANTS AND GRASS, ETC. FOR
THE PAST MONTH OR SO I HAVE TO SNEAK IN AND OUT OF MY OWN HOME.
VI) ON WEDNESDAY EVENING THE FEMALE LIVING ACROSS THE STREET ON FREMONT
STREET WAS AT THE HOUSE OF PASTA ON MILLERSVILLE PIKE WHILE HER CAR WAS
PARKED IN FRONT OF MY HOME AT 1250 FREMONT STREET. UPON COMING HOME
AFTER 2 DRINKS I WAS AGAIN LOCKED OUT AND FORCED TO PARK IN THE BACK. THE
PERPS KEEP LOCKING MY FRONT SCREEN DOOR SO THAT I HAVE TO PARK IN THE BACK.
VI) THE COMPUTER HACKING IS NOW ON MY NEW ATT GO PHONE.
DATED: JUNE 7, 2017
_______________________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.463
12of
of1224
ACTIVE COURT CASESACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals - COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149;
03-16-900046 re ALL FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No.
16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-
10615; Case No. 17-0867 Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014
CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-
1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint
against Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus
for Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary
Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA
2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of
2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-
08472 INJUNCTION re Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-
13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case
No. 16-10157
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.464
13of
of1224
Stan J. Caterbone

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
MARCH 21, 2017
STAN J CATERBONE & ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

INTERNET LINKS OF EVIDENCE FOR ALL CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS
7 SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
23 NEW LINKS OF EVIDENCE FOR ALL CLAIMS, March 13, 2017
84 INTERNET LINKS OF EVIDENCE FOR ALL CLAIMS, February 14,

2014
STAN J. CATERBONE & ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
_________________________
1. STAN J. CATERBONE'S WEBSITE www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
2. STAN J. CATERBONE'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL -

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWqz_swlj5dsEvufnsJjRSQ
3. STAN J. CATERBONE'S TWITTER PAGE - https://twitter.com/SCaterbone
4. STAN J. CATERBONE'S SCRIBD PAGE FOR DOCUMENTS -

https://www.scribd.com/stan5j.5caterbone
5. STAN J. CATERBONE'S LINKDIN PAGE - https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?

id=429457751&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile_pic
6. STAN J. CATERBONE'S AUDIO RECORDINGS ON YOURLISTEN.COM

http://yourlisten.com/Stan.Caterbone
7. STAN J. CATERBONE'S AUDIO RECORDINGS ON SOUNDCLOUD -

https://soundcloud.com/stan-caterbone?
utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.465
14of
of1224
23 NEW LINKS OF EVIDENCE FOR ALL CLAIMS
16.Case No. 17-cv-867-EGS Preliminary Injunction for Emergency Relief MOTION TO

FILE EXHIBIT TITLED LETTER TO HUNTINGTON BANK ANDREW GRIMMIT re
Liquidation Offer March 21, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/342581480/Case-No-17-cv-867-EGS-Preliminary-
Injunction-for-Emergency-Relief-MOTION-TO-FILE-EXHIBIT-TITLED-LETTER-TO-
HUNTINGTON-BANK-ANDREW-GRIMMIT-re-Liquidati
17.LETTER to HIGH INDUSTRIES re MARRIOTT BAR THREATS, HARASSMENT, THEFT

OF MONIES March 13, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/341731227/Letter-to-High-
Industries-Re-MARRIOTT-HOTEL-BAR-Threats-Harassment-Theft-
of-Monies-March-13-2017
18.FEDERAL PRIVATE CRIMINAL NOTARIZED COMPLAINT Filed in U.S. EASTERN

DISTRICT COURT March 12, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/341681228/FEDERAL-
PRIVATE-CRIMINAL-NOTARIZED-COMPLAINT-Filed-in-U-S-
EASTERN-DISTRICT-COURT-March-12-2017
19.History of the Internet - DARPA and Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group
March 12, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/341681178/History-of-the-
Internet-DARPA-and-Stan-J-Caterbone-and-Advanced-Media-
Group-March-12-2017
20.WIKILEAKS CIA DATA DUMP re 100 NAMED TARGETED INDIVIDUALS OF MIND

CONTROL
https://www.scribd.com/document/341681162/TARGETED-
INDIVIDUAL-TESTIMONIES-AND-LISTS-Our-Selected-Witnesses-by-
WIKILEAKS-March-10-2017
21.CHAPTER 11 CASE No. 10615 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO JUDGE RICHARD FEHLINGS

ORDER OF FEBRUARY 28, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/341519915/Chapter-11-17-
10615REF-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-TO-U-S-DISTRICT-COURT-FOR-THE-
EASTERN-DISTICT-OF-PENNSYLVANIA-OF-JUDGE-RICHARD-
FEHLINGS-ORDER-of-February-28
22.02101-NT-000214-2016 ORDER BY LANCASTER COUNTY COMMON PLEAS JUDGE

MERRIS SPAHN GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
https://www.scribd.com/document/341298288/STAN-J-
CATERBONE-MJ-02101-NT-0001214-2016-re-NOISE-TOO-LOUD-
ORDER-by-JUDGE-MERRILL-SPAHN-IN-FORMA-PAUPERIS-
GRANTED-APPEAL-DOCKETED-February-22-201
23.STAN J. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP INVOICES AND STATEMENTS

OF MARCH 8, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/341298279/Advanced-Media-
Group-INVOICES-and-STATEMENTS-for-March-8-2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.466
15of
of1224
24.NOTARIZED ENOUGH IS ENOUGH DECLARATION BY STAN J. CATERBONE MARCH

5, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/341018022/NOTARIZED-
ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH-by-Stan-J-Caterbone-on-March-2-2017-and-
Case-No-CI-16-08472-EMERGENCY-INJUNCTION-FOR-PAIN-
MEDICATIONS-March-5-2017
25.LETTER TO MATHEW HAVERSTICK, ATTORNEY FOR SCOTT MARTIN re MARTINE v.

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF MARK REESE FOR IMPEACHMENT
https://www.scribd.com/document/340996107/Stan-J-Caterbone-
LETTER-to-Matthew-H-Haverstick-re-MARTIN-v-Reese-CI-17-
04626-March-5-2017
26.STAN J. CATERBONE NEW CASE IN U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN EASTERN

DISTRICT CASE No. 17-867 CATERBONE v. NSA, et.al., PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
CATERBONE-NEW-CASE-Case-No-17-cv-00867-EGS-Preliminary-
Injunction-for-EMERGENCY-RELIEF-in-U-S-EASTERN-District-of-
Pennsylvania-March-4-20
27.KATHLEEN KANE APPEAL CASE IN SUPERIOR COURT OPINION OF MONTGOMERY

COUNTY COURT OF MARCH 2, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/340823932/Superior-Court-
of-Pennsylvania-Case-No-3575-EDA-2016-MONTGOMERY-COUNTY-
OPINION-AND-STAN-J-CATERBONE-AMICUS-March-2-2017
28.STAN J. CATERBONE LETTER TO PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATORS re ANTI-

STALKING PROPOSED LEGISLATION OF MARCH 3, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/340823930/STAN-J-CATERBONE-LETTER-
TO-THE-PENNSYLVANIA-STATE-LEGISLATORS-March-3-2017
29.STAN J. CATERBONE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FOR LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS CASE CI-17-00206 SAVAGE v. Dave Brown re LAMBERT BOOK
https://www.scribd.com/document/340736354/LANCASTER-COUNTY-COURT-
OF-COMMON-PLEAS-Cases-No-CI-17-00206-SAVAGE-v-BROWN-et-al-re-
AFFIDAVIT-of-ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH-March-2-2017
30.NOTORIZED DECLARATION TITLED ENOUGH IS ENOUGH BY STAN J. CATERBONE

ON MARCH 1, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/340618722/ENOUGH-is-
ENOUGH-by-Stan-J-Caterbone-on-March-1-2017
31.LETTER TO TARGETED INDIVIDUAL ABBE EDISON OF PITTSBURG, PA re ADVISE

ON COUNTER TECHNIQUES
https://www.scribd.com/document/340479872/LETTER-TO-ABBE-
EDISON-February-27-2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.467
16of
of1224
32.CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY CASE No. 17-10615 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF JUDGE RICHARD FEHLINGS DISMISSAL OF FEBRUARY 26, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/340479838/Chapter-11-17-
10615REF-MOTION-FOR-RECONSIDERATION-OF-JUDGE-FEHLINGS-
ORDER-OF-FEBRUARY-16-2017-February-26-2017
33.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE COMPLAINT No. 055746172-0101

re GEICO COMPLAINT FOR ACCIDENT OF FEBRUARY 28, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/340354393/PENNSYLVANIA-
DEPARTMENT-OF-INSURANCE-COMPLAINT-re-STAN-J-CATERBONE-
GEICO-CLAIM-NUMBER-055746172-0101-030-with-AFFIDAVIT-
February-25-2017
34.STAN J. CATERBONE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE No.

CI-08-13373 PREACIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS MASON PFLUMM et.al., February
25, 2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/340354387/Lancaster-
County-Court-Case-No-08-CI-13373-re-PRAECIPE-TO-ADD-
DEFENDANTS-February-25-2017
35.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE COMPLAINT No. 055746172-0101

re GEICO COMPLAINT FOR ACCIDENT OF FEBRUARY 28, 2017 WITH NOTARIZED
AFFIDAVIT
https://www.scribd.com/document/340278864/PENNSYLVANIA-
DEPARTMENT-OF-INSURANCE-COMPLAINT-re-STAN-J-CATERBONE-
GEICO-CLAIM-NUMBER-055746172-0101-030-with-NOTARIZED-
AFFIDAVIT-February-25-20
36.STAN J. CATERBONE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FOR LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS CASE CI-17-00206 SAVAGE v. Dave Brown re REQUEST FOR
APPEARANCE AND AMICUS BRIEF
https://www.scribd.com/document/339729747/STAMPED-
VERSION-LANCASTER-COUNTY-COURT-OF-COMMON-PLEAS-Cases-
No-CI-17-00206-SAVAGE-v-BROWN-et-al-REQUEST-FOR-
APPEARANCE-and-AMICUS-BRIEF-Febr
37.STAN J. CATERBONE LETTER TO PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATORS re ANTI-

STALKING PROPOSED LEGISLATION OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017
CATERBONE-LETTER-TO-THE-PENNSYLVANIA-STATE-LEGISLATORS-
February-15-2017
38.STAN J. CATERBONE'S PHOTO INVENTORY OF 1250 FREMONT STREET HOME,

LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA OF FEBRUARY 14, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/339337180/STAN-J-CATERBONE-1250-
FREMONT-STREET-LANCASTER-PA-INVENTORY-February-14-2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.468
17of
of1224
84 INTERNET LINKS OF EVIDENCE OF ALL CLAIMS
1. ERIC COHEN AND ROBERT BERUBE, Federal Public Defender for Esteban Santiago, Ft.
Lauderdale Shooter, INVOICE AND FEE SCHEDULE January 20, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/337072519/ERIC-COHEN-Federal-Public-
Defender-for-Esteban-Santiago-Ft-Lauderdale-Shooter-INVOICE-AND-FEE-
SCHEDULE-January-20-2017
2. STAN CATERBONE NAMED AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE Superior Court of

Pennsylvania Case No. 3575 EDA 2016 FRIDAY JANUARY 20, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/337120127/STAN-CATERBONE-NAMED-
AMICUS-FOR-KATHLEEN-KANE-Superior-Court-of-Pennsylvania-Case-No-3575-EDA-
2016-FRIDAY-JANUARY-20-2017
3. WHISTLEBLOWERS KAREN STEWART AND STAN CATERBONE A Candid Discussion of

Electronic Harassment Protocols, January 11, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336256943/WHISTLEBLOWERS-KAREN-
STEWART-AND-STAN-CATERBONE-A-Candid-Discussion-of-Electronic-Harassment-
Protocols-January-11-2017
4.The Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking

Program
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/surreptitious-reincarnation-cointelpro-cops-
program-stan-caterbone
5. Video: Media Blacks Out Edward Snowdens Talk On COINTELPRO & History Of Mass
Surveillance
http://www.mintpressnews.com/video-media-blacks-out-edward-snowdens-talk-
on-cointelpro-history-of-mass-surveillance/224222/
6. Letters: Snowden deserves pardon by John and Bonnie Raines, Philadelphia of the
Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI in 1971
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20170119_Letters__Snowden_deserves_pa
rdon.html
7. Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy

https://www.scribd.com/document/336787302/Legal-Implications-of-the-1959-
Soviet-Microwave-Bombardment-of-the-U-S-Embassy-January-17-2017
8. Congressman Robert Walker Pleading July 7 1991 Important

https://www.scribd.com/document/270267368/Congressman-Robert-Walker-
Pleading-July-7-1991-Important
9. That time the CIA was convinced a self-proclaimed psychic had paranormal abilities
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/19/that-time-
the-cia-was-convinced-a-self-proclaimed-psychic-had-paranormal-abilities/?
postshare=8421484844095309&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b487b6ae00e7
10. Obama's most enduring legacy may be the establishment of the modern US
surveillance state
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-most-enduring-legacy-the-modern-us-
surveillance-state-2017-1
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.469
18of
of1224
ANTI-TRUST LINKS OF EVIDENCE
11. The Extortion of 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pa by COINTELPRO PROGRAMS
January 17, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336832214/The-Extortion-of-220-Stone-Hill-
Road-Conestoga-Pa-by-COINTELPRO-PROGRAMS-January-17-2017
12. AMG LEGAL SYSTEMS PROTOTYPE Mastered on April 16, 1991 at Commadore Inc.,
January 17, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336787897/AMG-LEGAL-SYSTEMS-
PROTOTYPE-Mastered-on-April-16-1991-at-Commadore-Inc-January-17-2017
13. Stan J. Caterbone, Controller of Pflumm Contractors, Inc., 1993 to 1998 January 17,
2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336787739/Stan-J-Caterbone-Controller-of-
Pflumm-Contractors-Inc-1993-to-1998-January-17-2017
14. Sam Lombardo and Raolph Mazzochi Charlotte Street Proposal by Advanced Media
Group and Stan J. Caterbone January 17, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336787416/Sam-Lombardo-and-Raolph-Mazzochi-
Charlotte-Street-Proposal-by-Advanced-Media-Group-and-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-
17-2017
15. B2B Consulting From 1999 to 2002 January 16, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/336787303/B2B-Consulting-From-1999-to-2002-
January-16-2017
16. 1999 Excelsior Place Business Plan by Stan J. Caterbone January 16, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336719627/1999-Excelsior-Place-Business-Plan-
by-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-16-2017
17. Stan J. Caterbone AIM MUTUAL FUNDS Consulting From 1999 to 2002 January 16,
2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336738750/Stan-J-Caterbone-AIM-MUTUAL-
FUNDS-Consulting-From-1999-to-2002-January-16-2017
18. Pro Financial Group Brochure and Eastern Regional Free Agent Camp by Stan J.
Caterbone January 16, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336704842/Pro-Financial-Group-Brochure-and-
Eastern-Regional-Free-Agent-Camp-by-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-16-2017
19. STAN J. CATERBONE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP JOINT VENTURE WITH DALE HIGH
January 15, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637179/56-STAN-J-CATERBONE-ADVANCED-
MEDIA-GROUP-JOINT-VENTURE-WITH-DALE-HIGH-January-15-2017
20. Institutional Investors Mortgage Banking Business Development of 1987 January

15, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637178/58-Institutional-Investors-Mortgage-
Banking-Business-Development-of-1987-January-15-2017
21. 1987 JOINT VENTURE - Tony Bongiovi, Power Station Studios, and Flatbush Films
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.470
19of
of1224
with Stan J. Caterbone January 15, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/336637176/55-1987-JOINT-VENTURE-Tony-
Bongiovi-Power-Station-Studios-and-Flatbush-Films-with-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-
15-2017
22. STAN J. CATERBONE'S Financial Management Group, Ltd., Anti-Trust Litigation File
of October 17, 2015
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637173/57-STAN-J-CATERBONE-S-Financial-
Management-Group-Ltd-Anti-Trust-Litigation-File-of-October-17-2015
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.471
20of
of1224
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FALSE IMPRISONMENTS

AND COINTELPRO LINKS OF EVIDENCE
23. FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ILLEGAL INTERROGATIONS by U.S. Intelligence

Agencies November 12, 2016
https://www.scribd.com/document/329761557/FALSE-IMPRISONMENT-AND-ILLEGAL-
INTERROGATIONS-by-U-S-Intelligence-Agencies-and-U-S-Sponsored-Mind-Control-
EVIDENCE-November-2-2016
24. Letter REQUEST for COMMUTATION of the Sentence of Lisa Michell Lambert to
President Obama, November 15, 2016
25. Stan J. Caterbone and Conflicts With the Trump Administration - Monday November
14, 2016 | False Claims Act | Military
26. STAN J. CATERBONE and the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE Documents and Evidence of
Conspiracy to .... Saturday November 12, 2016
27. Feds Probe Fulton Bank and 3 Other Subsidiary Banks of Fulton Financial With Stan
J. Caterbone Civil Actions and Mind Control Research of Monday November 9, 2016 |
28. Robert Gates
29. Letter to James Comey, Director of FBI Re Cointelpro Used to Obstruct Justice
Monday November 28, 2016 | Federal Bureau Of Investigation | Central Intelligence
Agency
30. VITALLY IMPORTANT - LETTER and DOCUMENT to Cappello & Noel, LLP of Santa
Barbara, CA Friday November 25, 2016
31. Report of Douglas F Gansler/Kathleen Kane on Misuse of Commonwealth Email

Systems November 22, 2016 Published by ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP |
32. Pro Se Legal Representation In The United States | Motion In United States Law
33. Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray Says There is Room for Improvement in Police
34. Communication - CATERBONE v. Lancaster City Police Bureau, et.al., November 22,
2016 | Central Intelligence Agency
35. Chapter 12 - ROHYPNOL AND SATELLITE and Chapter 11 - NEIGHBORS FROM HELL,
from Satellite Terrorism in America, by Dr. John Hall Copyright 2009
36. | J. Edgar Hoover | Federal Bureau Of Investigation
37. JIM GUERIN, FOUNDER OF ISC, FAREWELL LETTER OF 1989 December 26, 2016 |
Justice | Government
38. CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON Candidate for JUDGESHIP and His 1987 EFFORT FOR MY
GUARDIANSHIP Friday December 16, 2016
39. ANOTHER LANCASTER COVER-UP THE SALE OF THE MASONIC HALL IN THE CITY OF
LANCASTER, by The Advanced Media Group, December 15, 2016 | Fraternal Service
Organizations
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.472
21of
of1224
40. Usage Statistics for www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com TOTALS and MONTHLY

From May of 2016 to January 2017 - January 10, 2017
41. My Friend and Colleague Soleilmavis Liu of China a Victim of Mind Control Living in
China Who Started Peacepink- August 28, 2016
42. TD Ameritrade TRADEKEEPER PROFIT-LOSS FOR 2004 TRADES and 2017 FULTON
STOCK January 9, 2017
43. POLICE INCIDENT REPORTS OF PHYSICAL ASSAULTS FOR STAN J. CATERBONE 2005
TO 2016 January 6, 2017
44. Judiciaries
45. UPDATED STATEMENT OF FACTS re CATERBONE v. Lancaster City Police Department

US District Court Case 08-cv-08982 December 28, 2016
46. Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act | Rehabilitation Act Of 1973
47. UPDATED - EXCLUSIVE Transcripts of Whistleblower Testimonies as Targeted

Individuals of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and Related Hearings and Lectures,
December 27, 2016
48. Torture
49. Stan J. Caterbone on Twitter: "I'm reading FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ILLEGAL
INTERROGATIONS by U.S. Intelligence... on @Scribd! https://t.co/T3D9nIYvMt
#ReadMore"
50. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS
COMEY AND TRUMP REMOVE OBAMA January 23, 2017
51. INVOICE AND Letter to James Comey, Director of FBI Re Pro Se Billings Invoice
Wednesday November 30, 2016
52. Kathy Harrison (KATHLEEN HARRISON NAMED IN SAVAGE SUIT v. Dave Brown)
Email Re Bi Polar March 10, 2005
53. The Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking

Program - Lancaster City Police Strategic Plan, August 24, 2016
54. LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cases No. CI-17-00210 and CI-17-
00206 BOWMAN and SAVAGE v. BROWN, et.al.,
55. REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE and AMICUS BRIEF January 25, 2017.pdf | Amicus
Curiae | National Security Agency
56. Family of Karlie Hall files suit against Millersville University, others; calls death
preventable January 25, 2017 | Law Reference | Government
57. Stan J. Caterbone Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Filled in Forms January 27, 2017
58. U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT ISSUANCE LETTER FOR NEW CASE NO. 17-10615-ref To
Judge Fehling Friday January 27, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.473
22of
of1224
59. Stan J. Caterbone Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case No. 17-10615 Judge Fehling Filed On
January 27, 2017 - CASE FILE | Plea | Defamation
60. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 EXHIBIT re THE DONALD TRUMP
PRESIDENCY and STAN J. CATERBONE as of January 28, 2017 - electronically filed |
Federal Bureau Of Investigation | Nasa
61. ACCIDENT REPORT NO. 1701-029468 LANCASTER CITY POLICE OFFICER REPPERT
SATURDAY JANUARY 28, 2017
62. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 PRAECIPE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
January 29, 2017 - FILED ELECTRONICALLY January 29, 2017
63. Stewart Baker - Wikipedia
64. 16-cv-2513 Preliminary Injunction for Emergency Relief in Middle District NOTICE
OF APPEAL TO USCA THIRD CIRCUIT January 26, 2017 | Defamation
65. Homeowners Rehab Application File of June 8, 2015 - COINTELPRO EXTORTION

MODEL RESULTS January 30, 2017
66. Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se, U.S.C.A. Third Circuit BRIEF STATEMENT OF JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY of February 1, 2017
67. PLAINTIFF Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY

RELIEF EASTERN DISTRICT of PENNSYLVANIA With IFP and Civil Cover Sheet - on
February 2, 2017
68. Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case 17-10615REF SUBMITTALS FOR FEBRUARY 3 - February

2, 2017
69. Jeremy Scahill on Donald Trump and the Military-Industrial Complex - Truthdig
In an interview with acTVism, the investigative journalist also discusses the
70. significance of the Ramstein Air Base in Germany. - 2017/02/02
71. Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Control Enforcement Formal Complaint AGAINST
DOWNTOWN LANCASTER BARS, August 12, 2016 | Lawsuit | United States Courts Of
Appeals
72. Case No. CI-16-08472 EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR PAIN MEDICATIONS -

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas September 21, 2016 - CRIMINAL ACT OF
TORTURE |
73. Torture LAW and the United States - Wikipedia by Stan J. Caterbone and ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP, February 4, 2017
74. CI-16-08472 DOCKET SHEET February 3, 2017 and Torture LAW and the United
States - Wikipedia by Stan J. Caterbone and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, February 4,
2017
75. LIP News - CORRUPTION IN THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND LNP -
February 4, 2017
76. LETTER to Andrew Wallet re Britney Spears Conservatorship February 4, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.474
23of
of1224
78. 16-Cv-2513 Preliminary Injunction for EMERGENCY RELIEF in Middle District ORDER
by JUDGE KANE TRANSFER to EASTERN DISTRICT PHIL January 31, 2017
79. Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board LETTER Re 2016-788 (Asworth) 2016-789

(Reinaker) February 2, 2017
80. Chapter 11 17-10615ref REORGANIZATION PLAN February 7, 2017 | Bankruptcy |

Chapter
81. Chapter 11 17-10615REF STAN J. CATERBONE CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN

and DISCLOSURE STATEMENT February 7, 2017
82. Third Circuit Senior Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who is President Donald
Trump’s older sister, decided this week to go inactive on the bench, relinquishing
her staff and chambers despite being scheduled to hear cases this year.
83. STAN J. CATERBONE June 18, 2008 US District Court Case 08-02982 CATERBONE v.
Lancaster City Police Bureau, et.al., CASE FILE | Complaint
84.STAN J. CATERBONE MJ-02101-NT-0000470-2017 DUTIES AT STOP SIGN - MOTION

TO DISMISS February 12, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
STATE-OF-AFFAIRS
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.475
24of
of1224
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
WHAT LAW GIVES YOU THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TERRORIZE ME? by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Stan J. Caterbone

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
JUNE 5, 2017
President Donald Trump

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20500
Re: 1. Help with my OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE

2. Political Asylum For My Friend and Colleague Soleilmavis Liu of China A Victim
of Mind Control Living In China Who Started Peacepink.com
Dear President Trump,
WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TERRORIZE ME? For the
past few days the pain from the ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS was so sever that I had
episodes of outright tears for hours at a time. For the first time, it happened during the
day, after a night of the same. On Friday a perpetrator locked me out of my own
computer, Best Buy refused to transact my ATT GO PHONE for a DATA PLAN and WIFI
HOTSPOT so that I could have internet access at home. I had court related materials to
expedite for CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and could not. My neighbors use a large BLACK
PIT BULL to Terrorize me and keep me indoors, or prevent me from leaving my home. I
AM TERRORIZED everywhere that I go by just about every stranger in sight. TORTURE
IS NOT LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
I have been intimately involved with the affairs of the Middle East since back in 1987 when
I was forced to become a Federal Whistleblower on a company that was for all practical
purposes performing their patriotic duty but unfortunately became a casualty of a
politicized intelligence mission gone bad. I am sure you are all to familiar with what I am
talking about. The company was International Signal and Control, Plc., of which I was a
shareholder and solicited to help fund some operations through the financial firm that I built,
Financial Management Group, Ltd., If you care to investigate, the book titled THE
SPIDERS WEB HOW THE WHITEHOUSE ARMED IRAQ by Alan Freidman of the
Financial Times, you will get a glimpse of the legal quagmire that ensued.
Even more damming is the fact that Former President Bill Clinton's first choice for
Secretary of Defense, Bobby Ray Inman (Former Secretary of Navy and Director of the
NSA) was forced to withdraw his nomination due to the ISC scandal. Attached is a
Farwell Letter from Jim Guerin to the Lancaster Community, which to me, is a
testament to who Jim Guerin was as a man and patriot. I know Jim Guerin and had the
pleasure of having a relationship with his daughter, Bev in 1992. I have nothing but praise and
admiration for the Guerin family. I was born and raised catholic, and still am a practicing catholic,
and the only time I was in a Protestant Church was with Bev Guerin, the church where Jim taught
Sunday School. THE POLITICIANS POLITICIZED THE INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS, just like what is
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4771 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
going on today. It is no wonder Great Britain stopped communications with our

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AFTER THE MANCHESTER BOMBING. AND BY THE WAY, I
READ ABOUT AN INTERVIEW WITH THE SISTER OF THE BOMBER IT WAS
RETALIATION FOR THE INNOCENT KILLED BY US MILITARY STRIKES IN SYRIA! THAT
IS BY NO MEANS AN EXCUSE FOR TERROR, HOWEVER, JUST THINK WHAT YOU WOULD
DO IF YOUR FAMILY WAS KILLED IN THE SAME MANNER. IT IS NOT A REACH TO SEE IN
TODAYS INTERNET ENVIRONMENT HOW THE EXTREMISTS ARE MOTIVATED TO
TERRORIZE. IT STARTS WITH A LEGITIMATE EMOTION AND IS CORRUPTED BY EVIL.
I do not agree with your efforts to create this MILATARY POLICE-STATE that
seams to be taking shape. I liken it to the The Surreptitious Reincarnation of
COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking Program Of The Lancaster City Police
Department. On August 22, 2016 Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq., wrote As was stated above,
organized stalking methods were used extensively by communist East Germanys Stasi (state
police) as a means of maintaining political control over its citizens. Although this is supposedly
illegal in the US, the same covert tactics are quietly used by Americas local and federal law
enforcement, and intelligence agencies, to supprss political and domestic dissent, silence whistle
blowers, and get revenge against persons who have angered someone with connections to the
public and private agencies involved. Such stalking is sanctioned (and in some cases,
orchestrated) by federal agencies; however such stalking is also sometimes used unofficially for
personal and corporate vendettas by current and former corrupt employees of law
enforcement and intelligence agencies, private investigators, and their clients. Common
implementations of community policing include: (1) relying on community based crime prevention
by utilizing civilian education, neighborhood watch, and a variety of other techniques, as
opposed to relying solely on police patrols; (2) restructuring the patrol from an emergency
response based system to emphasizing proactive techniques such as foot patrol; (3) increased
officer accountability to civilians they are supposed to serve; and (4) decentralizing police
authority, allowing more discretion among lower ranking officers, and more initiative
expected from them.
Again, I am a Federal Whistleblower and in 1987 I met with Executives of an International

Arms dealer named International Signal and Control, PLC., or ISC, headquartered in my
hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I at the time was a shareholder and I was solicited to
finance some problematic operations through the financial firm that I had founded, Financial
Management Group, Ltd., In 1991 they were indicted for the third largest fraud in the United
States, a $Billion Dollar Fraud, when they merged with Great Britain's largest Defense Contractor,
Ferranti International, Plc., in 1987. In 1987 I was arrested for literally stealing my own files from
my own office and faced 4 felonies and 3 misdemeanors with prison terms in the tens of years.
After the merger was completed in December of 1987, all of my charges were dismissed by the
Lancaster County District Attorney's Office in March of 1988. ISC Board Member, Bobby Ray
Inman, who was former Secretary of the Navy and former Director of the National Security
Agency, or NSA was nominated to be Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton. He later had to
withdraw his name after allegations of ISC began to surface. In 1991 Ted Koppel and the
Financial Times of London broadcast 3 different segments disclosing that ISC was essentially a
black ops program of the NSA and CIA and tried desperately to derail the nomination for Director
of the CIA, Robert Gates, who they allege was involved in the early stages of the program. He
was named Director of the CIA and later served as Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush and
now President Barrack Obama. ISC responsible for developing the Cluster Bomb, and Saddam
Hussein was a loyal customer.
In the late 1980's and early 1990 I was a contractor for several government agencies,
including DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency of the Department of Defense.
My company Advanced Media Group had conducted business all over the world, including some 15
or more foreign countries. DARPA IS WIDELY KNOWN AS A DEVELOPER OF MIND CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES AND HOLDS PATENTS. DARPA is also credited for developing the internet. I was
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4782 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
an expert in optical publishing and my company was one of only 4 or 5 that had the capability to
manufacture CD-ROM's in the domestic United States.
Now, I am a prisoner of the state and have been since 1987, and that the
activities surrounding the my life has escalated into a daily occurrence of assaults. I
have been a victim of organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct
energy weapons since 2005. I had also been telepathic since 2005. In 2005 the U.S.
sponsored mind control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic
telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices and
weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted
victim. This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of
the federal action in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et.
al., or 05-cv-2288/U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT Case No. 07-4474-4475.
On March 8, 2016 I was detained by some (8) NSA Security Police, handcuffed, and
interrogated for about 2 hours at NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland. In 2005 I was
detained by (2) DIA, or Defense Intelligence Agency of the Department of Defense, in Austin
Texas and interrogated for almost 2 hours. Both incidents I was sent on my way without any
explanation as to WHY?
Unfortunately while I have made many in person complaints to just about every
law enforcement agency, including several meetings with FBI in Philadelphia and
Harrisburg, the pleas for help and assistance have yielded nothing but more attacks to
my person, property, electronics, home, auto, reputation, intellectual property, and
lastly his mental state-of-mind A BRUTAL ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE. I
have already made claims of COINTELPRO-like tactics in my filings in the U.S.C.A. Case
No. 16-4014; 16-2513 US District Court MIDDLE District, and this case 17-0867, against
these same said actors and perpetrators.
In 2016 I am AMICUS for Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in the

Pennsylvania Superior Court Case No. 3575 EDA 2016 in the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. Kane which included perjury charges during the alleged leaking of grand jury information.
Kathleen Kane took on the Good Old Boy network regarding judicial reform in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in an effort to rid the state of the long standing public corruption
ring that was evident from local law enforcement to Supreme Court Justices, and everyone in
between. Briefs are due on June 16, 2017.
In 2015 I filed an AMICUS BRIEF on behalf of Lisa Michelle Lambert in Case No. 14-
02559 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I took the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court in Case No. 16-6822. Lisa Michelle Lambert was convicted in 1992 of the murder
of Laurie Show, both of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I currently am in litigation in the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and in February of 2016 Lisa Michelle Lambert published her book titled
Corruption in Lancaster County My Story, which is available in bookstores and on
Amazon.com. I is in frequent contact with her co-author, Dave Brown of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
In 2009 I Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster,
Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation is the work
of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been working on helping victims of these
horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to individuals who are being
harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as protections to keep
individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by electronic frequency
devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons. I again reintroduced
the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015 and frequented the Pennsylvania Capitol
trying to find support and a sponsor; which I still does to this day.
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4793 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
In 2006 I began my role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton Financial, which is listed as
"FULT" on the NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial Management Group, Ltd., a full
service financial firm, Stan J. Caterbone has drawn upon the success in developing the strategic
vision for his company and the experience gained in directing the legal affairs and public offering
efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial. I has been in recent discussions with the Fulton Financial
Board of Directors with regards to various complaints dealing with such issues as the Resource
Bank acquisition and the subprime failures.
In 2005 I, as a Pro Se Litigant I filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs that are in current
litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United
States Third District Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania
Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. These litigations include violations of intellectual property rights,
anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to several business interests. Central to
this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies, Financial Management Group, Ltd,/FMG
Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal False Claims Act or Federal
Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc., (ISC) the $1Billion
Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This litigation dates
back to 1987. Stan J. Caterbone was a shareholder of ISC, and was solicited by ISC executives for
professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of RICO Civil Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, as docket no. 05-2288.
In 2005 Advanced Media Group/Project Hope filed a Civil Action in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County against Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn for their attempts to
withhold the Tourism Tax and Hotel Tax that supports the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center
& Marriot. We also proposed an alternative plan to move the Convention Center to the Hotel
Brunswick and Lancaster Square to all of the major stakeholders. The Lancaster County
Convention Center is finally under construction with a March 2009 Opening date.
In 2005 I was selected to attend the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City after
submission of an essay with and application. I received the invitation from Bruce R. Lindsey,
Chief Executive Officer of the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2000 to 2002 I developed an array of marketing and communication tools for

wholesalers of the AIM Investment Group and managed several communication programs for
several of the company wholesalers throughout the United States and Costa Rica. We also began a
Day Trading project that lasted until 2004 with success.
In 1999 I developed a comprehensive business plan to develop the former Sprecher

Brewery, known as the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This plan
was developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for the
Revitalization of Downtown Lancaster and the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center for the
former Watt & Shand building.
In 1999 I contributed to the debate, research, and implementation of strategies to

counter the effects of the global Y2K threat to the worlds computer technologies. I attended the
U.S. Sponsored Y2K symposium and Conference in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Senate Y2K
Subcommittee and Senator William Bennett.
In 1998 I had began to administer the charity giving of Toms Project Hope, a non-profit
organization promoting education and awareness for mental illness and suicide prevention. We
had provided funding for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact Lancaster (The
24/7 Suicide Prevention Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable
organizations and faith based charities. The video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been distributed to
schools, non profit organizations, faith based initiatives, and municipalities to provide educational
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4804 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
support for the prevention of suicide and to bring awareness to mental illness problems.
In 1996 I had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc., during the time that I was
controller of Pflumm Contractors, Inc., I was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to
computerized their accounting and records management from top to bottom. I had also provided
consulting for the computerization of accounting and payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of
Washington Boro. I was retained to evaluate and develop an action plan to migrate the
Informations Technologies of the Jay Group, formally of Ronks, PA, now relocated to a new $26
Million Dollar headquarters located in West Hempfield Township of Lancaster County. The Jay
Group had been using IBM mainframe technologies hosted by the AS 400 computer and server. I
was consulting on the merits of migrating to a PC based real time networking system throughout
the entire organization. Currently the Jay Group employees some 500 employees with revenues in
excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 I was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as controller, and was responsible for
saving the company from a potential bankruptcy. At that time, due to several unpaid contracts,
the company was facing extreme pressure from lenders and the bonding insurance company. We
were responsible for implementing computerized accounting, accounting and contract policies and
procedures, human resource policies and procedures, marketing strategies, performance
measurement reporting, and negotiate for the payment of unpaid contracts. The bonding company
was especially problematic, since it was the lifeline to continue work and bidding for public
contracts. The Bank of Lancaster County demanded a complete accounting of the operations in
order to stave off a default on the notes and loans it was holding. We essentially revamped the
entire operation. Within 3 years, the company realized an increase in profits of 3 to 4 times its
previous years, and record revenues.
In 1991 I was elected to People to People International and the Citizen Ambassador
Program, which was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The program was
founded to To give specialists from throughout the world greater opportunities to work together
and effectively communicate with peers, The Citizen Ambassador program administers face-to-
face scientific, technical, and professional exchanges throughout the world. In 1961, under
President John F. Kennedy, the State Department established a non-profit private foundation to
administer the program. We were scheduled to tour the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to
discuss printing and publishing technologies with scientists and technicians around the world.
In 1990 I had worked on developing voice recognition systems for the governments
technology think tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). I co-authored the
article Escaping the Unix Tar Pit with a scientist from NIST that was published in the magazine
DISC, then one of the leading publications for the CD-ROM industry. Today, most all call centers
deploy that technology whenever you call an 800 number, and voice recognition is prevalent in all
types of applications involving telecommunications.
In 1989 I had founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and was one of only 5 or 6 U.S.
domestic companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's. We did business with
commercial companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and foreign companies. I
performed services and contracts for the Department of Defense, NASA, National Institution of
Standards & Technology (NIST), Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), and the Defense Mapping Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), IBM,
Microsoft, AMP, Commodore Computers, American Bankers Bond Buyers, and a host of others. I
also was working with R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was developing various interactive
mapping technologies, which is now a major asset of Map Quest. Map Quest is the premier
provider of mapping software and applications for the internet and is often used in delivering
maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had arranged for High Industries to sell
American Helix, the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly. We had brokered a deal and
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4815 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
the executives from Donnellys Chicago headquarters flew to Lancaster to discuss the deal and
perform due diligence of the manufacturing facility located in the Greenfield Industrial Park.
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York and Tony Bongiovi retained me as
executive producer of a motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be
delivered in a digital format; the first of its kind. We had originated the marketing for the
technology, and created the concept for the Power Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which
would follow the copyright and marketing formula of the DOLBY technology trademark.
We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the development and
commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the recording
industry featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of
Philadelphia was the lead patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station
Studios was the brainchild of Tony Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown
when he was 15. Tony and Power Station Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the
country, and were responsible for developing Bon Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients
included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Cyndi Lauper, Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones,
Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power Station Studios had produced the original
Sound Track for the original Star Wars motion picture. It was released for distribution and was
the number one Sound Track recording of its time.
Tony Bongiovi was also active in working and researching different aerospace
technologies. * We had developed and authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with
us in delivering the Digital Movie and its related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was
to include the commercialization of technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the
recording industry simultaneously with the release of the Digital Movie.
I also created the concept for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark logo
for the technology, similar to the DOLBY sound systems trademark. The acronyms stand for the
Power Station Digital Movie System. Today, DVD is the mainstay for delivering digital movies on a
portable medium, a compact disc.
In 1987 I had a created and developed FMG Mortgage Banking, a company that was
funded by a major banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the capability to finance projects from
$3 to $100 million dollars. Our terms and rates were so attractive that we had quickly received
solicitations from developers across the country. We were also very attractive to companies that
wanted to raise capital that include both debt and equity. Through my company, FMG, we could
raise equity funding through private placements, and debt funding through FMG Mortgage
Banking. We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood, California to secure financing of
their postproduction Film Studio that was looking to relocate to North Carolina. We had secured
refinancing packages for Norris Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and were in the midst of replacing
the current loan that was with Commonwealth National Bank. We had meetings and discussions
with Drew Anton of the Eden Resort, for refinancing a portion of his debt portfolio. We were
quickly seeking commitments for real estate deals from New York to California. We also had a
number of other prominent local developers seeking our competitive funding, including Owen
Kugal, High Industries, and the Marty Sponougle a partner of The Fisher Group (owner of the Rt.
30 Outlets). We were constantly told that our financing packages were more competitive than
local institutions.
In 1986 I had founded Financial Management Group, Ltd (FMG); a large financial services
organization comprised of a variety of professionals operating in one location. We had developed a
stock purchase program for where everyone had the opportunity for equity ownership in the new
firm. FMG had financial planners, investment managers, accountants, attorneys, realtors, liability
insurance services, tax preparers, and estate planners operating out of our corporate
headquarters in Lancaster. In one year, we had 24 people on staff, had approximately 12 offices in
Pennsylvania, and
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4826 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of $50 million under management, and
our advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions, which did not include the fees
from the other professionals. We had acquired our own Broker Dealer firm and were valued at
about $3 to $4 million.
In 1985 I developed the Easter Regional Free Agent Camp, the first Free Agent Camp for
the Professional Football industry; which was videotaped for distribution to the teams scouting
departments. (See Washington Post page article of March 24, 1985) Current camps were
dependant on the team scouts to travel from state to state looking for recruits. We had developed
a strategy of video taping the camp and the distributing a copy, free of charge to the teams, to all
of the scouting departments for teams in all three leagues FL, CFL and WFL. My brother was
signed at that camp by the Ottawa Roughriders of the CFL, and went on to be a leading receiver
while J.C. Watts was one of the leagues most prominent quarterbacks. My brother also played 2
years with the Miami Dolphins while Dan Marino was starting quarterback. We were a Certified
Agent for the National Football League Players Association.
In 1985 I was elected Vice President of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the
International Association of Financial Planners, and helped build that chapter by increasing
membership 3to 4 times. We had personally retained the nationally acclaimed and nationally
syndicated Financial Planner, Ms. Alexandria Armstrong of Washington D.C.; to host a major
fundraiser. More than 150 professionals attended the dinner event that was held at the Eden
Resort & Conference Center. Ms. Armstrong discussed financial planning and how all of the
professions needed to work together in order to be most effective for their clients. We attracted a
wide variety of professionals including; brokers, lawyers, accountants, realtors, tax specialists,
estate planners, bankers, and investment advisors. Today, it has become evident that financial
planning was the way of the future. In 1986 executives approached us from Blue Ball National
Bank to help them develop a Financial Planning department within their bank.
In 1984 I had helped to develop strategic planning for Sandy Weill, former President of
Citi Group (the largest banking entity in the U.S). We were one of several associates asked to help
advise on the future of Financial Planning and how it would impact the brokerage and the
investment industry at large. Mr. Weil was performing due diligence for the merger of American
Express and IDS (Investors Diversified Services). We were at that time a national leader in the
company in delivering Fee Based Financial Planning Services, which was a new concept in the
investment community and mainstream investors. That concept is now widely held by most
investment advisers.
I am currently a recipient of the following type(s) of Benefits from the Social

Security Administration for Long Term Disability Benefits for illnesses and symptoms
relating to U.S. Sponsored Mind Control as evidenced by my documentation and the fact
that no medical reports or physicians were reported in the entire application process
and there was never a psychiatric evaluation for the same said purposes. I am
receiving a net monthly benefit of $1379.00 and have been since April of 2008 and was
declared disabled in December of 2005, the same said month that I reported that I
became the victim of full-time synthetic telepathy, as well as other related symptoms
and illnesses.
As important, last year I watched with frustration and dismay when the little boy from
Aleppo made a video begging for help from the constant bombing of his home and village. It was
one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. The UN and the Red Cross were even
neutralized in getting in to help. I was happy to watch the breaking news the other night of the
attack on the Syrian regime. I immediately thought it was a very careful, calculating and
impressive military strike, that hopefully will help mend the political divide in Washington, which
so far, it looks like it is. I hope the mended fences don't fall by the wayside in short fashion. The
time after 911 was similar, and it went to Hell fast. Hopefully it will be a catalyst to help restore
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4837 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
respect for America and Americans around the world.
In Addition, would you respectfully take into consideration Political Asylum For My
Friend and Colleague Soleilmavis Liu of China, Soleilmavis is A Victim of Mind Control
Living In China Who Started Peacepink? Soleilmavis is a brilliant author and would be
an asset to our country. Her book, A QUEEN OF THE SOUTH IN MATHEW 1242 is an
enlightening and brilliant read on the beginning of civilization and the migration of
people.
This is her story, as Soleilmavis writes it:
Dear Stan, I like your letter (To President Trump on April 6, 2017). However, I
felt that the following story is also important, which I have been using it to request the
USA government to take the responsibility to investigate my case.
"On the third day after I arrived in Hong Kong, the voices started harassing me
again. They sounded as if they were in the rooms adjacent to mine. Even though my
physical symptoms were significantly reduced, I still had blurred vision and poor
hearing and my thoughts seemed to be tied up again. Why could I still hear their
voices? Did they follow me to Hong Kong? At night, I heard those voices say that Hu and
Bi had arranged the visa for me at the USA Embassy. The voices said that all officers in
the USA Embassy had known me and that if I went to the USA Embassy, they would
receive me immediately.
They even told me that the USA Embassy had prepared a Permanent Residence
for me and if I wanted, they would even prepare a temporary USA passport for me. This
sounded weird because that if I got a Permanent Residence or a USA passport in Hong
Kong, there would be a lot of trouble in the future when I would go to China. I just
wanted a visa to go to the USA. Still, I decided to go to the USA Embassy to apply for a
visa. The next morning, I got up very early. The voices were still harassing me. I still
had blurred vision and poor hearing and my thoughts were tied up tightly by invisible
strings since last night.
I took a taxi to the USA Embassy in Hong Kong. It was only 6AM. I sat in a small
restaurant opposite the USA Embassy and had my breakfast. After finishing my
breakfast, I sat outside the restaurant, watching people on the street. I also paced up
and down the street for a while. Suddenly a man approached me while I was lingering
in front of the restaurant and I heard a low voice say, Follow me! so I followed the
man. I was exactly like a robot, with a complete empty mind as I walked into the USA
Embassy. Even though there were many security guards standing in front the iron
barriers door, they just opened the door for me. Nobody stopped me or asked me
anything. When I entered the main building inside the US Embassy, I noticed there was
a small room on the right side and a man (with black skin color) wearing uniform was
sitting there. It was the security guard. I thought I should register, so I walked toward
the man. When he saw me walking toward him, he stood up and asked politely, Can I
help you? I responded, I want to apply for a visa to America. I showed my passport
to him. He had a look at my passport and told me, The visa office is outside of the US
Embassy. You need go out, turn right and walk about fifty meters.
When I was talking to the security guard, I heard those voices coming from the
room upstairs. They said, Why do you not come upstairs to get your Permanent
Resident card? My brain could not think straight, but I knew my purpose today was to
apply for the visa in the US Embassy. Instead of going upstairs, I walked out of the USA
Embassy and went to the visa office which was in the north part of the building. In the
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4848 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
visa application office, an officer told me that my Chinese passport would not allow me
to apply for a visa in Hong Kong and that I had to apply for a USA visa in Melbourne or
China. "
Soleilmavis went to the police in January, 2002 to report that someone was
following her and using technology to read her thoughts. Soleilmavis told the police that
their voices sounded as if they came from the neighbors. The police responded that it was illegal
to use mind-reading technologies in Australia. In February, 2002, Soleilmavis moved to a new
one-story house. An increase in the symptoms was noted: diarrhea for almost a month,
involuntary hand tremors,
inability to stand firmly on her legs, alternation of cold and hot sensations, excessive perspiration,
and more. As usual, the symptoms disappeared, without any medication.
On April 5 2002, Soleilmavis could not bear any more suffering, so Soleilmavis left Australia
.However, even after Soleilmavis left, Soleilmavis still could hear those voices. Soleilmavis
went to Hong Kong, Thailand, Shanghai and China, but the voices still sounded as if they came
from the neighbors. The same symptoms came back all the time and her belongings were often
stolen when Soleilmavis was not in her hotels.
In August, 2002, Soleilmavis went to New Zealand. Again, Soleilmavis experienced the same
symptoms. In April 2003, Soleilmavis had already spent all her money, so Soleilmavis came
back to China and stayed with her parents. Soleilmavis had more symptoms such as
constipation, faece and piss incontinence and sexual harassment. Torturers started to prevent her
from sleeping at night, or they would wake her up at midnight. Sometimes, the tormentors also
forced her to sleep when Soleilmavis did not want to or they would force her to have "dreams".
Soleilmavis knew those "dreams" were totally artificial and transmitted to her brain via an
external medium, presumably through electromagnetic weapons. The principle was the same as
with a silent sound device which could transmit sounds into a person's skull.
At the end of 2004, her tormentors forced her to have "dreams" every night. These people could
use electromagnetic technologies to transmit their voices directly to her brain. They could make
their voices sound as if they came from the neighbors or from a nearby person. They could also
use their devices to morph the voices to sound like those of her friends or family members. Upon
her return to China, the voices still sounded as if they came from neighbors, but Soleilmavis
knew they were not her neighbors' voices. After 2005, they no longer used the "voice trick",
although sometimes they even tried to make her believe that they were the TV announcers'
voices.
Upon her return to China, the voices still sounded as if they came from neighbors, but
Soleilmavis knew they were not her neighbors' voices. After 2005, they no longer used the
"voice trick", although sometimes they even tried to make her believe that they were the TV
announcers' voices.
Soleilmavis thought that they mostly used their own voices. When they started to torture and
harass her in Australia, most of them only spoke in English. Only one or two spoke in Mandarin
without any dialects. During the second month, more people who spoke in Mandarin joined them.
They also asked whether Soleilmavis could speak Cantonese. Other victims said they could hear
the voices speaking in Cantonese. Since leaving Australia, most of the voices were only in
Mandarin.
About ten people who spoke Mandarin had been torturing and harassing her 24/7 between May
2002 and April 2003. After April 2003, about ten Mandarin voices were used and only occasional
voices were in English. Soleilmavis thought they might have employed more Mandarin-speaking
people to join them.
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
No.No.
4859 of 1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
During the past few years, their weapons have attacked her, no matter where Soleilmavis was;
in every country, whether inside a house, underground, on a plane, on a ship, underwater, inside a
car, on a mountaintop or anywhere.
Soleilmavis efforts of the past few years For the past few years, Soleilmavis has been
working hard to stop these fascist atrocities. Soleilmavis reported these crimes to the police
when Soleilmavis was in Australia in January and February, 2002. Soleilmavis wrote letters to
the United Nations after Soleilmavis left Australia.
Respectfully,
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
ENCLOSURES - DVD'S
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.486
10of
of1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
ACTIVE COURT CASES

U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle
Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-10615; Case No.
17-0867 Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States,
et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-
02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-1751
PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary Appeal Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015;
1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472 INJUNCTION re
Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
LETTER TO
17-01233 BRIEF
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.487
11of
of1224
17 Wednesday
Monday June 7,
5, 2017
Case: 15-3400
WHAT LAW Document:
GIVES YOU 003112110974
THE LEGAL Page: 1
RIGHT TO TERRORIZE Date
ME? by Filed:
Stan 10/26/2015
J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
! !" ! #
$% &
' () %
*******************************************************************************
' " + ' ,
)-././01-2 ,
,
- 10 3%% % $
' 4 ( ( ,
2- )015 1. ,
,
,
))-'' 1. ,
,
,
+
/ + + ! 6 0 ( % $( 7 8 6 + 9 .+ !
6 ! : 6 : + ; +
! + 6 + : 6 9 ! " ! . + ! +
+ + : ; ! 6 + ! +
+ ))-'' 1.( + 6 + < = ! 6
. ! / ! ! > ! + ! + .+ 6 :
6 + 025-2 + 8 ! ) 5 ! ( % $,
! "# $ % & $' ( )% $ % )# ) && )# &&$ # $ #

( ( $# $)! )# ""* $ $) # ( % # $) "" % ("* ( $
+ * $ #$ # ' # $ , , &$) $ ( - )( $)# $". $ +' # $ % )%/
# "0 )% $ $ % )1 ( # "0 )% * $ # ) 233 & $&" ,. 4 $ , $, 5 # 67 89, " $
) " ( " )%# * ( $) $ # +& &" : )% ; # $) $ # ) # $) < )# "" % ) 7
$ " 0 # $ 7. )( =$ 0 $) +( % # " $' . # # +( #"* &$) " $ #
( ' "$& )# $ # > )# ) #,<. 4 (, # 2?/@?9, ) (( # $)7 ( # " # #* %$' ) )# "
## &# # + )( $)# $"7. ) " ( )%A 29 + " )0 # )% * (= "" )% )( $ )( )% = #
15-3400
LETTER Lambert
17-01233TO
BRIEF Appeal
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
PageNo.
No.1488
of
12194
of
of1224
17 Monday, October
Wednesday
Monday June26,
5, 2015
7, 2017
Case: 15-3400
WHAT LAW Document:
GIVES YOU 003112110974
THE LEGAL Page: 2
ME? by Filed:
Stan 10/26/2015
" # $ %) # ) %*.B @9 + )' ( )% * # $ % # ' $# ) )% # )$"$% .B

)( C9 +- 0 )% )# ""* > < $# < '$ # $ % # $= ' )% #,.
4 (, # @6/C3,9
/ + + 6 + 8 ! ) 5 ! ! !
+ ))-'' 1. ! > ! + .+ ! +
: .+ ))-'' 1. + : ! + 1 6 + 6 ! +
+ + 6 6 .+ ))-'' 1. + ! + 6 + 10./ - 0&
))- ',
+ " "* # $)$ " D (% " , $)( ( )# )# $) $# # )# #$

)( ; # " E # & ( ) % ( )% # , - F 7 # ) D, # $) 7
) % # )% $ & # # $)7 )# % #*7 )# "" # " & $& #*7 & $) " & $&/
#*7 ) % # 7 )( $ # &$ # )#"* $) # # # $) " % # ) # $ #
$ # & # # ) 4239 * & $ , - F ( ( $) ( ## &# #$ & $ /
'( # " 0% $ )( #$ # $)$ " D (% $)( )"* &$ " )
) )# )) &$ " $ )$# #$ " ## # $ # )( # ($ 0 # , $
# # - F # ( )$ # " # )% #$ # C3 &" *
" % "; % , $, 36/5565 ) # ( # $ #$ && " ,.
+ ! + ! !? ! ! !" ! # ) + /
9 ! " ! ! + & ! & 0 $(
% $@ + + ! + + + ! 6 ; 6 + & ! &
6/ ! ( )' ( / !9 !" ! + +
+ 4 ! 65 ! 4 2 /
4 2 / = A; ! ,
?8 ! 5 6 1 / 6 3 ( + !
+ 5 6 / + + ! B 5 8 : +
5 6 + 1 / + ! + C 8 >
+ 5 5 6 / ( + + ! 6 & ( C
%( C / + 6 ! 1 ( + + !
9 6 6 + " ; ! +
C 9 - 4 ( ' .+ = + 6
! ! ! 6 9 - 6 6 + 1 ( +
+ ! + 6 -: 066 6 + " ! . +
D" E ( . : 6 6 ! + ( ) ! ! + 6 -: 066 6
A ; ( / ( ! ! + ! 6 +
! / ! + 6 + & ! 2 4 ; 6 5 6 C + +
15-3400
LETTER Lambert
17-01233TO
BRIEF Appeal
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
PageNo.
No.2489
of
13194
of
of1224
17 Monday, October
Wednesday
Monday June26,
5, 2015
7, 2017
Case: 15-3400
WHAT LAW Document:
GIVES YOU 003112110974
THE LEGAL Page: 3
ME? by Filed:
Stan 10/26/2015
% ! / F % + +
( + + " 5 6 # 6 B ! ' B 8
6 + 4 ! 6 5 6 " - ! 6 + !
8 . 6 + ! + 6 / 6
. + 8 ! & 6 + 1 ! 6 ) ! ) !
! + 6 5 6 ( + +! + D E
/ + ! 6 / G H %% ( / + + ! + '4 +
1 ) .+ 9 6. : ' ! 4 + + 6 ) 66 ( !
%%$ ! %% + + = ! G H / ! ! 6 . : +
+ = + $% / + ! + 4 ! 6 5 6 +
& 2 (5 ( 4 D .I.EG H ! " - / % +
+ ! 6 + ! 6 ! 6 J ( 6 - ; ) = 4 ; !
; ! G3H 6 % (+ + 4 ! 65 6 ! G$H 1 6
6 5 6 / ! ) ! 4 = + ! '
6 5 6 5 ( ( ! 8
! + 6 ( +! + ! 6 C(
3G H )# ) # $) " %) " )( $)# $" 4 9 )( " / 3( 6 4 2 /
7 ! +! 6 ! 5 6 ( + ! + +
! ! ! + ; / / 6 + ! 6
! 6 + ( + + ! + ! : G$H
0 ! - / D- / E( + 6 !
6 + #" 3$ + ; ! 2/" 3( ! > 6 + B
+ + 6 ! ! 6 + 9 ! 6 ! D5 E .+
+ ! 6 6 DK+ KE ! 6
1 ! (G H ! 6 ! + ! 6 6 ( !
! < / ! > ! ( 6 + + -0
# ! $ , / ! 6 ! ! ! ! + 6 + 4 +
& ( + + 7 ! C G H / : ! 6 ! + +
6 ( + + + 6 ! ! + ! ( / 7 & C3 CC( /
+ 6 + L % ! 7 ( ! ;
! 6 6 +( 6 ! ( ! +
6 ! ( 6 + + ! 6 + K ; K 6 !
6 + + ! 6 ! / 7G H + ; / 7 +
6 + 6 6 + "; % 2 ; // + + + ! 6
! ( + + ! ! + 7 !
6 + ) # 6A 6 M& GCH@
.+ ! ! ?4 6 8 06 "N 9 ! 4 2 / ' ;
" ! .+ ) @ + + + 6 ! ) + " !
15-3400
LETTER Lambert
17-01233TO
BRIEF Appeal
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
PageNo.
No.3490
of
14194
of
of1224
17 Monday, October
Wednesday
Monday June26,
5, 2015
7, 2017
Case: 15-3400
WHAT LAW Document:
GIVES YOU 003112110974
THE LEGAL Page: 4
ME? by Filed:
Stan 10/26/2015
+ ? / ) +
( + = ' = /
! 6 ( + + ! + 6 + 6
! 6 4 2 / ! 6! ( +
.+ 6 6 + : + ))-'' 1. + + ( +
6 < ! 66 ! ,
- - F - F 4 97 8 2 +
0 < (/+ %% !+ ! + 09.2- 8
0""/..-- && 8 6 ! !! + ! ; > 6 + +
6 + + + 6 6 + 9
! + 9 ( ! 6 (
( ! ! ! 6 < .+ + +
! + 6 $ ! + : 6 !
: ! ! + / 6 + + ( + / 66
! ! + 8 ( + + ! +
6 + ! 6 ! + ( +
! ! .+ 6 ! 6 + + 2 ! ! !
+ + 6 + / ( &4/( !1 + + ( ! 7
!! ! ! ! ( 6 + ! ; 6 + !
+ ! ! ( + + ! ! 6 ! !
+ + ! !6 ! + !
D " )) - G )) *( 6 66 6 + 9 ( (
5 - ) > 6 1 ! +
6 "/ 20A B- 8 2 "-1. 15 "/15 01.20' -J)-2/"-1. ./01 A8/.8-2 .8- N#4O
" N = / %% P 6 + + >
, 0 % 7 ,( + + ! ! + !
+ > 6" ! 5 1 ;4 + + ! 6
+ 9 ! 6 ; (1 ;4 + ( ! )
4 + 8 ; ; 6 + 8 !
) ! 6 + + ; & ! 6. + ! + + 6 -!
8 + ! ! + + ! 6 6+ !
6 4 + !5 6" ! D" ! E( + (6 ! !
; + + ! ( 6 .+ 0 / 9 6
" ! ( ( ' ; ( 1 3 8 + ! +
" + ; 5 = ) .+ 8 2)Q ! . . +
4 + + + ! - + 2 .+ 2 , . ! .+ ! P 6 )
! ! + ; - + 2 // .+ 4 6 ( ! + +
15-3400
LETTER Lambert
17-01233TO
BRIEF Appeal
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
PageNo.
No.4491
of
15194
of
of1224
17 Monday, October
Wednesday
Monday June26,
5, 2015
7, 2017
Case: 15-3400
WHAT LAW Document:
GIVES YOU 003112110974
THE LEGAL Page: 5
ME? by Filed:
Stan 10/26/2015
+ + 2 ! ; 8 ; + 8 " ! .+
. + 6) . 6 ) ;) 6 4 ++ + !
( ! ! ! ; ( + ! + +
+ 9 ! ! 8 + 6 ! + !
6 ! ! + + ! + ( + +
! + ! 8 + ! ! < 6
! ! + + + + ! ! 44 .B( 4 .B(
. " ! ( ! +
3 , D$ ) "" -, , 7 + 6 + ; A ( ( !
/ ! ( ! ( ! + 1 4 !,
. 5 8 = ! 6 ! +
= 6 ! 6 6 5 8 + !
+ + ! + + ! ( !
6 6 + / + ;( + ! + + + + 6
+ ( " ( ( + + 6 9
6 ( " !! ; ! : + , ! (
( ; ( ! 8 ! + 6 ! + ! +
+ + ! 0
6 6 6 (
, 0 ! A+ ! ! + + ! ! +
+ + + ;( 6 ( ! + ! O
*" H " ( 6" ! ( + + ; 6 + + !
6 ! 6 ! 6 + ! + + + !
! .+ " ! 5 0 A+ 1 :O + A +(
! ( " ! ( & %%C ! 2 ! !6 B D 3 ;E
/ 6 A ! ( / ? +@ D !6E
; 6 ! ( + A + %%C .+
; ( 6 6 ! + 6 ! 1
! 6 + 6 6 ; 6 + + + A +
! ; ! ; + + !
+ ; + ! ( " )+5 5 !
+ " ( )+5( ! ! + ! +
+ ; ! 6 ( 6 : (
( " I A ( 2 D %% E ?. / 6 @, " 6 ) + !
" / G H ) ! 6 ( D3E
, * $ # $)( " 5 K- & 7 2 +K 5 . 2 5
2 ! 6 ! + ! + 6 + " ! 6
& ! & 8 ! ; D&& 8 E && 8 ! !
6 ! ! ! 0 6 ! + ! !
15-3400
LETTER Lambert
17-01233TO
BRIEF Appeal
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
PageNo.
No.5492
of
16194
of
of1224
17 Monday, October
Wednesday
Monday June26,
5, 2015
7, 2017
Case: 15-3400
WHAT LAW Document:
GIVES YOU 003112110974
THE LEGAL Page: 6
ME? by Filed:
Stan 10/26/2015
+ + + + )% )E * #$ $ % ) * #
)( ) " ) & * $"$% " '$ , 5 2 ! !
! ! " 6 6 ! 6 +
- $ & )# # ' D #( 6 ( ! 6 (
( ! 6 2 6 + " 8 6
2 6 5 $ & ! 6 ' 2 / D' 2 /5E ! .+
6 = & ! ( + 2 /5 8
N ( ! ! ! 6 N 2 / 8 + + $C 8 +
! 4 ! + 6 9 6" M2 ( (
! = ! % 6 + + &
+ + 3( + ; ! 6 ! ' (
" # ! + # + ! ! + ! ; ; +
+ + > # + ! : ! !
6 + 6 6 + B-2/ + ! ! + 8 6
+ + + + . ! / ! ! + 6 + +
0 < ! ; ! - 8 +
.+ ))-'' 1. ! ; + ! ! + ))-'' 1. +
66 ! 6 + + ! + !
+ 1 ( % $! 6 ! + )
R R
5 ,0 ( % $ ()
$% &
' () %
D E
+ ,RR R**
15-3400
LETTER Lambert
17-01233TO
BRIEF Appeal
PRESIDENT
IN SUPPORT
TRUMP
OF APPEAL Page
Page
PageNo.
No.6493
of
17194
of
of1224
17 Monday, October
Wednesday
Monday June26,
5, 2015
7, 2017
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
Published by the Advanced Media Group and Stan J. Caterbone Copyright 2016
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUPFreedom

From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
EXCLUSIVE Transcripts of Whistleblower Testimonies as

Targeted Individuals of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and
Related Hearings and Lectures
Published by Advanced Media Group September 17, 2016
______________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background of Stan J. Caterbone as a Targeted Individual
2. In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom CIA No-Touch Torture Makes

Sense, by Cheryl Welsh 2008
3. Allstate Sworn Testimony of Stan J. Caterbone TRANSCRIPT Volume 2 and

Volume 1 July 12, 2016
4. Transcript of the Richmond City Council Public Hearing of May 19, 2015
Passing a City Resolution 5-2 to Ban Spaced-Based Weapons in Support of the
Many Targeted Individuals Suffering Symptoms of the City.
5. Karen Stewart, NSA Whistleblower and Targeted Individual
6. Julianne McKinney, US Army Intelligence Officer, Whistleblower, and

Targeted Individual
7. 8. Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group Executive Summary
8. Dr. Nick Begich, Author and Expert Researcher of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
9. 1975 TESTIMONY FROM DIRECTOR OF CIA STANSFIELD TURNER for the 1975
United States Senate Select Hearings on Mkultra
10. Proposed U.S. Government Settlement for TI via Change.org Petition by Stan
J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group March 17, 2016 with Affidavit and
Kane Op Ed Letter Sent to President Obama
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
17-01233 BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 1495
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
and Stan J. Caterbone Copyright 2016
Stan J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
__________________________________
EXCLUSIVE Transcripts of Whistleblower Testimonies as
Targeted Individuals of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and
Related Hearings and Lectures
________________________________
June 2, 2016
BACKGROUND
Stan J. Caterbone's International Signal & Control or ISC Whistleblowing History and Mind
Control Relationships are outlined in the following statements and declarations, which have already
been proven and verified and have never been specifically contested in any court of law:
Stan J. Caterbone was a Federal Whistleblower in 1987 regarding ISC
The 29 False Arrests and Prosecutorial Misconduct that Stan J. Caterbone was subject to in 1987
through 2015 was an effort to cover-up the allegations made by Stan J. Caterbone in the Spring and
Summer of 1987 after the Meeting of June 23, 1987 with ISC and United Chem Con Executive Larry
Resch.
The ISC Fraud and Sales of Arms to Iraq Story by the ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel and the
Financial Times of London in May, July, and September of 1991 was most likely initiated or was
corroborated by Lancaster Newspapers reporter Thomas Flannary.
Thomas Flannary's mysterious death in February of 2004 was either murder or was a cover story to
hide the fact that he was a CIA operative used to control the flow of information, disinformation, and
propaganda. It is highly subject that he began his career with Lancaster Newspapers in 1987 and is not
a native Lancastrian.
The ISC merger was not completed until December of 1987, 3 months after the False Arrests of Stan
J. Caterbone.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 2496
of 673
173
183
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
The official meeting with the Pennsylvania Securities Commission Agent Howard Eisler in September of
1987, which was solicited by Agent Eisler was an effort to illegally interrogate Stan J. Caterbone without
a legal subpoena.
In the months after the June 23, 1987 meeting with ISC Executive Larry Resch Stan J. Caterbone had
personally solicited a vast array of local, state, and federal officials, including the FBI and Congressman
Robert Walker, PA State Representative Gibson Armstrong for assistance in the retaliation and slander
campaign that was in progress. There is credible linkage between the ISC Scandal, U.S. Sponsored
Mind Control, Stan J. Caterbone's family VICTIMIZATION of the same, and the participation of
LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Zook Murder Appeal proves that Lancaster County Detective Michael Landis, Judge James Cullen,
and Judge Farina of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas were all involved in U.S. Sponsored
Mind Control before 2004 and before Stan J. Caterbone went public with his VICTIMIZATION of U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control.
Bobby Ray Inman, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) was on the Board of
Directors of ISC and was involved in U.S. Sponsored Mind Control Technologies through his company
S.A.I.C. Corporation. Bobby Ray Inman would later be selected by Former President Bill Clinton for his
Director of Defense, but would later remove himself due to allegations and public scrutiny for his role in
the ISC scandal.
In the Fall of 1991 Robert Gates was nominated for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
and during his televised confirmation hearings the was subject to brutal array of questions concerning
his participation in the ISC scandal. He went on to be nominated and later would serve both the Bush
Administrations and the Obama Administrations as Secretary of Defense until resigning in 2011.
There have been at least 3 documented attempts on the life of Stan J. Caterbone; 1987, 1991, and
2004, all attempts at vehicular homicide. Thomas P. Caterbone's passing in 1996 was the result of a
wrongful death claim by Fulton Bank. Samuel A. Caterbone was most likely an KULTRA murder tactic in
Santa Barbara, California on December 25, 1984. Samuel P. Caterbone was most likely the result of an
MKULTRA murder tactic on July 20,2001 in New York city.
The above finding of facts and evidence corroborates a vast conspiracy and criminal enterprise that
violates both civil and criminal RICO statutes and antitrust statutes.
The above would constitute treble damages for Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group in U.S.
District Courts, specifically in the Eastern District for Pennsylvania Case No. 05-2288, 06-4650, 14-
02559, and other related cases; and Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 3497
of 673
173
183
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom

CIA no touch torture makes sense
out of mind control allegations
By Cheryl Welsh
January 2008
Cheryl Welsh was invited to speak about mind control allegations at a recent
workshop on ethics and interrogations by the workshop director, Jean Maria Arrigo PhD.
Dr. Arrigo commented on this article:
In CIA No Touch Torture Makes Sense Out of Mind Control Allegations,

Cheryl Welsh provides a valuable overview of methods common to
neuroweapons research and torture interrogation. Her essay is informed by
the multitude of self-identified, experimental targets of neuroweapons
researchers whom she represents. Scholars and journalists who are only able
to track neuroweapons research and interrogation methods through
government documents have biased the consensus reality in favor of
government authorities who deceive the public. We owe thanks to Cheryl
Welsh and her colleagues for their pioneering efforts to penetrate government
deception through the phenomenology of self-identified victims of
neuroweapons.
Jean Maria Arrigo, PhD, is an independent social psychologist and oral historian whose
work gives moral voice to military and intelligence professionals. See, for example,
Arrigo, J.M & Wagner, R. (2007). Torture Is for Amateurs: A Meeting of Psychologists
and Military Interrogators. [Special issue]. Peace and Conflict, 11 (4).
Dedicated to the courageous and kind-hearted

Peggy Fagan of Houston, Texas,
who is enduring the new scientific version of torture.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 4498
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 1
Table of contents
Introduction
I. A university professor uncovers CIA no touch torture
II. The beginnings of CIA no touch torture and how it spread
III. What is no touch torture?
IV. An example of no touch torture
V. The long history of U.S. torture
VI. CIA Cold War neuroscience-based mind control research
VII. CIA Cold War nonlethal weapons research
VIII. Why CIA no touch torture has been so successful
IX. All three programs are state tools for neutralizing the enemy
without killing; for intelligence operations and counterinsurgency
warfare
X. Mind control allegations by a Korean War POW, (prisoner of war),

a Soviet political prisoner and Abu Ghraib detainees
XI. The banal and bizarre techniques of no touch torture
XII. The three key behavioral components of no touch torture
XIII. Torture as a kind of total theater
XIV. A comparison of no touch torture to mind control allegations
XV. The phenomenology of the torture situation
XVI. Comparing no touch torture techniques of sensory disorientation

and self inflicted pain to mind control allegations
XVII. Conclusions: what everyone can agree on
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 5499
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 2
Introduction
After the horrific pictures of prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib were displayed in front pages of
newspapers around the world, the United States maintained that the U.S. government does not
torture; Abu Ghraib was about a few bad officers. Evidence now proves that CIA no touch torture
and worse were ordered by the executive branch and approved by top military officers. Surprisingly
this scandal has much in common with another national security issue, neuroweapons, commonly
referred to as mind control.
The field of neuroethics should begin now, according to bioethicist Dr. Jonathan Moreno in his 2006
book Mind Wars, Brain Research and National Defense. The influential book was reviewed in
Nature and JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association). Most neuroscientists agree that
advanced neuroweapons are over a half century away but the ethics of the new weapons need more
planning than occurred for the atomic bomb. Moreno began the first chapter of his book describing
the growing numbers of allegations of illegal government mind control targeting. He immediately
dismissed them as conspiracy theory nut cases. A 2007 Washington Post Magazine article,
Thought Wars followed suit. So why should anyone read further given these credible and highly
respected expert opinions?
Much of what the public should know about the issue has gone unreported or uninvestigated. For
example, after over a half century of classified research, not one publicly known neurological weapon
has been deployed. This raises more questions than it answers. Putting aside the major and
undebated points of the consensus position, the mind control allegations do sound crazy and on this
singular point, most people, including experts and news reporters refuse any closer examination.
Clearly, understanding why the mind control allegations sound so crazy would have significant
consequences.
Two analogies help clarify the major problems for the mind control issue, secrecy and the lack of a
thorough, impartial investigation;
Excerpt of a 1970s congressional hearing uncovering illegal CIA activities; [Senator Frank]
Church, ... persisted in blaming the plots [assassinations] on the CIA. The agency, he said, was
a rogue elephant on a rampage. For proof, he pointed to the lack of documentary evidence
that any president had ever approved an assassination. Former CIA director Richard Helms
countered that it was absurd to expect to find such evidence. I cant imagine anybody wanting
something in writing saying I have just charged Mr. Jones to go out and shoot Mr. Smith, he
testified. The Agency, he insisted, had simply carried out the wishes of the executive.
Even today, experts dont understand how the U.S. secrecy system works. Similar to the torture
scandal, until there is a national security scandal about neuroscience weapons, the public will
remain uninformed about a serious public issue.
During a dairymans strike in 19th century New England, when there was suspicion of milk
being watered down, Henry David Thoreau wrote; Sometimes circumstantial evidence can be
quite convincing; like when you find a trout in the milk. Mind Wars and the Washington Post
Magazine article examined the growing numbers of crazy sounding mind control allegations.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 6500
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 3
But unlike Thoreaus account, the publications only reported the convincing circumstantial
evidence of finding a trout in the milk and dismissed the suspicions without a fair or
impartial investigation. As a result, the mind control allegations made no sense.
Update: In the 2008 book The Commission, the Uncensored History of the 9-11 Investigation,
Philip Shenon explained that explicit, very classified kill orders are now put in writing. On page
254 Shenon wrote: MONs [memorandum of notification] were top-secret orders prepared by the
White House to authorize covert operations abroad by the CIA. ... there was an explicit, if highly
secret, order given by Clinton to the CIA in late 1998 to kill bin Laden.
I. A university professor uncovers CIA no touch

torture
University of Wisconsin professor Alfred McCoy wrote the 2006 book, A Question of Torture, CIA
Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Its a compelling account of McCoys search
for understanding the CIAs no touch torture techniques used in the war on terror and the Iraq
War. McCoy shows how information extracted by coercion is worthless and makes the case for a
legal approach, long and successfully used by the U.S. Marines and the F.B.I. McCoy documents
why CIA no touch torture is a revolutionary psychological approach and is the first new scientific
innovation after centuries of torture. Interrogators had found that mere physical pain, no matter
how extreme, often produced heightened resistance. Of course, the old brutal forms of physical
torture are still around, for example torture in Argentina in the 1970s described in the classic,
Prisoner Without a Name, Cell without a Number by Jacobo Timerman.
McCoy pieced together what no touch torture is and how it was spread globally. The CIAs new no
touch torture works by attacking and destroying the basis of personal identity. McCoy found that
the techniques were bizarre, simple, even banal and yet devastatingly effective. McCoy discovered
that the techniques had been scientifically proven in decades of CIA cold war research. Evidence of
several government manuals helped prove that the techniques were disseminated from Vietnam
through Iran to Central America.
No touch torture techniques sound strangely similar to mind control allegations. A comparison of
no touch torture to mind control allegations raised the possibility that mind control allegations
could be based on the well researched psychological theory for no touch torture. Torture victims
exhibit symptoms similar to psychotic processes and organic disorders and experts say this is not
mental illness but an outcome of the psychological component of torture. Psychotherapist Otto
Doerr-Zegers, who has treated Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet stated;
The psychological component of torture becomes a kind of total theater, a constructed unreality of
lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably with the victims self-betrayal and destruction. ...
This is similar to the technique of street theater that mind control victims described in the
Washington Post Magazine article. As torture victims are not mentally ill, mind control victims
would not be mentally ill but rather have undergone and are undergoing a traumatic situation
comparable to torture, such as the alleged illegal targeting with government mind control weapons.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 7501
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 4
The UCDavis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA) and the UCDavis
Center for Mind and Brain (CMB) further explain what psychological torture is and its effects on
torture victims.
[CSHRA and CMB] have initiated a collaboration to investigate theneurobiology of

psychological torture. ...Psychological torture (henceforthPT) is a set of practices that are
used worldwide to inflict pain or suffering without resorting to direct physical violence.
PT includes the use of sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation, forced self-induced pain,
solitary confinement, mock execution, severe humiliation, mind-altering drugs and
threats of violenceas well as the exploitation of personal or cultural phobias.
The psychiatric sequelae of PT are severe. They include delirium, psychosis, regression,
self-mutilation, cognitive impairment, and anxiety disorders, including post-traumatic
stress disorder. Neuroscience research on these and related mental disorders continues
to establish their neurobiological underpinnings, thus challenging the popular view that
PT is not physical, not serious, and perhaps not even torture at all.
The CSHRA and the CMB launched their collaborative efforts by holding The First
UCDavis Workshop on the Neurobiology of Psychological Torture. The goal of this
workshop was to bring together researchers and practitioners from different specialties
and research groups in order to set off a unified, long-term, research program on the
ways in which PT affects the human central nervous system in an effort to understand it
in relation to the more traditional forms of physical torture, and to establish clearly
articulated ethical, legal, and medical descriptions of this set of practices. It is expected
that these descriptions will help treat, document, and deter PT.
Supplemented by studies on the social, historical, and ethical ramifications of PT, the
presentations made at The First UCDavis Workshop on the Neurobiology of
Psychological Torture have been bound into The Trauma of Psychological Torture, a
volume to be published by Praeger on June 30, 2008.
Please note that numerous torture experts, including CSHRA and CMB have completely shunned
suggestions to investigate mind control allegations or to consider the issue. But this information may
be helpful to the therapists of TIs (targeted individuals of mind control) who are coping with mind
control targeting.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 8502
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 5
II. The beginnings of CIA no touch torture and how it

spread
The science of psychological torture began because of fears of Russian brainwashing of defendants in
the 1940s Moscow show trials and the Korean War POW (prisoners of war) brainwashing scare in
the 1950s. The 2005 book, World as Laboratory, Experiments with Mice, Mazes, and Men by
Rebecca Lemov described government psychological research for determining whether the
Communists had developed new techniques of brainwashing. Almost all [scientists] who were
assigned to study the phenomenon of POW collaboration ended up in short order working for the
CIA via one of its various cut-outs, conduits, and false fronts, such as the Society for the
Investigation of Human Ecology, the Geschickter Fund for Medical Research, and the Scientific
Engineering Institute, or in one of its own laboratories. (Lemov, 219) McCoy described the research
behind no touch torture and how it spread globally;
From 1950 to 1962, the CIA became involved in torture through a massive mind-control
effort, with psychological warfare and secret research into human consciousness that
reached a cost of a billion dollars annually, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind. ...
If we trace a narrative thread through a maze of hundreds of experiments, the CIA
research moved through two distinct phases, first an in-house exploration of exotic
techniques such as hypnosis and hallucinogenic drugs, and, a later focus on behavioral
experimentation by contract researchers, several of the most brilliant behavioral
scientists of their generation ...
While this Agency drug testing led nowhere, CIA-funded behavioral experiments,
outsourced to the countrys leading universities, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc., produced
three key findings that contributed to the discovery of a new form of torture that was
psychological, not physical, ... perhaps best described as no-touch torture. (McCoy
outline, 2)
Across the span of three continents and four decades, there is a striking similarity in U.S.
torture techniques, both their conceptual design and specific techniques, from the CIAs
1963 Kubark interrogation manual, to the Agencys 1983 Honduras training handbook,
all the way to General Ricardo Sanchezs 2003 orders for interrogation in Iraq. ...
Guantanamo perfected the three-phase psychological paradigm by attacking cultural
identity and individual psyche. (McCoy outline, 14)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL OfficersPage
PagePage
No. 9503
of 673
548
of 1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 6
III. What is no touch torture?

McCoy explained what no touch torture is;
The CIAs psychological paradigm for no touch torture fused two new methods,
sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, whose combination, in theory, would
cause victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily
to their torturers. Refined through years of practice, sensory disorientation relies on a
mix of sensory overload and sensory deprivation via banal procedures, isolation then
intense interrogation, heat and cold, light and dark, noise and silence, for a systematic
attack on all human stimuli. The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation
and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum
is a hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity. (McCoy outline, 4-5)
In 2004, the Red Cross reported: The construction of such a system. ... cannot be
considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment
and a form of torture. (McCoy outline, 9)
IV. An example of no touch torture

Democracy Nows Amy Goodman interviewed journalist Jane Mayer about her August 8, 2007 New
Yorker article, The Black Sites: A Rare Look Inside the C.I.A.s Secret Interrogation Program.
Mayer described detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his experience with no touch torture;
There, he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] was subjected to a kind of a weird routine that
someone described to me as kind of Clockwork Orange sort of thing, where he was put in
goggles that blacked out the light and earmuffs of some sort that blocked out sound and
deprived of any normal routine, such as meals or anything that would allow him to know
what time of day it was or really have any kind of marker in his existence. And its a
program thats developed of sort of psychological terror, in a way, to kind of make people
feel that they are completely dependent on other people, have no control over their lives,
and its something that, the technique, that really comes out of the KGB days, way back in
the Cold War. And apparently its something the CIA has put a lot of research into over
time.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.10
504
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 7
V. The long history of U.S. torture

The history of CIA torture runs parallel to CIA neuroscience-based mind control research and also
CIA nonlethal weapons research. This is important because mind control allegations include
descriptions of techniques that sound like all three CIA programs. It is possible that the related cold
war CIA no touch torture, nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control programs have
co-mingled for intelligence purposes. Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter and author
Tim Weiner wrote the 2007 book Legacy of Ashes, History of the CIA. Weiner described the CIA
torture programs and the U.S. secret detention centers around the world. This is a brief excerpt of
the extensive programs;
The project dated back to 1948, when Richard Helms and his [American intelligence]
officers in Germany realized they were being defrauded ... The agency had set up
clandestine prisons to wring confessions out of suspected double agents. One was in
Germany, another in Japan. The third, and the biggest, was in the Panama Canal Zone.
Like Guantanamo, ... It was anything goes. ... (Weiner, 64-5)
Senior CIA officers, including Helms, destroyed almost all the records of these programs
in fear they might become public. (Weiner, 66)
The agency, as Cheney said that morning, went over to the dark side. On Monday,
September 17, President Bush issued a fourteen-page top secret directive to Tenet and
the CIA, ordering the agency to hunt, capture, imprison, and interrogate suspects around
the world. It set new limits on what the agency could do. It was the foundation for a
system of secret prisons where CIA officers and contractors used techniques that
included torture. One CIA contractor was convicted of beating an Afghan prison to death.
This was not the role of a civilian intelligence service in a democratic society. But it is
clearly what the White House wanted the CIA to do. ...
[The CIA] had participated in the torture of captured enemy combatants before,
beginning in 1967, under the Phoenix program in Vietnam. ...
Under Bushs order, the CIA began to function as a global military police, throwing
hundreds of suspects into secret jails in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, and inside the
American military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. It handed hundreds more prisoners off
to the intelligence services in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Syria for interrogations.
(Weiner, 482)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.11
505
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 8
VI. CIA Cold War neuroscience-based mind control

research
Some CIA neuroscience-based mind control research is known to have continued into the 1970s and
is still classified today. A January 29, 1979 Washington Post article entitled Book Disputes CIA
Chief on Mind-Control Efforts: Work Went on Into 1970s, Author Says, reported;
Despite assurances last year from Central Intelligence Director Stansfield Turner that the
CIAs mind-control program was phased out over a decade ago, the intelligence agency
has come up with new documents indicating that the work went on into the 1970s,
according to a new book. John Marks, the author of the book, said the CIA mind-control
researchers did apparently drop their much publicized MK-ULTRA drug-testing
program. But they replaced it, according to Marks, with another super secret behavioral-
control project under the agencys Office of Research and Development.
The ORD program used a cover organization set up in the 1960s outside Boston headed
by Dr. Edwin Land, the founder of Polaroid, who acted as a figurehead, said Marks in
his book. The project investigated such research as genetic engineering, development of
new strains of bacteria, and mind control. The book identifies the Massachusetts
proprietary organization headed by Land as the Scientific Engineering Institute. The
CIA-funded institute was originally set up as a radar and technical research company in
the 1950s and shifted over to mind-control experiments in the 1960s with the exception
of a few scattered programs. According to Marks, however, the ORD program was a full-
scale one and just as secret as the earlier MK-ULTRA project.
In a March 14, 1987, Nation magazine editorial, Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication,
Microwave News, wrote; Experts agree that nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) can
affect behavior, but the question is whether the radiation can be harnessed and used on people at a
distance. With its MKULTRA program the CIA began looking for the answer in the early 1950s.
Slesin described that in the 1979 book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate, The CIA and Mind
Control by John Marks, Marks filed a freedom of information act (foia) request. The CIA replied
that it had a roomful of files on electromagnetic and related techniques to alter behavior and
stimulate the brain. But, [the agency] refused to release the papers, and they remain classified.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.12
506
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 9
VII. CIA Cold War nonlethal weapons research

Nonlethal weapons are another outcome of CIA behavior control research. Steven Aftergood wrote
about the initial stages of nonlethal weapons in the September/October 1994 Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists; Details about programs to develop so called non-lethal weapons are slowly emerging
from the U.S. governments secret black budget. ... The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new;
the term appears in heavily censored CIA documents dating from the 1960s. Dr. Barbara Hatch-
Rosenberg described nonlethal weapons on page 45,
Non-lethal weapons may violate treaties
Development of many of the proposed weapons described on these pages has been
undertaken by NATO, the United States, and probably other nations as well. Most of the
weapons could be considered pre-lethal rather than non-lethal. They would actually
provide a continuum of effects ranging from mild to lethal, with varying degrees of
controllability. Serious questions arise about the legality of these expensive and highly
classified development programs. Four international treaties are particularly relevant ...
The Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (also known as the Inhumane Weapons
Convention).
Many of the non-lethal weapons under consideration utilize infrasound or

electromagnetic energy (including lasers, microwave or radio-frequency radiation, or
visible light pulsed at brain-wave frequency) for their effects. These weapons are said to
cause temporary or permanent blinding, interference with mental processes,
modification of behavior and emotional response, seizures, severe pain, dizziness, nausea
and diarrhea, or disruption of internal organ functions in various other ways. In addition,
the use of high-power microwaves to melt down electronic systems would incidentally
cook every person in the vicinity.
Typically, the biological effects of these weapons depend on a number of variables that,
theoretically, could be tuned to control the severity of the effects. However, the precision
of control is questionable. The use of such weapons for law enforcement might constitute
severe bodily punishment without due process. In warfare, the use of these weapons in a
non-lethal mode would be analogous to the use of riot control agents in the Vietnam War,
a practice now outlawed by the CWC. Regardless of the level of injury inflicted, the use of
many non-lethal weapons is likely to violate international humanitarian law on the basis
of superfluous suffering and/or indiscriminate effects.
In addition, under the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention, international

discussions are now under way that may lead to the development of specific new
protocols covering electromagnetic weapons; a report is expected sometime next year.
The current surge of interest in electromagnetic and similar technologies makes the
adoption of a protocol explicitly outlawing the use of these dehumanizing weapons an
urgent matter.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.13
507
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 10
VIII. Why CIA no touch torture has been so successful

McCoy explained;
CIA Paradigm: In its clandestine journey across continents and decades, this distinctly
American form of psychological torture would prove elusive, resilient, adaptable and
devastatingly destructive, attributes that have allowed it to persist up to the present and
into the future. ...
1. Elusive: Unlike its physical variant, psychological torture lacks clear signs of abuse
and easily eludes detection, greatly complicating any investigation, prosecution, or
attempt at prohibition.
2. Resilient: Psychological torture is shrouded in a scientific patina that appeals to

policy makers and avoids the obvious physical brutality unpalatable to the modern
public.
3. Adaptable: In forty years since its discovery, the Agencys psychological paradigm
has proved surprisingly adaptable, with each sustained application producing
innovations. ...
4. Destructive: Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, the CIAs no
touch torture actually leaves searing psychological scars. Victims often need long
treatment to recover from a trauma many experts consider more crippling than
physical pain. (A Question of Torture, 12)
These characteristics also apply to nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control. All
three are emerging state tools of the future and can neutralize the enemy by controlling the behavior
of the enemy. A 2005 book entitled, Torture, Does it Make Us Safer? Is It Ever OK? was co-
published with Human Rights Watch. Some general reasons for why governments use torture as a
state tool include the following. Governments torture because it is a way to obtain coerced
confessions. The confessions can be used for propaganda purposes. Torture serves a variety of state
purposes: to terrorize certain elements of the population, to instill a climate of fear in the public
more generally, and to break key leaders and members of these groups, uncovering their networks.
Other purposes of torture are to obtain intelligence by any means, annihilate subversives and
eliminate the enemy.
Counterinsurgency warfare is taking place in Iraq and major newspapers have reported on the many
detainees that have consistently alleged being subjected to no touch torture techniques. As
reported in the September 16th, 2007 Sacramento Bee, General David Petraeus co-wrote the
Counterinsurgency Field Manuel-U.S. Army Field Manual on Tactics, Intelligence, Host Nation
Forces, Airpower, which Newsweek said, is highly touted as the basis upon which the surge of U.S.
forces this year would be organized.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.14
508
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 11
The book Torture, also included a description of counterinsurgency warfare, in which torture was a
principal weapon and was developed during the French experience in Indochina and Algeria.
[The] genesis of this new kind of warfare is the idea that the enemy takes the form of an
invisible political organization hidden among the civilian population. One can know its
leaders and its structure only by waging a war of information: by arresting masses of
civilian suspects, interrogating them, and, if necessary, torturing them. ... In the modern
era, ... the science of torture and similar abusive treatment has developed to break the
physical and mental resistance of subjects before they expire or go mad and thus become
useless as sources of information. ... Torture is still about domination.
IX. All three programs are state tools for neutralizing

the enemy without killing; for intelligence operations and
counterinsurgency warfare
By comparing mind control allegations to no touch torture techniques and the very classified
nonlethal weapons program, the purpose of the bizarre sounding mind control allegations begins to
make sense. Neuroweapons include the CIAs still classified neuroscience-based mind control
research, no touch torture and nonlethal weapons. All three are emerging state tools of the future
that can reliably neutralize the enemy psychologically or without killing. The old, politically
unacceptable methods of brutal physical torture and killing wont be eliminated but surreptitious,
scientifically proven, alternative methods are available to achieve an even greater national security
advantage. All are ideal for counterinsurgency warfare, psychological operations and intelligence
operations. The characteristics of no touch torture, nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based
mind control make them more inhumane than the atomic bomb.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.15
509
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 12
X. Mind control allegations by a Korean War POW,

(prisoner of war), a Soviet political prisoner and Abu
Ghraib detainees
Three relevant examples out of the numerous available provide a general overview of the decades of
mind control allegations and weapons. The details are compelling and rarely reported by
mainstream press and illustrate why a comparison of no touch torture to mind control allegations
is so applicable. The examples share the same Cold War history with CIA no touch torture,
neuroscience-based mind control and nonlethal weapons programs.
1. The 1984 BBC TV documentary Opening Pandoras Box described EMR [electromagnetic
radiation] remote mind control developments and a claim of mind control by a Korean POW;
In the 1950s, intelligence agencies were interested in changing mental states. The
theory is that brain waves can be tuned to a different EMR frequency and can
change moods and character. ... A CIA memo stated that they were looking for
behavior control to enhance consciousness.
The Soviets had realized the same thing. Dr. Ross Adey, famous EMR researcher at
Loma Linda Veterans Hospital, examined the Lida machine, from the Soviet Union.
It was described as a machine to rearrange consciousness. The Russians claimed
to use it for treatment of emotional disorders in the 1950s. Dr. Adey stated that the
Lida machine is now obsolete. It used coiled wire inside ear muffs which acted like
an antenna and emitted 1/10 sec pulses of EMR. Dr. Adey demonstrated that
excited animals rapidly quiet down when exposed to the Lida EMR frequencies.
There was one account that the Lida machine was used during the Korean war for
brainwashing American Prisoners.
2. An interview of an alleged Russian victim, Andre Slepucha, was reported in a 1998 ZDF
German TV documentary. He described what seems to be the first reported victim of some type
of microwave hearing. Slepucha stated;
In November 1954 I came into contact with what today is referred to as

Psychotronic Treatment for the first time. Back then they took me out of the
concentration camp where, under Stalin, I had been imprisoned as a political
prisoner, and brought me into an isolation cell in the KGB prison which was located
in the Lubyanka. After an approximately two week long continuous occupation of
the cell I suddenly experienced in the morning strong sounds in the head, very
strong acoustic and visual hallucinations.
On the CNN news broadcast, Special Assignment by Chuck DeCaro, Weapons of War, Is there
an RF Gap? November 1985, Dr. Bill van Bise, electrical engineer, conducted a demonstration
of Soviet scientific data and schematics for beaming a magnetic field into the brain to cause
visual hallucinations. The demonstration on reporter Chuck DeCaro was successful. Dr. van
Bise stated, In three weeks, I could put together a device that would take care of a whole
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.16
510
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 13
town. A December 13, 1976, Federal Times article, Microwave Weapons Study by Soviets
Cited described the alleged Russian capability of microwave hearing;
The Defense Intelligence Agency has released a report on heavy Communist

research on microwaves, including their use as weapons. Microwaves are used in
radar, television and microwave ovens. They can cause disorientation and possibly
heart attacks in humans. Another biological effect with possible anti-personnel uses
is microwave hearing. Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be
originating intracranially (within the head) can be induced by signal modulation at
very low average power densities, the report said. According to the study,
Communist work in this area has great potential for development into a system for
disorienting or disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic
personnel.
3. Jon Ronson, author of the New York Times reviewed book, The Men Who Stare at Goats
wrote about alleged mind control experiments on Iraqi detainees. In an interview on April 14,
2005 at the Politics and Prose book store in Washington DC., Ronson discussed his book.
(Tape available from Cspan, Book TV at www.booktv.org. Videotape # 186334)
And from the former detainees from Guantanamo Bay that Ive interviewed it
seems exactly the same things are going on there. I said to a man called Jamal al-
Harith how do you feel, you know how did you feel at Guantanamo Bay and he said
felt like a laboratory rat. And he said, I felt they were trying stuff out on me. ...
And one example is with Barney the purple dinosaur. When it was announced a
year ago that they were rounding up prisoners of war in Iraq and blasting them
with Barney the purple dinosaur, it was treated as a funny story, because, by all the
major news networks in America, you know... the torture wasnt that bad. ... It was
disseminated as funny because who wants to replace a funny story with, as Eric
[Olson] once said to me, with one thats not fun. ...
I was given seven photographs of a detainee who had just been given the Barney
treatment as they called it. It was 48 hours of Barney with flashing strobe lights
inside a shipping container in the desert heat. ...
... The current chief of staff of the Army is a man called General Pete Shoemaker. ...
Hes well known to have an interest in these paranormal esoteric military pursuits.
... So now is the time when I know that these ideas go to the very top [levels of the
military].
One of the things you spoke of, the one that I have knowledge of is the frequencies.
You can follow a trail of patents like footprints in the snow and the patents
sometimes vanish into the world of military classification. And theres many
patents bought up by a man called Dr. Oliver Lowry. ...
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.17
511
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 14
So we know that these patents have been bought up by the military. ... And the
detainees of Guantanamo Ive spoken to speak of being blasted withfrequencies, put
inside music, high and low frequencies, masked with music.
...I think theres no doubt theyre experimenting with this stuff. To add to that
controversial suggestion. I think theres a good chance that even though theyre
trying this stuff out, its not necessarily true that it works. A lot of this stuff doesnt
work. This may or may not work. I dont know.
XI. The banal and bizarre techniques of no touch

torture
Psychological techniques used at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons have included
extremes of the following; manipulation of time, loud music, strobe lights, odd sounds, hooding, ear
muffs, heat and cold, light and dark, isolation and intensive interrogation and most importantly,
creative combinations of all these methods which otherwise might seem, individually, banal if not
benign. As McCoy explains;
After a visit from the Guantanamo chief General Miller in September 2003, the U.S.
commander for Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, issued orders for sophisticated
psychological torture. As I read from those orders, please listen for the combined sensory
disorientation, self-inflicted pain, and attacking Arab cultural sensitivities.
Environmental Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort

(e.g. adjusting temperatures or introducing an unpleasant smell) ...
Sleep Adjustment: Adjusting the sleeping times of the detainee (e.g. reversing the
sleeping cycles from night to day).
Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees. ... 30 days.
Presence of Military Working Dogs: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security
during interrogations ...
Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and
prolong capture shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury ...
Stress Positions: Use of physical posturing (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, etc.)
(McCoy outline, 9)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.18
512
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 15
XII. The three key behavioral components of no touch

torture
McCoy described the principles underlying no touch torture;
Through covert trial and error, the CIA, in collaboration with university researchers,
slowly identified three key behavioral components integral to its emerging techniques for
psychological torture.
Discovery #1 Sensory deprivation In the early 1950s ...Dr. Donald Hebb found that he
could induce a state akin to psychosis in just 48 hours. ...after just two to three days of
such isolation [sitting in a cubicle ..with goggles, gloves and ear muffs on.] the subjects
very identity had begun to disintegrate.
Discovery #2 Self-inflicted pain ...Albert Biderman, Irving L. Janis, Harold Wolff, and
Lawrence Hinkle, advised the agency about the role of self-inflicted pain in Communist
interrogation. ...During the 1950s as well, two eminent neurologists at Cornell Medical
Center working for the CIA found that the KGBs most devastating torture technique
involved, not crude physical beatings, but simply forcing the victim to stand for days at a
time, while the legs swelled, the skin erupted in suppurating lesions, the kidneys shut
down, hallucinations began.
Discovery #3 Anyone can torture ...Finally, a young Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram,
...conducted his famed obedience experiments, asking ordinary New Haven citizens to
torture on command and discovering that, in contravention of conventional wisdom,
anyone could be trained to torture. ...[Milgram] did controversial research under a
government grant showing that almost any individual is capable of torture, a critical
finding for the agency as it prepared to disseminate its method worldwide. (McCoy
outline, 4, Question of Torture, 32-33)
By the projects end in the late 1960s, this torture research had involved three of the 100
most eminent psychologists of the 20th century-Hebb, Milgram, and Janis, as well as
several presidents of the American Psychiatric Association and the American
Psychological Association. (A Question of Torture, 33)
That notorious photo of a hooded Iraqi on a box, arms extended and wires to his hands,
exposes this covert method. The hood is for sensory deprivation, and the arms are
extended for self-inflicted pain. ... Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods,
no-touch torture leaves deep psychological scars on both victims and interrogators. One
British journalist who observed this methods use in Northern Ireland called sensory
deprivation the worst form of torture because it provokes more anxiety among the
interrogatees than more traditional tortures, leaves no visible scars and, therefore, is
harder to prove, and produces longer lasting effects. (Question of Torture, 8-9)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.19
513
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 16
McCoy explained how CIA no touch torture changes its victims;
Insights from the treatment of Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet
s regime offer a point of entry into this complex question. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-
Zegers found that victims suffer a mistrust bordering on paranoia, and a loss of interest
that greatly surpasses anything observed in anxiety disorders. The subject does not
only react to torture with a tiredness of days, weeks, or months, but remains a tired
human being, relatively uninterested and unable to concentrate.
These findings led him to a revealing question: What in torture makes possible a change
of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic
origin? (Question of Torture, 10-11)
XIII. Torture as a kind of total theater

Doerr-Zegers explained that techniques of torture work by creating deception, distrust, fear,
disorientation, a kind of total theater that leaves the victim disoriented and emotionally and
psychological damaged. The similarity of the explanation below to street theater found in mind
control allegations is remarkable;
As Doerr-Zegers describes it, the psychological component of torture becomes a kind of

total theater, a constructed unreality of lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably
with the victims self-betrayal and destruction.
To make their artifice of false charges, fabricated news, and mock executions convincing,
interrogators often become inspired thespians. The torture chamber itself thus has the
theatricality of a set with special lighting, sound effects, props, and backdrop, all
designed with a perverse stagecraft to evoke an aura of fear. Both stage and cell construct
their own kind of temporality. While the play both expands and collapses time to carry
the audience forward toward denouement, the prison distorts time to disorientate and
then entrap the victim. As the torturer manipulates circumstances to maximize
confusion, the victim feels prior schemas of the self and the world ... shattered and
becomes receptive to the torturers construction of reality.
Under the peculiar conditions of psychological torture, victims, isolated from others,
form emotional ties to their tormentors that make them responsive to a perverse play
in which they are both audience and actor, subject and objectin a script that often
leaves them not just disoriented but emotionally and psychologically damaged, in some
cases for the rest of their lives. (A Question of Torture, 10)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.20
514
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 17
XIV. A comparison of no touch torture to mind

control allegations
The Washington Post Magazine article included interviews of several TIs, or targeted individuals of
mind control, as some call themselves. Highly acclaimed author Gloria Naylor is most recognized for
her novel Women of Brewster Place, starring Oprah in a 1980s TV mini-series. Naylor wrote the
novel 1996, about her personal experience of mind control targeting and street theater. The article
also included an example of drug-induced paranoia for comparison;
Like Girard, Naylor describes what she calls street theater, incidents that might be
dismissed by others as coincidental, but which Naylor believes were set up. She noticed
suspicious cars driving by her isolated vacation home. On an airplane, fellow passengers
mimicked her every movement, like mimes on a street.
Voices similar to those in Girards case followed, taunting voices cursing her, telling her
she was stupid, that she couldnt write. Expletive-laced language filled her head. ...
Naylor is not the first writer to describe such a personal descent. Evelyn Waugh, one of
the great novelists of the 20th century, details similar experiences in The Ordeal of
Gilbert Pinfold. Waughs book, published in 1957, has eerie similarities to Naylors.
Embarking on a recuperative cruise, Pinfold begins to hear voices on the ship that he
believes are part of a wireless system capable of broadcasting into his head; he believes
the instigator recruited fellow passengers to act as operatives; and he describes
performances put on by passengers directed at him yet meant to look innocuous to
others.
Waugh wrote his book several years after recovering from a similar episode and realizing
that the voices and paranoia were the result of drug-induced hallucinations.
The psychological terror and mistrust bordering on paranoia of torture victims is remarkably similar
to the mind control alleged by Naylor and the drug-induced paranoia of Waugh. The street theater
described by most TIs also appears similar to the paranoia of mental illness and most people think
street theater sounds crazy.
The addendum of Naylors novel 1996 included this description of some of the most commonly
reported mind control symptoms;
Victims are subjected to various kinds of harassment and torture, twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week, for years on end. Most believe that some type of technology can
remotely track, target, and control every nerve in their bodies. Heart and respiration rate
can speed up and slow down, and stomach and bowel functions are regulated. Illnesses
and all types of pain can turn on and off in an instant. Microwave burns are reported.
Sleep deprivation is common and dreams are manipulated. Victims say, They [whoever
is targeting them] can see through my eyes, what I see. Sometimes victims describe
seeing the images of projected holograms. Thoughts can be read. Most victims describe a
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.21
515
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 18
phenomenon they call street theater. For example, people around the victim have
repeated verbatim, the victims immediate thoughts, or harassive and personalized
statements are repeated by strangers wherever the victim may go.
Emotions can be manipulated. Microwave hearing, known to be an unclassified military

capability of creating voices in the head, is regularly reported. Implanted thoughts and
visions are common, with repetitive themes that can include pedophilia, homophobia
and degradation. Victims say it is like having a radio or TV in your head. Less frequently,
remote and abusive sexual manipulation is reported. Almost all victims say repetitive
behavior control techniques are used and include negative, stimulus-response or
feedback loops.
The counterintuitive and bizarre torture techniques are discernible within the mind control
allegations. The mind control techniques seem to be psychological techniques to disorient the victim
and cause him to feel completely controlled, dependent and at the mercy of his torturers. Similar to
the kind of total theater for torture, street theater is almost certainly a part of the process of
breaking ones personality to gain behavior control over that person.
XV. The phenomenology of the torture situation

What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic
processes and to disorders of organic origin? Doerr-Zegers found the answer lies in the
psychological, not physical, phenomenology of the torture situation;
1. an asymmetry of power;
2. the anonymity of the torturer to the victim;
3. the double bind of either enduring or betraying others;
4. the systematic falsehood of trumped-up charges, artificial lighting, cunning
deceptions, and mock executions;
5. confinement in distinctive spaces signifying displacement, trapping, narrowness
and destruction; and
6. a temporality characterized by some unpredictability and much circularity, having
no end. ...
Thus, much of the pain from all forms of torture is psychological, not physical, based
upon denying victims any power over their lives. In sum, the torturer strives through
insult and disqualification, by means of threats ... to break all the victims possible
existential platforms. Through this asymmetry, the torturer eventually achieves
complete power and reduces the victims to a condition of total or near total
defenselessness. (Question of Torture, 10-11)
In torture, a torture situation is created according to Doerr-Zegers. In mind control allegations,

there is a similar phenomenology of a mind control situation. TIs describe this as an electronic
prison. Doerr-Zegers described the torture technique, 1) an asymmetry of power. In torture, the
torturer has complete power and the victim is completely powerless. Similarly, TIs are targeted
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.22
516
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 19
remotely and are completely powerless to stop the targeting. Doerr-Zegers described the torture
technique, 2) the anonymity of the torturer to the victim. Torture victims do not know their torturer
and similarly, there is the anonymity of the remote targeting in the mind control situation.
Most TIs described street theater or seemingly staged events which matches 3), 4) and 6). Doerr-
Zegers described torture technique, 5) confinement in distinctive spaces signifying displacement,
trapping, narrowness and destruction. Although TIs are not physically imprisoned, most victims
describe the experience as very debilitating and compare it to mental rape, an electronic prison, or
total destruction of the quality of their lives. Mind control poses a severe restriction on their former
lives. Doerr-Zegers technique 6) a temporality characterized by some unpredictability and much
circularity, having no end is also similar to sensory deprivation in mind control allegations. TIs
routinely report the simple but extremely repetitive and negative, stimulus-response and feedback
loops of their environment.
XVI. Comparing no touch torture techniques of

sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain to mind
control allegations
The psychological effects achieved by torture and alleged mind control are similar. Mind control
targeting tactics described by most TIs seem to contain the underlying no touch torture techniques
of sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain. For comparison, here is McCoys description;
To summarize, the CIAs psychological paradigm fused two new methods, sensory
disorientation and self-inflicted pain, whose combination, in theory, would cause
victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily to
their torturers ... The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-
inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a
hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity. (McCoy outline, 5)
The intended effect of sensory disorientation for torture would be similar for mind control; to create
an environment of radical uncertainty to enhance the break down of the persons will and
personality. Most alleged cases of mind control describe the considerable repetition of seemingly
innocuous and banal stimuli in the TIs environment, as if engineered by computer. The addendum
of Naylors book included this description; Almost all victims say repetitive behavior control
techniques are used and include negative, stimulus-response or feedback loops. For comparison,
here is McCoys description;
The CIAs sensory disorientation became a total assault on all senses and sensibilities,
auditory, visual, tactile, temporal, temperature, and survival. Refined through years of
practice, sensory disorientation relies on a mix of sensory overload and sensory
deprivation via banal procedures, isolation then intense interrogation, heat and cold,
light and dark, noise and silence, for a systematic attack on all human stimuli. (McCoy
outline, 4-5)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.23
517
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 20
McCoy described the photos of the hooded detainee with the arms extended for self-inflicted pain.
The torturer forces the prisoner to stand with arms extended and the prisoner has no control over
his situation. The prisoner still has a sense of guilt at causing his own pain by his extended arms.
This intended effect of self inflicted pain for torture seems to be similar to mind control. TIs who are
remotely targeted with physical pain cannot escape. Although TIs go to extremes in trying to escape
the physical targeting, they are unsuccessful. The psychological trauma is inflicted by the sense of
causing ones own pain. Many TIs report that the targeting causes TIs to become isolated from
friends, families and in many cases TIs are unable to work. This common reaction to targeting seems
to be a type of self-inflicted psychological pain.
Carole Sterlings description of targeting is also found in the addendum of Naylors book and seems
to illustrate the techniques of sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain. It is a typical TI
description;
In 1997, Carole Sterling wrote a letter to the editor of the Star Beacon. She described her
alleged targeting with EMR weapons technologies that within months, led to her suicide.
Dear Star Beacon, I am writing about something that happened to me which goes back to
December 1995. I went to a conference in Nevada. The day following the last night at the
conference, I noticed that I had an injection mark on the base of my spine which was
sore. Then the nightmare started three days after my return to Washington, D.C. ... It
totally scrambled my brain, leaving me unable to think properly, simply functioning on
sheer shock and horror, with total incomprehension of what was going on. It actually was
debilitating. The room felt like a torture chamber. This forced me out of my home. I
believe that the technology used, be it some type of a frequency assault, some sort of
directed energy, in addition to whatever was injected in me, has caused damage to my
brain. [I have] been living with this debilitating and excruciating pain for the last eight
months so far.
TIs describe both psychological and physical targeting similar to torture. It seems logical to surmise
that the successful psychological theories of no touch torture would cross over to more technically
based remote, advanced mind control programs. This becomes a significant step forward in
understanding the mind control issue. The mind control allegations are the secret in plain sight.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.24
518
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 21
XVII. Conclusions: what everyone can agree on

Hard questions need to be asked of the experts. Who now controls the neuroscience weapons
research and how advanced is it? As a result of U.S. secrecy, an educated guess is all that is possible.
The public deployment of advanced remote neuroscience weapons will be a world changing event,
affecting the lives of this generation and the next. The weapons involve national security, science,
history, U.S. politics and geopolitics. Most importantly the weapons encompass human nature, good
and evil and suffering. Most people are in agreement about one fact: unlike the atomic bomb, there
has been a total lack of public input for neuroscience weapons and policy even though the research
began in the 1950s and is still classified. Again, this raises more questions than it answers.
This article will be published in March 2008. See www.huntergatheress.com A special thank you to editor, Joan DArc for
her encouragement and suggestions.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.25
519
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016 22
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Stan J. Caterbone Testimony
1
1 EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OF

2 (VOLUME II)
7 TAKEN BY: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
8 BEFORE: DIANE A. SMITH, REPORTER

NOTARY PUBLIC
9
DATE: JUNE 28, 2016, 9:25 A.M.
10
PLACE: LANCASTER BAR ASSOCIATION
11 28 EAST ORANGE STREET
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA
12
13
14 APPEARANCES:
15 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN

BY: CHRISTOPHER M. REESER, ESQUIRE
16
FOR - ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.26
520
1 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
2
1 WITNESSES
2 NAME EXAMINATION
3 STANLEY J. CATERBONE
4 BY: MR. REESER 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.27
521
2 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
3
1 STANLEY J. CATERBONE, called as a witness, being
2 duly sworn, testified as follows:
3 EXAMINATION
4 THE WITNESS: I wanted to try to give you some
5 background about why people are doing this to me.
6 MR. REESER: Okay.
7 THE WITNESS: Here's one of the first things.
8 This is a book written by the Chief of Police ex-wife.
9 BY MR. REESER:
10 Q Chief of Police of Lancaster?
11 A Lancaster, yes. She accused him of domestic
12 abuse, and I've had the book for over a year. And the
13 other thing is this book here. I have the only live case
14 right now to get her out of prison.
15 Q And why don't you read the title of the book.
16 A Love, Murder and Corruption in Lancaster County,
17 My Story by Lisa Michelle Lambert and David Brown. I
18 communicate with Dave Brown a couple times a week.
19 Q Who is David Brown?
20 A Her attorney that wrote the book. Now if you're
21 not familiar with this case, there were three teenagers
22 that were involved in a murder back in 1992. In 1997, a
23 federal judge named Stewart Dalzell released her saying
24 there was so much prosecutorial misconduct in the case that
25 she was actually innocent. Now Pennsylvania appealed it,
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.28
522
3 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
4
1 and they had to have another PCRA hearing in front of Larry
2 Stengel. Well, he found -- he reversed everything
3 essentially, and she went back to prison.
4 Now last June, I filed an Amicus on her behalf as
5 to move it in the case. And I currently have a 3rd Circuit
6 appeal case to get her out of prison. Now the case was so
7 controversial that 38,000 people signed a petition from
8 Lancaster to impeach the judge. Of course, they lost.
9 They never impeached him. But in 1997, the attorney that
10 represented her had some dealings with me. Her name is
11 Christina Rainville.
12 Now essentially my Amicus is based on a premise
13 that I suffered the same prosecutorial misconduct that she
14 suffered. Now you couple that with the fact that I'm the
15 federal whistleblower for International Signal Control, the
16 firm selling arms to Iraq to a Black Ops Program with the
17 CIA and the NSA -- I blew the whistle in '87 -- they were
18 indicted in '91 -- and the fact that I'm a victim of mind
19 control, there's ample reason and sufficient evidence of
20 why people break into my house and steal my things and
21 break my things.
22 Now I presented transcripts from Nick Begich, who
23 is a renowned expert in mind control, Karen Stewart, who is
24 a former NSA whistleblower who suffers the same
25 symptomatology as me, and Julianne McKinney, who is a
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.29
523
4 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
5
1 former intelligence officer of the U.S. Army. They all
2 suffer the same symptoms that I do. In addition, Social
3 Security has been paying me disability benefits since 2008
4 for mind control.
5 Q Do you have a copy of the Disability
6 Determination?
7 A Sure, I have it in here.
8 Q Can I take a look at it?
9 A Yeah, it might take me a couple minutes to find
10 it.
11 Q Sure.
12 A This injunction was filed yesterday at 4:24 p.m.
13 in the Lancaster County Courthouse. I have 191 pages of
14 documentation with SSA. Here is my letter, award letter.
15 Now through the application process, I applied in April of
16 '09 and received a check for $21,000 in August. I was pro
17 se. There were not psychiatric examinations.
18 Q May I take a look at that as you're talking?
19 A Yes. And there were no medical reports. It was
20 all awarded on my documentation of mind control symptoms
21 and illnesses. What they did was -- I applied in April of
22 '09. They awarded me benefits in August of '09 and paid me
23 back one year, retroactive one year. They can only do it
24 one year. But they declared me disabled in December of
25 '05, which is when I declared that I became full-time
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.30
524
5 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
6
1 telepathic and under harassment with electromagnetic
2 weapons. That's what the '05 date is.
3 Q So I see, you know, the letter saying that you
4 became disabled under our rules on December 1, 2005.
5 A Right.
6 Q It doesn't say anything as to why.
7 A No, they don't do that. They only -- what they do
8 is they give you an award letter and it either says
9 physical or mental, nothing beyond that because of HIPAA.
10 But if you go through all the documentation I have of the
11 entire process, you'll notice that there's no medical
12 reports submitted. And I begged them -- in fact, I went to
13 Joe Pitts' office to try to get them to give me a
14 psychiatric evaluation because I thought it was required.
15 They wouldn't give me one. So it's impossible for it to be
16 for mental illness, impossible. It's just not.
17 Q You don't have a document anywhere from the Social
18 Security Administration that says we've determined that
19 you're disabled because of this condition?
20 A They don't do that. It's either mental or
21 physical. If I had one, I'd present it.
22 Q Yeah. It seems to me I've seen things to the
23 contrary where there's been a determination that somebody
24 is disabled --
25 A Well, they didn't give me any.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.31
525
6 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
7
1 Q -- for a particular reason.
2 A Now my father collected disability. He was a
3 victim of MKUltra.
4 Q What is that?
5 A That's where mind control came from, a CIA
6 program. It started in the '50s.
7 Q Okay. Why was he a target?
8 A You'll have to ask them.
9 Q I mean I understand what you're telling me about
10 your role as a federal whistleblower but --
11 A He was Navy, a very intelligent person. He was a
12 member of the Air Gunners Squadron, which I have
13 documentation from him that he left, which is like a
14 special option. And he graduated with honors from their
15 school. So that could be why.
16 Q What I'd like to do is go back to what we were
17 doing before and discuss the items that were on Exhibit 1
18 that was marked at the first examination. Before I get
19 started with that, two things. One, have you brought any
20 of the receipts from the items that were damaged or the
21 replacement items that you purchased?
22 A Can you guarantee me you're going to pay the
23 claim?
24 Q No.
25 A No.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.32
526
7 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
8
1 Q Okay. Second, I don't have the ability to make
2 that guarantee. I mean I could say yes and I --
3 A I'm not going to waste my time.
4 Q All right.
5 A I didn't have to do it for previous insurance
6 claims like this. So I'm not going to do it for this one.
7 Q All right. Second, you had sent me an email I
8 think indicating that you had other items to add?
9 A Every day. Seriously, every day. I'm hoping this
10 injunction takes care of everything. So we'll see.
11 Q I'm not sure it has anything to do with this claim
12 but --
13 A It has everything to do with everything.
14 Q All right. And you filed --
15 A Let me read you the relief I'm requesting,
16 emergency relief.
17 Q Filed in the 3rd Circuit you said?
18 A No, Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
19 Q Oh, okay.
20 A I filed one in '09, and the judge ruled on it. So
21 I'm hoping she will on this one.
22 Q What is the docket number?
23 A I didn't get one yet. I just filed it yesterday.
24 Q Okay.
25 A I'll read it. Relief sought by Plaintiff. The
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.33
527
8 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
9
1 Complainant seeks immediate relief from the above in the
2 form of sanctions and fines for those guilty of extortion
3 and embezzlement and those withholding accounts
4 receivables. Complainant seeks immediate relief from the
5 law enforcement agencies that continue abuse of process.
6 Complainant seeks immediate relief from public officials
7 for obstructing justice and due process. Complainant seeks
8 relief inasmuch as the Courts are able with regards to the
9 harassment and torture from those known of such crimes.
10 The Complainant seeks relief from stalking and
11 harassing neighbors and requires law enforcement to make
12 sure households can identify all occupants and prove they
13 are entitled to the lease and/or deed. The Complainant
14 seeks relief by awarding the Complainant his pro se
15 billings invoice. The Complainant seeks relief by awarding
16 the Complainant summary judgment in all cases filed before
17 the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in retaliation
18 for the arrogance of both the local law enforcement
19 community and the judicial system for the systematic abuse
20 of process and the extreme nature of the obstruction of
21 justice, which in itself is responsible for putting the
22 Complainant's life in harm's way on a daily basis. Date,
23 June 27th, 2016.
24 Q All right. Changing gears. Going back to the
25 list here of items that you've submitted. I think we left
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.34
528
9 ofof
341224
548
673 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
10
1 off talking about the cost of repairs for your computers
2 which were hacked. So we talked about that. And we're
3 going to move onto the next item, which is a wet dry vac.
4 A Okay.
5 Q Tell me about that.
6 A Let's see what they did to that one. Oh, they
7 burnt the motor out.
8 Q Okay. When did that happen?
9 A Oh, boy, that happened fairly recently. That
10 happened -- because I just replaced it. I'm going to say
11 March. Now the wet dry vac I bought when I built my house
12 on Stonehill Road in Conestoga in 1995. Now the one I
13 replaced it with was a compact unit. The one that was
14 broken was full-sized. I think it was, like, a two horse
15 power motor. The one I replaced it with I think was $69.
16 I think the original price of the one I bought -- I want to
17 say it was 150. It was a Craftsman, the original one.
18 Q It was 21-years-old?
19 A Yeah, yeah.
20 Q Okay. Did you use it on a regular basis?
21 A Oh, yeah.
22 Q And one day you started -- you tried to use it and
23 it didn't work?
24 A Yeah, worked the day before and then it didn't
25 work.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.35
10
529
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
11
1 Q Okay. Cordless phone, tell me about that.
2 A I guess it was February. I have magicJack. Are
3 you familiar with that?
4 Q No.
5 A It's where you use the internet for your phone.
6 Q Like a Voice Over --
7 A Yeah.
8 Q -- what do they call that -- VOI?
9 A Only it's different in that they give you a module
10 that you connect to your computer.
11 Q All right.
12 A Now what I did was -- they came out with a new
13 version where you connect it to your Comcast router so that
14 instead of -- before with the old version, you had to have
15 the computer on for the phone to work. So I switched over.
16 I upgraded to the new version and connected it to my
17 Comcast server. So that means the magicJack is live 24/7.
18 So I went to Radio Shack and bought a new cordless phone.
19 Well, it lasted a month and doesn't work anymore.
20 Q Did you take it back?
21 A No.
22 Q Why not?
23 A Just too busy. What I do on that line -- I
24 forward it anyway to my cell phone number, and I was using
25 it just, you know, sporadically.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.36
11
530
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
12
1 Q I would think after a month they would -- they
2 would replace it?
3 A They probably would. I'm just too busy, just
4 priorities. I mean I could probably take it back now and
5 replace it.
6 Q I would think so. Cable boxes and modem.
7 A Oh, boy, what a mess that was. Okay. Let's see.
8 I guess in February or March I went to upgrade all my cable
9 boxes. And at the same time, somebody from Comcast told me
10 that if I hook up to Comcast Business I would get a more
11 secure internet connection and a faster connection. So I
12 hook up to Comcast Business on a 60 day trial. They send
13 me a box, a new -- or, in fact, no, they came out and
14 installed it -- a new router. And after two weeks, they
15 reversed everything and said no, it's not more secure. So
16 I disconnected it. Then I went to Comcast and upgraded all
17 my cable boxes, but they never worked. I mean I was going
18 back and forth to Comcast two or three times. Service
19 techs would come out. They couldn't find the problem. So
20 I don't know if people put chips in them. I don't know if
21 they just sabotaged them or what.
22 Q You don't know why they're not working?
23 A Comcast doesn't even know why. They couldn't
24 even -- I'd get billed for HBO for three months, and I
25 never had HBO. I mean it wouldn't work. And I kept
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.37
12
531
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
13
1 getting on the phone with customer service spending two
2 hours -- one time two and a half hours, and it still didn't
3 work. They still couldn't fix it.
4 Q Okay. How long ago was that?
5 A That was probably two months ago, three months
6 ago, after the first of the year, probably the second
7 quarter.
8 Q Are they still trying to fix the problem?
9 A I stopped trying. I mean I just -- you know.
10 Q Okay. The 100 dollar cost to replace, is that
11 just the value of the cable boxes and the modems or modem?
12 A Yeah, I guess what they did is they billed me.
13 Comcast Business billed me. They all billed me. I mean,
14 yeah, that's basically what it is.
15 Q They billed you more because it was a business --
16 A Oh, yeah -- no, they billed me because they would
17 not accept the return of the modem. I couldn't return it
18 then, and they wouldn't pick it up.
19 Q Do you have any written correspondence between
20 yourself and Comcast over the issue?
21 A Yeah, I have notes. I have -- yeah, I have emails
22 I guess, yeah.
23 Q Do you have any of them with you?
24 A No.
25 Q Would you be willing to forward those to me?
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.38
13
532
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
14
1 A Yeah, I can dig those up, something pertaining to
2 that. I mean I forget exactly. But it was a mess. I even
3 think I recorded the one tech that came to my door. He got
4 smart with me. I had to throw him off my property.
5 Q I'm probably going to butcher the pronunciation of
6 this. Is it Sakrete or Sakrete?
7 A Oh, Sakrete, yeah. Listen what they did. I
8 had -- I was putting post holes -- putting posts in my back
9 yard for a six foot wooden fence. And what these kids next
10 door were doing was they were going and wetting the bags,
11 ruining the whole bag. Now that's not the issue. Do you
12 know how heavy Sakrete is when it's hardened cement?
13 Q Yeah, I got a sense for that.
14 A I had to break it up and put it in buckets and
15 take it out to the alley.
16 Q So basically they ruined the bags?
17 A Oh, yeah.
18 Q Made them unusable?
19 A Yeah.
20 Q All right. And you have $12 there?
21 A Yeah.
22 Q Is that $4 a bag or --
23 A Yeah. That's not the half of it. They filled in
24 the holes before I could -- I had to dig the holes out two
25 or three times.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.39
14
533
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
15
1 Q When you say they, again who is they?
2 A I assume it's the people next door. They are the
3 ones who sic the pit bull on me that I had to go to the
4 hospital for two weeks ago.
5 Q Oh, gees.
6 A Oh, yeah.
7 Q Are you all right?
8 A I had to go to the ER and take antibiotics for 10
9 days.
10 Q Okay. The next item I have is just miscellaneous
11 clothes, $100?
12 A Yeah, they are always ruining my clothes.
13 Q Ruining them or stealing them?
14 A Both.
15 Q When you say ruining them, what do you mean by
16 that?
17 A They'll put spots on them so I can't wear them,
18 the shirts, or they'll shrink them. They've done that. My
19 slippers they make big. So I can't wear those. I mean all
20 kinds of tricks.
21 Q I'm sorry? They made --
22 A Slippers big. So I can't wear them.
23 Q They made them big.
24 A If you -- I have those three experts I mentioned.
25 They all talk about -- the first thing they do in these
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.40
15
534
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
16
1 programs is break into your house, and it's impossible,
2 impossible to find out how they get in.
3 Q And I think we talked about this last time you
4 were here. You don't have any signs of forced entry?
5 A Forced entry?
6 Q Yes, a broken window --
7 A No ---
8 Q -- a broken door.
9 A -- in '87, I did. Well, I had forced entry by the
10 Lancaster City Police last July on a 302 warrant.
11 Q Yeah, you told me about that.
12 A But other than that, forced entry, no, no. Signs
13 of entry, but not forced.
14 Q When you say signs of entry, you define that by
15 the fact things were missing?
16 A Moved, missing, lights on that were off or off
17 that were on, things like that. The other night my
18 porch -- you know, if I go out in the evening, I'll leave
19 my front porch light on. Well, I came home and it's off
20 and, you know, hard to get in, you know, to see your key
21 hole and things like that. It's harassment.
22 Q The next item you have is vapor electronic
23 cigarettes?
24 A Oh, yeah, now they help you reduce smoking regular
25 cigarettes.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.41
16
535
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
17
1 Q These are the E-Cigs?
2 A Yeah, but they are the pens with cartridges. They
3 are expensive. They are not the ones you buy in the store
4 like at Turkey Hill or something. These are the ones
5 that -- they are three in one. You can smoke waxes, oils
6 or dry herbs. Now what I get is, like, six milligrams of
7 nicotine. It's in liquid form. They stole my fifth one I
8 think, I think one after that.
9 Q All from home?
10 A Oh, yeah, yeah, all from home, yeah, five of them.
11 Q I mean that sounds like the kind of thing -- I
12 mean I'm famous for leaving things behind at restaurants.
13 A Oh, no, no, no, no, no, I don't leave this behind.
14 No, no, they were stolen.
15 Q Same thing, you don't know when they got in, how
16 they got in, but they are just not there anymore?
17 A Well, I mean in 2009 -- let me give you an
18 example. Okay. This is what I used to do. I used to
19 document daily in journals all the incidents that I'm
20 describing. I did that for about a year, very detailed,
21 every day. In 2010, I said I have enough documentation.
22 That's it. I mean it's a full-time job. I can send you
23 those. I mean I have those in PDF form.
24 Q Yeah.
25 A I can send you those. I mean I can email those to
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.42
17
536
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
18
1 you.
2 Q It looks like this is something that's filed with
3 the Court?
4 A This whole thing is the emergency injunction.
5 Q All right. Well, I mean that should be available
6 online.
7 A I'd say three days.
8 Q This is filed with the prothonotary --
9 A Yes.
10 Q -- in Civil Court?
11 A Yeah, I can show you the stamped pages. I just
12 had to make copies. My toner mysteriously went out, and
13 I'm waiting for a cartridge to be delivered today. But if
14 you page to the left, you'll see the three pages that were
15 stamped.
16 Q That's not what I was supposed to get there.
17 A There you go. If you swipe it -- no, it's up and
18 down. There is four pages stamped there.
19 Q Yeah, it just has the time stamp on it. It
20 doesn't have the docket number.
21 A No, yeah, they didn't -- I guess I could have
22 maybe got them to give me a docket number, but they didn't.
23 You know, I didn't push it.
24 Q All right.
25 A Here you can see the -- there's the state cover
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.43
18
537
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
19
1 sheet.
2 Q Yeah, they didn't stamp it with a docket number
3 either.
4 A This is the civil cover sheet.
5 Q Okay.
6 A And this is the first page of the injunction.
7 Judge Margaret Miller ruled on mine in '09 and
8 essentially -- it was similar to this. And essentially
9 what she said was that I didn't provide her enough evidence
10 for her to rule in my favor. In a nutshell, that's what
11 she said. Plus she said she didn't really believe I was a
12 victim of mind control. But this time it's a lot different
13 because I got corroborating witnesses.
14 Q Okay. Who are the corroborating witnesses?
15 A Dr. Nick Begich. He's an expert in mind control
16 technologies.
17 Q Where is he out of?
18 A Alaska. His father was killed by the Hoover
19 Administration. He was a U.S. congressman.
20 Q What was the last name again? I'm sorry.
21 A Begich, B-e-g-i-c-h. Now his brother just
22 finished a term in Congress last year in the Senate.
23 Anyway, his father back in -- I forget what year it was --
24 was traveling with the Speaker of the House, Wayne Boggs,
25 and they were both killed in a plane accident. And they
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.44
19
538
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
20
1 were raising hell about Hoover with his CoIntel Program.
2 So anyway, Nick Begich began doing research on the HARP
3 Installation in Alaska, which is a 180 antenna array that
4 is the focus or the basis for electromagnetic weapons.
5 It's called HARP. Now back about eight years ago, he
6 convinced the European Parliament to ban electromagnetic
7 weapons. So he's a renowned expert. Now I have a
8 transcript of his lecture in October of 2015, and he gave a
9 lecture during the Covert Harassment Conference in Belgium.
10 I think it was Belgium.
11 Q Okay. Do you have other witnesses?
12 A Yes, then I have Karen Stewart.
13 Q You mentioned her.
14 A Karen Stewart is a former NSA whistleblower.
15 Q National Security Agency when you say NSA?
16 A Yeah, yeah. She blew the whistle in 2004. Now
17 she just emailed me three weeks ago. I emailed some
18 information, and she emailed me back and said thank you for
19 it. Anyway, she -- essentially what happened was she
20 determined that some weaponry that was being used over in
21 Afghanistan and Iraq wasn't performing up to standards.
22 And she more or less drew attention to it to the U.S.
23 Military, and somebody took credit for her work. And she
24 became an NSA whistleblower. Then she started having the
25 same problems I did, people breaking in her house,
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.45
20
539
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
21
1 electromagnetic weapon attacks, things like that.
2 Now the NSA is critical for two reasons. I blew
3 the whistle on ISC, the Lancaster firm selling arms to
4 Iraq. Their first program -- their first contract in 1973
5 was with the NSA. Bobby Ray Inman, who was the former
6 director of the NSA, was on their board of directors. He
7 also owns a company that deals in mind control. In 1994,
8 Bill Clinton nominated him to be the Secretary of Defense,
9 and he withdrew because of the ISC scandal. Plus on March
10 9th, the NSA took me into custody, false imprisoned me for
11 an hour and a half and had eight security police
12 interrogate me for no reason.
13 Q Of this year, March of this year?
14 A Yeah, down in Fort Meade.
15 Q Where is Fort Meade?
16 A That's the NSA.
17 Q Is Fort Meade in Colorado?
18 A Maryland.
19 Q Oh, I'm sorry.
20 A Dogs at my car, handcuffed me, interrogated me and
21 then told me I couldn't go down to Washington, D.C. and
22 told me I wasn't allowed on federal property anymore, which
23 was a lie. I walked away and essentially made a fool out
24 of them.
25 Q Karen Stewart, where is she located?
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.46
21
540
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
22
1 A Well, she worked down in Fort Meade, Maryland, but
2 she since -- after she blew the whistle and started having
3 symptoms, she moved to Florida -- I believe that's where
4 she's at now -- with family.
5 Q Okay. I got a little sidetracked there. Let me
6 bring you back to the next item, which is HVLP tips. Are
7 they related to the cigarettes?
8 A No, no, that's a high-volume,low-pressure paint
9 sprayer. What they did was -- I bought a used one at the
10 Reuse It Store off of Pitney Road out near Greenfield
11 Industrial Park. And I brought it home, and I put -- tips
12 come with it, so different velocities for the paint, like
13 smaller and larger. It comes with three tips. It had an
14 instruction manual and brushes to clean it. So I put
15 everything in a clear plastic bag to keep it all together.
16 I went to use the sprayer, and the bag was gone. So I had
17 to go out and buy a brand-new HVLP. It cost me $119. The
18 one I bought -- I think I paid 60 for it.
19 Q Okay. You have a quantity lost two and then
20 estimated cost to replace 45. What did you lose two of?
21 A Tips. Yeah, what they did was they put the small
22 tip in. So I'm trying to spray stain for my fence, and,
23 you know, you need the larger tip. But I said 45. I
24 thought I could replace the tips, but you can't. So I had
25 to replace the whole thing.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.47
22
541
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
23
1 Q Okay. I don't mean to be redundant. So I'm just
2 going to ask you --
3 A That's all right.
4 Q -- a blanket question here if it applies to all of
5 these items here, and I'll show it to you. For all these
6 items, you don't have -- or you're not willing to produce a
7 receipt. Correct?
8 A Only if you give me a guarantee that you're going
9 to pay the claim.
10 Q And I've told you I can't do that.
11 A Okay.
12 Q None of these items have been reported as lost or
13 stolen or damaged to the police. Correct?
14 A To the police?
15 Q Yes.
16 A I'm in this injunction accusing the police of
17 trying to kill me. No, I mean I can't.
18 Q All right. And none of these items --
19 A That's what abuse of process is. It's when the
20 police do not take your complaints.
21 Q And for any of these items, you do not have -- you
22 can't tell me specifically who it was who stole it or broke
23 it or whatever the case may be?
24 A No.
25 Q All right. I'm not going to keep asking that
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.48
23
542
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
24
1 question.
2 A I can -- I can tell you this. Since 2006, the
3 neighbors at 1252 Fremont Street have been engaged in a
4 constant harassment and threat campaign no matter who is in
5 that house.
6 Q Has there been a change in --
7 A Oh, yeah, three times.
8 Q Is it a rental house?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you know who the current residents are?
11 A No, they don't tell me the truth, no. I mean I
12 filed a private criminal complaint against them in the
13 County D.A.'s Office this year. They are Spanish. They
14 harass me. They are the ones who sic the dog on me. That
15 happened June 10th. I went to Lancaster Regional Medical
16 Center on College Avenue. Dr. Westphal gave me antibiotics
17 and 10 Vicodin. Now he wanted me to go through rabies
18 shots, but I didn't do it. I said the dog wasn't rabid. I
19 have the hospital report.
20 Q The next item is a staple airgun?
21 A Right. They stole my staple airgun.
22 Q That was theft. That wasn't damaged. That was
23 theft?
24 A Yeah, theft. That was theft.
25 Q When was that?
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.49
24
543
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
25
1 A This all -- this all happened when I started
2 erecting the new six foot fence and a screened-in porch in
3 my back. And I started construction March 10th.
4 Q So sometime after March 10th?
5 A Yeah.
6 Q And I don't know if I asked you about the HVLP
7 tips. But when were those taken?
8 A I'm going to say in May.
9 Q Of this year?
10 A Yeah.
11 Q I also don't think I asked you about the five
12 vapor electronic cigarette cartridges.
13 A Okay. I bought my first one -- let me see. I'd
14 say that was all after January 1st. Yeah, they were all
15 after January 1st. I bought one downtown at Puff N' Stuff.
16 I bought one at the convenience store on Manor or
17 Millersville Pike, Hershey Avenue.
18 Q In doing the math here, it looks like they go for
19 about 50 to $60 a piece?
20 A Yeah, some are -- that's the minimum. I think the
21 last one I bought was $79. That's the minimum price.
22 Q Okay. The next one is a belt for $9. Are we
23 talking about, you know, a belt to hold your pants up, that
24 kind of belt?
25 A Yeah, yeah.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.50
25
544
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
26
1 Q Stolen, damaged?
2 A Stolen.
3 Q When?
4 A Within the past two months.
5 Q The next one is a 36 inch by 100 feet --
6 A Oh, yeah.
7 Q -- black screen?
8 A That was to do my screened-in porch. I had to
9 replace it.
10 Q Stolen?
11 A Stolen. In fact, I just bought that -- I replaced
12 that probably a month ago.
13 Q I'm sorry? You just replaced the screen for the
14 screened-in porch?
15 A Yeah, it's a roll. It's 100 by --
16 Q Right. I'm familiar with them. So it was on the
17 roll. Somebody just took the roll?
18 A Yeah, it was in a plastic bag, yeah, plastic
19 sleeve, yeah, took the whole roll.
20 Q Okay. And the last one is one pair of work
21 gloves?
22 A Yeah.
23 Q I know what work gloves are.
24 A Yeah. Now here's what they do. A lot of times
25 they'll steal it and then a week later they'll return it.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.51
26
545
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
27
1 I mean they play games like that. It's psychological
2 warfare along with the theft and damages.
3 Q Were any of these items ever returned to you?
4 A Some. Some were. Then they'd steal them again.
5 I mean I can't keep track. It's hard to keep track of it.
6 Q Okay. As of today, are -- here, I'll show you the
7 list. Tell me if any of those items are in your
8 possession.
9 A Let's see. Well, some of these are damaged. I
10 wished they returned the vapor electronic cigarettes. Now
11 the work gloves they did return. I found where they put
12 them.
13 Q So they are in your possession at least as of
14 today?
15 A Yes, they are. I don't know if they'll stay
16 there.
17 Q Now is there anything that you would like to add
18 to supplement to this list?
19 A As far as the list or evidence or what?
20 Q No, as far as the list of items.
21 A Yeah, I could -- you know, I can update, yeah. I
22 can send them to you.
23 Q Of anything that you would add to that list, would
24 they all have been items in which were lost or damaged --
25 stolen or damaged in the same way as the items that we've
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.52
27
546
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
28
1 discussed?
2 A Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I got tired of making --
3 keeping lists. But I -- well, let me do it now. Let me
4 think. Let me see. We talked about the new vapor pen.
5 Okay. Here is a for instance. I went to -- this
6 morning -- I produced an exhibit, a DVD, a disk with this
7 case to the Courts. So I have to make a copy today for
8 myself. The DVD recorder doesn't work on my computer.
9 That happened this morning. Yesterday -- oh, this morning
10 I found that two day's worth of photos in my phone were
11 missing from my computer. Yeah, you know, the list goes on
12 and on. I mean there is nothing -- I'm trying to think of
13 anything substantial because I probably -- well, the toner
14 cartridge. What happens is I have a copier. And when the
15 toner gets low, it will give you a warning that you need to
16 soon replace your toner. Well, I'm producing this
17 document. And at the 611th page, it says black ink toner
18 out, but it never gave me the warning. So they have the
19 capability of actually hacking into my copier because it's
20 a wireless copier. So I had to order a new ink cartridge.
21 Q Now you did mention -- and I don't mean to cut you
22 off. Is there anything else that you want to talk about?
23 A No.
24 Q All right. Now you did mention that you had
25 submitted two similar claims to other insurers?
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.53
28
547
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
29
1 A Yeah, yeah.
2 Q Tell me about those.
3 A They were in '05 I was paid and '06. It's when
4 I -- okay. It's when I lived at 220 Stonehill Road,
5 Conestoga, PA. The claims were about -- I think they were
6 about the same, somewhere around $6,000. I produced a
7 schedule similar to this, and they paid from that schedule.
8 Now what they did was the one they paid the claim, but they
9 inflated the depreciation value. So I filed a complaint
10 with the Pennsylvania Insurance Commission. Now in 2006 --
11 no, 2007 or 8, after I moved to 1250 Fremont Street, I
12 tried to file a claim. But my brother blocked me from
13 filing that on my mother's property casualty policy. So I
14 would have filed another claim.
15 Now the insurance companies, they have a database
16 of all the insurance claims that are paid out. Are you
17 familiar with that?
18 Q No.
19 A Yeah, there's a database that actuaries use. I
20 don't know how you access it or what. The other thing is I
21 have a correspondence from the Southern Regional Police
22 Department in 2006 -- 5 or 6 regarding all my complaints to
23 them about incidents regarding vandalism and thefts. Now
24 Southern Regional Police covered Conestoga Township back
25 then. Now I went to try to find -- I know I had paperwork
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.54
29
548
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
30
1 on the claims. I had copies of the checks, copies of the
2 claims, but I can't find them in my computer.
3 Q Do you remember who the insurers were?
4 A Harleysville was for one, maybe both of them, you
5 know. And they were the same type of claims.
6 Q Theft or damaged or --
7 A Just like this, yeah. I tried to find them. I
8 have backup disks now. Unfortunately, there is -- I have
9 three laptop drives and two external hard drives from 2005
10 and 6 that are in my safety deposit box. I ordered
11 equipment so that I could more or less connect those drives
12 to my computer and read them, but the equipment would come
13 and it won't work. So I have them stored. But, you know,
14 until I'm more secure with the computer hacking, I can't do
15 anything with them. But I'm sure the claims are in there
16 even though they took them from my current drive.
17 Q Okay. I don't think I have any more questions for
18 you. Is there anything that you'd like to add to this?
19 A No. If you could tell me what you want other than
20 the receipts.
21 Q There was a letter sent to you I believe sometime
22 between the first examination and the second examination.
23 A I couldn't find it. I tried to find it this
24 morning. That's why I asked you what time. They stole
25 that.
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.55
30
549
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
31
1 Q I don't think I have --
2 A I think I have a hard copy, but I didn't want to
3 root through my file. I tried to find it on my computer
4 and I couldn't find it. Did you email it or did it come in
5 letter format because I scan everything?
6 Q I believe I was emailed a copy of it, but I
7 think -- I assume it was sent to you in letter format.
8 A Are you talking about the one form Allstate --
9 Q Yes.
10 A -- or the one from you?
11 Q No, no, the one from Allstate.
12 A I have that.
13 Q That's what I'm talking about.
14 A Yeah, I have that. That's right. Yeah, I have
15 that.
16 Q They want a document filled out and --
17 A Right.
18 Q -- forwarded back to them.
19 A Was I supposed to bring that today?
20 Q It would have been helpful, but it's not
21 mandatory. If you could get it back to Mr. Eisenhard. You
22 don't have to send it to me.
23 A Okay.
24 Q Other than that, you know, I don't know that there
25 was -- whatever Allstate had requested. The only thing I
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.56
31
550
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
32
1 was looking for were the receipts.
2 A Okay.
3 MR. REESER: Okay. And we're done. Thank you
4 very much.
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
6 (Whereupon, the examination concluded at 10:12
7 a.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.57
32
551
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
33
1 COUNTY OF DAUPHIN :
SS
2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
3 I, Diane A. Smith, a Notary Public, authorized to
4 administer oaths within and for the Commonwealth of
5 Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
6 testimony of Stanley J. Caterbone.
7 I further certify that before the taking of said
8 examination, the witness was duly sworn; that the questions
9 and answers were taken down stenographically by the said
10 Reporter-Notary Public, and afterwards reduced to
11 typewriting under the direction of the said Reporter.
12 I further certify that the said examination was
13 taken at the time and place specified in the caption sheet
14 hereof.
15 I further certify that I am not a relative or
16 employee or attorney or counsel to any of the parties, or a
17 relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or
18 financially interested directly or indirectly in this
19 action.
20 I further certify that the said examination
21 constitutes a true record of the testimony given by the
22 said witness.
23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
24 this 11th day of July, 2016.

_______________________________________________
25 Diane A. Smith, Reporter
Notary Public
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.58
33
552
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
34
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Allstate
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Sworn
BRIEFTestimonies
Testimony
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.59
34
553
of
ofof
548
673
341224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
28,
of
7, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
1
EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OF
TAKEN BY: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
BEFORE: DIANE F. FOLTZ, RMR

NOTARY PUBLIC
DATE: JUNE 9, 2016, 9:15 A.M.
PLACE: LANCASTER COUNTY BAR

ASSOCIATION
28 EAST ORANGE STREET
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEARANCES:
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN

BY: CHRISTOPHER M. REESER, ESQUIRE
FOR - ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.60
554
1 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
2
1 WITNESSES
2 NAME EXAMINATION
3 STANLEY J. CATERBONE
4 BY: MR. REESER 3
10
11
12 EXHIBITS
13
14 CATERBONE EXHIBIT PRODUCED AND MARKED
15 1. LIST OF ITEMS 13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.61
555
2 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
3
1 STANLEY J. CATERBONE, called as a witness, being
2 duly sworn, testified as follows:
3 EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. REESER:
5 Q Could you state your name, please?
6 A Stanley J. Caterbone, C-a-t-e-r-b-o-n-e.
7 Q Would you mind if I called you Stan or Stanley?
8 A Stan.
9 Q Stan, okay. And my name's Chris Reeser. You can
10 call me Chris.
11 A All right.
12 Q I'm not a real formal guy. I have been asked to
13 take a statement from you relative to an insurance claim
14 which I understood to have occurred as a result of
15 something on April 3rd of 2016, but by some correspondence
16 that I received from you, my understanding is that is not
17 the date of loss.
18 A No. That date is the date that I started the
19 spreadsheet --
20 Q Okay.
21 A -- of the items lost or vandalized.
22 Q All right. This statement is part of the process
23 of collecting information and evaluating the claim.
24 Allstate's policy, as does just about any insurance
25 company's policy, provides that part of the duty of an
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.62
556
3 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
4
1 insured is to give an examination under oath --
2 A Okay.
3 Q -- at the request of the insured -- at the
4 request of the insurer, so that is what this is.
5 A I've had --
6 Q Go ahead. Go ahead.
7 A I've had -- I've collected on two or three
8 policies with the same types of claims, and I've never been
9 put under oath --
10 Q Okay.
11 A -- on the record.
12 Q So noted.
13 A Okay.
14 Q And I'll ask you about that.
15 A And I don't mind under oath.
16 Q All right.
17 A I just, you know --
18 Q All right. Well --
19 A -- have never experienced it.
20 Q Okay. Well, a first time for everything. This
21 is --
22 A Sure.
23 Q This is part of what the insurer is allowed to
24 ask of their insured.
25 A Oh, I don't mind at all.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.63
557
4 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
5
1 Q Okay. Great. So I'm going to ask you some
2 questions about that.
3 A Okay.
4 Q I usually when I take these statements -- and
5 I've taken a couple of them -- have some information about
6 the claim. I have very little information about this
7 claim.
8 A Okay.
9 Q So --
10 A Can I give you a brief history --
11 Q Go.
12 A -- to put it in perspective?
13 Q Yeah. Go.
14 A I am a federal whistleblower. I blew the whistle
15 on International Signal Control or ISC in 1987. They were
16 indicted in 1991 for a billion dollar fraud and selling
17 illegal arms to Iraq. Now, I was a shareholder, and in
18 1987 they --
19 Q I'm sorry. You were a shareholder in ISC?
20 A Yes. They solicited me to finance some
21 operations. So I'm a legitimate, bona fide whistleblower.
22 Q Okay.
23 A Now, since -- I've been trying to get into
24 courts, hired various attorneys from '87 all the way up.
25 In 2005 I entered the federal court system as a pro se
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.64
558
5 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
6
1 litigant. I filed my own claims.
2 Q Okay.
3 A Okay. Now, here's what happened. I became a
4 victim of organized stalking, electronic harassment or mind
5 control technologies. Now, what happens is -- and I'll
6 show you some expert testimony -- is that what they do is
7 they break into your home, vandalize, steal, move things
8 around. And since '05 I've collected on two or three
9 policies making the same types of claims. Now, these
10 losses are not a single-day loss. They happen over a
11 period of time.
12 Q Okay.
13 A And I can't give you dates as far as when what
14 was taken, when that was taken, but that's just a
15 background for your reference as far as this is not an
16 ordinary claim.
17 Q When you say they, who is they?
18 A Well, I don't know, you know. It's impossible to
19 say. It could be neighbors. It could be police. It could
20 be agents. It could be anybody.
21 Q But you believe that they are all in conspiracy
22 to punish you because of your activity as a federal
23 whistleblower?
24 A I'm going to refer you to documents to explain
25 that. As a victim of electronic harassment and gang
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.65
559
6 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
7
1 stalking, the victim -- part of the victimization is that
2 they break into your home.
3 Q Okay. But you don't know who the they is?
4 A Well, of course not.
5 Q Have you ever seen anybody in the act?
6 A I have one person on a security camera video.
7 Q Okay.
8 A That was in 2006.
9 Q And was there an insurance claim related to that?
10 A Not to that particular person, no.
11 Q All right.
12 A But there was a claim that year. Harleysville
13 paid me once or twice, and there was another one. But
14 unfortunately I'm also the victim of computer hacking.
15 These are all the reports from the past year on Geek Squad
16 and other companies reviewing and analyzing and fixing my
17 hard drives after they've been hacked.
18 Q Okay.
19 A I filed about, oh, boy, since '06 or '07 probably
20 about four or five IC3 reports with the FBI.
21 Q I don't know what an IC3 report is.
22 A It's an online complaint regarding anything
23 fraudulent online to the FBI.
24 Q Okay.
25 A I've had face-to-face meetings with the FBI
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.66
560
7 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
8
1 probably about 15 times.
2 Q Locally?
3 A Philly and Harrisburg.
4 Q Is there a particular agent that you meet with?
5 A No. No.
6 Q Could you tell me the names of any of the agents
7 that you meet with?
8 A No.
9 Q Okay.
10 A I can verify the meetings, I mean.
11 Q What -- what's the reason for the meetings?
12 A Complaints --
13 Q Okay.
14 A -- about people, what they're doing to me.
15 Q You said you're a victim of electronic
16 harassment. Now, I understand what computer hacking is.
17 A Okay. Electronic harassment.
18 Q What have been the other forms?
19 A They use microwave technology, microwaves to
20 alter your brain state. It causes extreme -- they can
21 cause extreme pain in any part of your body. They can
22 create synthetic telepathy. They can essentially kill you
23 with the weapons.
24 Now, in the 1950's the Russians used it against
25 our -- the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, the same weapons. Now,
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.67
561
8 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
9
1 in the 1970's there was what's called the Church Committee.
2 The CIA had to come clean on these programs. They were
3 supposed to have stopped them, but they didn't, and that's
4 -- there's Senate testimony. The Director of the CIA back
5 then was Stansfield Turner. He testified before the
6 Senate, and they admitted to all the programs that I'm
7 describing.
8 Q Okay.
9 A MKUltra was the main program.
10 Q How do you know that?
11 A How do I know what?
12 Q I mean, how do you know you're a victim of
13 microwave technology to alter your brain waves?
14 A Some nights I can't walk. The pain is that bad.
15 What do you mean how do I know?
16 Q I mean, I don't know.
17 A Don't get smart with me, or I'll walk out this
18 door.
19 Q I don't know. I'm not being smart. I'm trying
20 to understand this.
21 A Okay.
22 Q How do I -- you know, how do I know I'm not?
23 A Do you ever complain about it?
24 Q I mean, I have pain. I don't know why I have
25 pain. I just -- I'm trying to understand.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.68
562
9 ofof
51
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
10
1 A Listen, yesterday I filed 300 pages in the
2 Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a case against Lancaster City
3 Police and the county residents.
4 Q Okay.
5 A There are -- there is expert testimony in here
6 from, one, an NSA whistleblower named Karen Stewart who
7 will back up just about everything I say. The second is
8 from a Julianne McKinney who is a former Army intelligence
9 officer. The third is from a renowned expert named Nick
10 Begich whose father was killed by someone in the Hoover
11 Administration. There are transcripts in here. You can
12 read them.
13 Q Okay.
14 A You can learn all about it.
15 Q May I have this?
16 A No. You can make a copy.
17 Q Okay.
18 A Or I can give you it in electronic format. I
19 have a PDF around my neck. I'll give you a copy.
20 Q Well, I see that it's a Petition for Allowance of
21 Appeal which means that it's --
22 A I'm appealing a Superior Court decision to the
23 Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
24 Q Okay.
25 A I'm a very successful litigator by the way.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.69
10
563
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
11
1 Q How --
2 A I'm the amicus for Kathleen Kane in her criminal
3 case in the Superior Court in Philadelphia. I'm also the
4 movant for Lisa Michelle Lambert.
5 Q Okay.
6 A I've got three Third Circuit cases now that are
7 awaiting decisions.
8 Q And this is an appeal from the Lancaster County
9 Court of Common Pleas. I assume it went then to the
10 Superior Court?
11 A I took it to the Superior Court, right.
12 Q Okay. And what happened there?
13 A They dismissed it --
14 Q Okay.
15 A -- two weeks before oral arguments. Oral
16 arguments were scheduled for May 24th.
17 Q Okay.
18 A They were scheduled since January. Both cases
19 were arguably -- I mean, maliciously dismissed two weeks
20 before oral arguments. They didn't want me to appear
21 before them.
22 Q Okay. Give me some background. I mean, you said
23 you worked -- maybe I misheard you. Did you work for ISC?
24 A No.
25 Q Okay. You were a stockholder?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.70
11
564
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
12
1 A Yes. Gib Armstrong sold me the stock in 1983.
2 Q Okay.
3 A He was a stockbroker back then. Do you know who
4 he is? Former Pennsylvania Senator.
5 Q Yeah, I'm familiar with the name. Are you
6 employed right now?
7 A No, I'm -- I collect Social Security disability
8 for symptoms and illnesses related to U.S. mind control,
9 documented, verified.
10 Q Huh.
11 A They've been paying me since '08.
12 Q Okay. Do they -- do they pay you by the month
13 for that? Is it --
14 A You never heard of Social Security disability?
15 Q I have.
16 A Yeah.
17 Q Okay.
18 A My first check was for $21,000. They paid me. I
19 applied in '09. They declared me disabled in December of
20 '05 when I declared I was full-time telepathic, but they
21 could only pay me back one year. So they paid me back '08
22 to '09 in one check, and then I've been getting monthly
23 checks ever since.
24 Q Okay. Well, let's talk about this claim a little
25 bit.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.71
12
565
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
13
1 A Okay.
2 Q I'm going to have this marked as Exhibit 1.
3 A I have a new one here.
4 Q Okay. Well, why don't you -- why don't we mark
5 -- can I take that, or do you need that?
6 A Yeah. No. This is for you.
7 Q Okay. We won't mark the one I have.
8 A Here. That's updated. Every day I have stuff
9 missing.
10 MR. REESER: Okay. Do you want to put a sticker
11 on there?
12 (List of items produced and marked Exhibit No.
13 1.)
14 BY MR. REESER:
15 Q All right. Now, I'm just going to go through
16 these items that you have --
17 A Yeah.
18 Q -- listed in order from top to bottom. You're
19 making a claim for a dishwasher?
20 A Right.
21 Q Is this a dishwasher that was in your home?
22 A Yeah, but you know -- I'm trying to think what
23 year that was actually broken. That might predate this.
24 Scratch the dishwasher off of that.
25 Q The dishwasher is not being claimed, correct?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.72
13
566
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
14
1 A Yes. Yes, let's take that off.
2 Q All right. And I should ask you this beforehand.
3 I kind of lost track. Your brief or your petition that was
4 filed to the Supreme Court listed an address of 1250
5 Freemont Street. That's -- that's your home address?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. Does anybody else live there with you?
8 A No.
9 Q All right.
10 A In fact, I sent a copy of the deed in with the
11 claim.
12 Q I believe I saw that, which I think there were a
13 number of grantees.
14 A My brothers.
15 Q Okay. But none of them live there?
16 A No.
17 Q And they wouldn't be insured under the Allstate
18 policy?
19 A Yeah, they're listed as other insureds.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Yeah.
22 Q Okay. Do any of these items -- are they owners
23 of any of the items?
24 A No. I purchased the policy for everybody.
25 Q Okay. Front and back door locks?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.73
14
567
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
15
1 A Right.
2 Q Tell me about that.
3 A Okay. In July of 2015 -- yeah, July, 2015, the
4 benevolent Lancaster City Police Department served me with
5 a 302 petition, but what they did was they broke into my
6 house, smashed in the front door. Now, they were supposed
7 to pay for all the locks and the door, but they didn't.
8 So I had to get a new front door, and I had to
9 get all the locks changed in the front and back door,
10 rekeyed.
11 Q Okay. 302 petition?
12 A Mental health warrant.
13 Q All right.
14 A I've had about eight of them. That's what they
15 do. That's part of the slander campaign.
16 Q What do they --
17 A That's pretty routine.
18 Q What do they claim?
19 A Well, I'm mentally ill. I make all this up.
20 Q Okay.
21 A That's their -- that's their defense.
22 Q Is there a form of mental illness that they try
23 to pin on you?
24 A Oh, yeah.
25 Q What?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.74
15
568
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
16
1 A Which one do you want? What year?
2 Q Oh, there's been more than one?
3 A Bipolar, schizophrenic, delusional disorder, you
4 name it.
5 Q Okay. Were you hospitalized or
6 institutionalized --
7 A Oh, yeah.
8 Q -- as a result -- as a result of this one, the
9 one in July?
10 A Oh, yeah, Fairmont.
11 Q For how long?
12 A Oh, that was about five -- eight days, I guess.
13 Q And how did that end?
14 A They always -- they give me a hearing. Then they
15 have to release me.
16 Q Okay.
17 A They're always pretty much the same. It started
18 in '87. The first one was was somebody called up the Stone
19 Harbor Beach Patrol. My resume's in there. But in 1987 I
20 was making a movie with Tony Bongiovi who owns Power
21 Station Studios, one of the world's most famous recording
22 studios.
23 In 1987 we're making a movie. I rented a home
24 for an office down in Stone Harbor. We were going to shoot
25 the movie in New Jersey on the boardwalk. Somebody called
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.75
16
569
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
17
1 the Stone Harbor Police Department and said I was running
2 to the beach to kill myself, totally made up, fabricated.
3 That's how it all started with the mental illness.
4 Q Okay. So going back to the door for a second --
5 A Okay.
6 Q Smashed in your front door?
7 A Oh, yeah, with -- like a drug raid. I stood
8 there and took pictures of them as they came through.
9 Q Do you actually have the pictures?
10 A Oh, yeah, it's part of it.
11 Q Part of?
12 A The -- they're in here. Oh, let me see. Where
13 are they? No, they're in this one. This one. No. These
14 are black and white. They're hard to see, but the next two
15 pages. Totally illegal what they did. The only way, the
16 only reason you could do that is if someone -- is if you
17 knew that someone was in there with a gun to their head. I
18 was in -- I was in the upstairs window talking to them
19 trying to get them to get away from me quite honestly.
20 Q Okay.
21 A I filed a lawsuit against Lancaster City Police
22 in '08. It's a federal lawsuit. In fact, that's part of
23 one of the documents I have here.
24 Q Is that still ongoing?
25 A I withdrew without prejudice because of the
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.76
17
570
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
18
1 computer hacking, so I can re-file, go back to it any time
2 I want.
3 Q Okay.
4 A Most of my lawsuits I withdrew without prejudice.
5 I just couldn't litigate with all the hacking.
6 Q Can -- do you have any photographs that show the
7 damage to the door? I mean, I see a door that's open. I
8 see a police officer --
9 A Yeah.
10 Q -- apparently standing there.
11 A Yeah. Yeah, I do.
12 Q Okay.
13 A In fact, I bought the door at the Habitat reuse
14 it store. But what happened was they charged me like $400
15 to change all the locks. Wizard Lock did it.
16 Q Do you have -- do you have the receipt for that?
17 A Yeah, I could dig that up.
18 Q You don't have it with you right now?
19 A No.
20 Q You bought the door -- I'm sorry -- Habitat?
21 A For Humanity.
22 Q Habitat? I'm a little hard of hearing.
23 A Habitat for Humanity.
24 Q Oh, Habitat for Humanity.
25 A The reuse it store.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.77
18
571
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
19
1 Q Reuse it.
2 A Out on Old Philadelphia Pike back behind
3 Greenfield. The door looks brand new, I mean, a better
4 door than was on there.
5 Q The door, the replacement door you bought there?
6 A Yeah.
7 Q What about the original door, was that -- had
8 that been there for years?
9 A No, that was done in 1996. My mother was part of
10 the Lancaster City Homeowners Rehab or Revitalization or
11 Rehab Program where if you qualify, they'll come in and
12 rehab your home, bring it up to code and put a seven-year
13 lien on your house for the cost of the improvements. Each
14 year 10 -- 10 or 15 percent comes off, so if you stay in
15 the house for 7 years, it's all free.
16 Q I see.
17 A So the doors are part of that.
18 Q Okay.
19 A '96 at the time.
20 Q And you may have said this. I apologize if I
21 didn't get it. How much did you actually pay for the door
22 that -- the replacement door?
23 A $20.
24 Q $20?
25 A Yes.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.78
19
572
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
20
1 Q But it cost you 400 to get the locks replaced?
2 A Yeah. Yeah.
3 Q And that was done again by?
4 A Wizard.
5 Q Wizard.
6 A Locks.
7 Q And you can get me the receipt?
8 A Yeah.
9 Q And my question about that was going to be did
10 you report this to the police, but I guess given the
11 circumstances --
12 A Here's the situation. I've -- I've been
13 reporting to the police ever since it started, but usually
14 they're part of the program. They won't take my
15 complaints. I mean, I had to sue them. That's why I had
16 to sue them.
17 Q Okay.
18 A I have letters which are a part of the documents
19 going to the police explaining the vandalism and the
20 break-ins that they won't, you know, report on or
21 investigate or...
22 Q And this happened July of '15?
23 A July 8th, I think, yeah, 2015.
24 Q July 8th, 2015, okay. Was there any other damage
25 done, physical damage to your house done --
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.79
20
573
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
21
1 A No.
2 Q -- as a result of that incident?
3 A Just the door.
4 Q Okay. The next one I have on your list is an
5 Apple Video iPod.
6 A Right. What they did was I can't -- the menu
7 button doesn't work. Now, that iPod I bought back in 2006,
8 '05 or '06.
9 Q Okay.
10 A I since bought a replacement for it.
11 Q All right. You bought -- this particular Apple
12 Video iPod you bought in '05 or '06?
13 A Yeah.
14 Q Where did you buy it at?
15 A I might have bought it at a Best Buy in Florida.
16 Q Okay. Do you remember what you paid for it?
17 A Boy, 3, $400 probably.
18 Q Okay. And then when did you --
19 A It's when they first came out, so the video iPods
20 were expensive.
21 Q Yeah. This wasn't an iPhone. This was --
22 A No.
23 Q -- just an iPod?
24 A Right, video iPod.
25 Q And then you noticed a problem with it when?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.80
21
574
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
22
1 A The button, you can't push the button, the main
2 button.
3 Q Okay. When did you discover that?
4 A Oh, boy. Let me think. That was probably in the
5 fall of '15.
6 Q Okay. Did you take it to --
7 A No.
8 Q -- Best Buy or a repair store?
9 A No, you can't. No. No.
10 Q Why not?
11 A Why?
12 Q I mean, if I had a problem with my iPhone and
13 I --
14 A I'm not going to pay to get it fixed.
15 Q Okay.
16 A I bought a replacement.
17 Q Okay. Why is that -- I'm not -- I don't
18 understand why that's part of the insurance claim.
19 A Because it was in my house and the house is
20 covered by the insurance.
21 Q I mean, how do you know it just didn't -- I mean,
22 things wear down over time. I mean --
23 A I'm telling you the truth. If you don't believe
24 me, that's fine, but don't -- don't harass me with
25 questions.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.81
22
575
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
23
1 Q I'm here to ask you questions, sir. I'm just
2 trying to get an understanding as to -- things wear out.
3 A I told you what happened.
4 Q Okay.
5 A They broke it.
6 Q They broke it?
7 A Yes, someone broke it.
8 Q All right.
9 A It's funny. One day the button works, and the
10 next day it doesn't.
11 Q Okay. Bluetooth headset for phone.
12 A Right.
13 Q How old --
14 A I've had probably three stolen.
15 Q Oh, it was stolen?
16 A Oh, yeah.
17 Q Okay. When?
18 A I don't remember. In the past year. I had three
19 or four stolen. I had to buy replacements.
20 Q Okay. Well, you list $60, and that sounds about
21 what the value of a new Bluetooth would be.
22 A Oh, no. No. That's for three of them, I think.
23 Q Oh, okay.
24 A Does it say three beside there?
25 Q No, it doesn't. Well, no. It says item number,
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.82
23
576
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
24
1 but they're consecutive. I'm assuming that's not -- that's
2 not a quantity.
3 A Oh, didn't the quantity print out? Let me see
4 that. Oh, the quantity didn't print out. No. That should
5 be three.
6 Q All right.
7 A I paid like 20 bucks apiece for them up at Radio
8 Shack. Maybe I didn't put the quantity in.
9 Q Do you have the receipts for them?
10 A I'm not going to dig up all these receipts. I'm
11 really not. I'm a busy guy. I can't be -- you know, this
12 is harassment.
13 Q Does that mean you don't have them, or you're
14 just not going to -- you're not going to dig them up?
15 A I'm not going to take the time to dig them up.
16 Q Okay.
17 A I have all my receipts. I have my tax returns
18 back to '80, '82.
19 Q Okay.
20 A I document everything. I'm an expert in
21 information technologies.
22 Q Where in your house --
23 A I have worked all over the world for the record.
24 I did defense contracts, optical publishing. I was one
25 of -- I was one of four companies in the late '80's, early
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.83
24
577
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
25
1 '90's that could manufacture CD-ROMs, me alone. I know my
2 business.
3 Q Okay. Where in your house were the headsets that
4 were stolen?
5 A Where did I have them?
6 Q Yeah. In the bedroom, living room?
7 A It depends where I was. What do you mean?
8 Q Where were they stolen from?
9 A Most likely either the bedroom which is in the
10 basement. Yeah, the bedroom. Yeah.
11 Q Was there any sign of unlawful entry?
12 A No, never is. You'll read, the experts tell you
13 about that.
14 Q And I assume there was no report to the police
15 about these --
16 A I can't report to the police anymore.
17 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that with regard to any
18 of these items you haven't -- so I don't have to keep
19 asking you this, that you didn't report it to the police?
20 A They get emails from me, but, no, there's no
21 official report.
22 Q All right.
23 A The last official report I made was two thousand
24 -- was July 8th of 2015. I went down to the police again
25 to report the computer hacking, and that night at 11:30
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.84
25
578
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
26
1 they signed the mental health warrant on me --
2 Q Okay.
3 A -- and gave me a bogus incident report.
4 Q All right. The Bluetooth headsets, the three of
5 them were taken after that?
6 A After what?
7 Q After the 302 petition.
8 A Let me think. Yeah. Yeah.
9 Q Okay. You don't have any idea who it was who
10 took them?
11 A If I did I'd give you a name and report that to
12 everybody.
13 Q Okay. The hammer drill.
14 A Yes. They broke it. I'd say March 9th I started
15 my -- I'd say in March, 2016. I'm putting on a new
16 screened-in porch on my back and a six-foot fence. One day
17 it worked. The next day it didn't. So I had to go out and
18 buy a replacement.
19 Q How old was it?
20 A I bought that one -- that's about the second or
21 third one they broke. That one I bought on eBay in
22 probably -- when did I buy that one? Maybe '08.
23 Q Do you still have it?
24 A No.
25 Q Did you throw it out?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.85
26
579
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
27
1 A Yeah.
2 Q All right. You didn't take it someplace to see
3 if it could be fixed?
4 A No.
5 Q What did you buy it for, how much?
6 A How much?
7 Q How much.
8 A Oh, boy. That was a DeWalt. New they're like --
9 I don't know -- $300 I think, 280. I probably paid -- I
10 think I paid 60 something for that, somewhere around $60 --
11 Q Okay.
12 A -- on eBay.
13 Q And then did you buy a replacement for it?
14 A Yeah.
15 Q What did that cost?
16 A The replacement I bought at -- oh, the tool store
17 out there next to the off-track betting. What's the name
18 of it? Harbor Tools.
19 Q Harbor Freight?
20 A Harbor Freight. I paid I think 60 for the hammer
21 drill.
22 Q Okay. But you have -- you have 100 listed here,
23 so --
24 A What is it? Maybe it was 100.
25 Q Maybe 100?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.86
27
580
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
28
1 A Maybe.
2 Q Okay. Reciprocating saw.
3 A Yeah. What they did was they rigged it so that
4 the blade doesn't stay in. You can't use it. It just --
5 Q When you turn it on it comes out?
6 A Well, when you use it, it comes out when you're
7 sawing.
8 Q Okay.
9 A You can't -- you can't tighten it. It used to
10 work, but it stopped. That replacement I bought -- I think
11 I bought that at Lowe's.
12 Q The one, the one that's broken or the one, the
13 replacement one?
14 A The replacement.
15 Q Where did you buy the one that's broken?
16 A Harbor Tools.
17 Q Harbor Freight?
18 A Harbor Freight.
19 Q Okay. Just so we're on the same page. When did
20 you buy that?
21 A Oh, boy. Let's see. I might have bought that in
22 '06. '05. '05, '06.
23 Q Okay. Did you use that on a regular basis or
24 just once in a while?
25 A What do you mean on a regular basis?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.87
28
581
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
29
1 Q Did you use it once a week? Did you use it --
2 A No. No. No. No.
3 Q Okay.
4 A No. No. Reciprocating saws I probably used less
5 than any other tool actually.
6 Q I mean, a couple times?
7 A But if I have a project I might use it a lot in a
8 two-week span.
9 Q Yeah. I mean, some people are do-it-yourself,
10 fixer-upper kind of people, and some people --
11 A Well, I used to have a contracting business in
12 college.
13 Q All right.
14 A Stan Caterbone Painting and Renovating.
15 Q But you bought this in '05, '06? I mean, I'm
16 assuming --
17 A Right.
18 Q -- you were out of college by then.
19 A I'm just saying I have experience. I'm not just
20 a do-it-yourselfer.
21 Q Well, no. My -- some people do a lot of work
22 with their tools, and other people --
23 A Oh, I do.
24 Q -- don't.
25 A I do.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.88
29
582
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
30
1 Q Okay. And that's what I'm getting at. I'm
2 trying to understand.
3 A I do.
4 Q I don't.
5 A Okay.
6 Q So I could have something for ten years, and it
7 doesn't get any use at all.
8 A No. I understand.
9 Q And some people have it --
10 A I use my tools.
11 Q -- for ten years, and they use it every day.
12 A I use my stuff.
13 Q Fair enough. And you got a replacement at
14 Lowe's, and you have $100 here. Is that about what you
15 paid for the replacement?
16 A Uh-huh.
17 Q Do you have the receipt?
18 A Yeah.
19 Q Okay. Is it fair to say you're not going to dig
20 that up?
21 A No. No. I'm not going to do that.
22 Q Okay.
23 A I didn't have to for the other claims. I'm not
24 going to do it for your company.
25 Q Okay. IPhone 5C, was that stolen?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.89
30
583
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
31
1 A Broken.
2 Q When?
3 A In fact, I got scammed on that, the 5C, the end
4 of last year. Here's what happened. They broke it, right,
5 so I put it on eBay to sell it so someone could reprogram
6 it, the software. I assumed the software was what was
7 broken on it because it functioned, everything, but the
8 software was not functioning. Okay.
9 So I put it on eBay. Right. Somebody bought it.
10 They hacked my PayPal account. So someone said that they
11 paid me with electronic funds. Well, PayPal doesn't use
12 electronic funds. PayPal you use your account to transfer
13 the money. Right.
14 Q Like a Visa account?
15 A What's that?
16 Q Or a PayPal account. Oh, a PayPal account.
17 A PayPal account.
18 Q Okay.
19 A So what they did was they filed a claim saying
20 that I never sent them the iPhone. I wasn't going to send
21 it until I got -- until I verified the money was in my
22 account.
23 Q Uh-huh.
24 A But because my PayPal account was hacked, I
25 couldn't access my PayPal account. Right. Now, in my
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.90
31
584
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
32
1 PayPal account I had a cash balance of like $400. So eBay
2 went and awarded them judgment. In eBay terms I'm saying
3 judgment.
4 Q Uh-huh.
5 A So they took the $150 or whatever selling price
6 out of my account, so I'm out the phone, plus the $150.
7 Q Okay.
8 A So they scammed me. All my accounts are hacked.
9 I file -- in all the courts I have electronic filing
10 privileges, Third Circuit, U.S. District Court, all the
11 state courts, the local courts. Right. My PACER account
12 which is the system where you file electronically --
13 Q I'm familiar with PACER.
14 A -- I've been hacked since, oh, boy, November. So
15 I got to run down to Philly every two weeks --
16 Q Okay.
17 A -- to get my dockets, just to get dockets for all
18 my cases.
19 Q Let me go back. I'm -- you lost me on the phone
20 at some point.
21 A Okay.
22 Q You had the phone. You were looking to sell the
23 phone?
24 A Right, after it was unusable to me.
25 Q After it was unusable. Why was it unusable to
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.91
32
585
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
33
1 you? Because there was a software problem?
2 A It just didn't -- it wouldn't function for me.
3 Q Okay. How old was the phone?
4 A So I replaced it. I went to Samsung. I got out
5 of Apple. I had too many problems with Apple.
6 Q How old --
7 A Apple wouldn't fix it. Apple wouldn't do this.
8 They were harassing me on every -- I called customer
9 service about it, and they had harassed me, and I had to
10 report that, so I said the hell with it. So I went to
11 Radio Shack, and under Sprint's program they would pay your
12 old phone off if you're on a contract. So I went and now I
13 have a Samsung.
14 Q How old was the phone at the time that you tried
15 to sell it through eBay?
16 A A couple months old.
17 Q Okay.
18 A Five months old I think.
19 Q Was it under any warranty program with Apple
20 or --
21 A I had a warranty through Verizon, but I had to
22 cut them out.
23 Q I don't follow you.
24 A I had to get off of Verizon.
25 Q Okay. So the phone wasn't fixable; you tried to
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.92
33
586
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
34
1 sell it; you got scammed on the PayPal?
2 A Yeah.
3 Q And eBay basically ruled against you?
4 A Yeah, I can't even access eBay. I can't buy
5 anything on eBay anymore.
6 Q Okay.
7 A I'm hacked, every -- all my online accounts.
8 Q Okay.
9 A Banking, bank accounts, PayPal, eBay, PACER. I
10 filed complaints with the FBI, the Pennsylvania Attorney
11 General's Office, everybody.
12 Q When did this happen?
13 A What happen?
14 Q The phone, the attempt to sell the phone.
15 A I think January.
16 Q Of this year?
17 A Yes, '16. I think January.
18 Q Did you file a complaint with the Attorney
19 General's Office or --
20 A Oh.
21 Q About this situation?
22 A I file complaints with them all the time.
23 Q Okay.
24 A Like I say, I am the amicus for Kathleen Kane in
25 Superior Court Case 1164 EDA 2016. I filed an amicus brief
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.93
34
587
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
35
1 May 3rd, so I'm a party to the case now. They have to file
2 everything to me.
3 Q Okay.
4 A Service me everything.
5 Q And I understand, you know, that process to some
6 extent, but what does it have to do with this? I mean, if
7 it has relevance, I'm all ears. I just don't know.
8 A Okay. In 1998 I had a meeting with an agent from
9 the NSA. I was complaining again about things, and he told
10 me, he said, listen, Stan. He goes it's not us. He said
11 it's the good old boys. This was in 1998.
12 Now, when Kathleen Kane started in the press,
13 she's been saying that the good old boys are behind her
14 problems. So November 12th I wrote her a letter, and I
15 stated for the record what the NSA agent told me about the
16 good old boys and how it relates to what she was saying.
17 Q Uh-huh. Okay.
18 A She replied back the next day, said she'd keep my
19 information on file. Ever since then from November till a
20 month or so ago I'd go up there every two weeks and deliver
21 documents to Strawberry Square to the Attorney General's
22 Office.
23 Q Okay. Tell me about the screen door locks.
24 A I finally thought, you know what, I'll put screen
25 door locks on on my screen doors.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.94
35
588
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
36
1 Q Uh-huh.
2 A It didn't stop anything. They'd break them.
3 They'd work. They wouldn't work.
4 Q Are they still there?
5 A I had to replace one or two of them.
6 Q Did you do that yourself?
7 A Oh, yeah.
8 Q Do they work now?
9 A Yes. Well, supposedly. I mean, one time they
10 didn't work.
11 Q Okay. Where did you buy the replacements?
12 A Lowe's.
13 Q For $30 it looks like?
14 A Yeah. Is that what's on there?
15 Q Yes. Okay. When did you replace them?
16 A That was within two months ago.
17 Q Okay. Sleepy's foam mattress. I'm sorry. Foam
18 memory mattress.
19 A Here's the situation with that. On the record,
20 I've been suffering from back pain since '87. Since I'd
21 say '98 I've been going to the doctors on and off for it.
22 Last year I got a handicapped placard, and in the process I
23 used my medical reports regarding my back. So I got a
24 handicapped placard, and I got a long-term placard which
25 means it doesn't renew until 2020.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.95
36
589
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
37
1 Q Okay.
2 A Now, what they were doing is that aside from the
3 electromagnetic weapons, people were using some type of
4 device to put under my seats and under my bed that causes
5 excruciating pain.
6 Now, since '05 I was going up and getting laser
7 treatments to Leola Family Health Clinic in Leola.
8 Q Did you say Leola?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Thank you.
11 A Now, the doctor there, the chiropractor, he's the
12 one that signed off on my handicapped placard.
13 Q Okay.
14 A He verified that if they -- they could be using
15 magnets. It can throw my back out to cause pain. So
16 that's what the Sleepy's is for.
17 Q All right.
18 A Now, whether -- I mean, well, go ahead. You ask
19 the questions.
20 Q Have you actually found magnets?
21 A No.
22 Q All right. You're not sure where they are within
23 the mattress?
24 A I'm not sure. No, I'm not. No. I'm not sure
25 how they do it, but they used to do it to my bicycle seat,
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.96
37
590
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
38
1 my car seat, my bed. Now, some nights I'm fine in the bed.
2 Other nights...
3 Q And you know when they're doing it based upon
4 when you have the pain?
5 A Yes, it's the only way I know.
6 Q Okay. What's the nature of your back problem?
7 Herniated disc, do you have a degenerative condition?
8 A No.
9 Q Do you have -- I mean, you're going to a
10 chiropractor. Is he -- is he treating you for anything?
11 A I was getting laser treatments, but it stopped
12 being effective.
13 Q Okay.
14 A So now the only treatment really is I'm applying
15 to Medicare. I'm trying to get a whirlpool bath put in my
16 house. I'm trying to get them to pay for that. And pain
17 medicines.
18 Q Okay. And what's the diagnosis other than -- I
19 mean, are you -- something other than back pain I presume?
20 A I have that in here, I believe.
21 Q I'm going to get myself some more coffee over
22 there. Would you like any coffee or water?
23 A Water would be good.
24 Q I assume there's water in that pitcher. If not,
25 I can go out and get you some.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.97
38
591
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
39
1 A Let me see what document I have right here.
2 MR. REESER: And off the record.
3 (Off the record.)
4 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't bring my medical file
5 with me.
6 BY MR. REESER:
7 Q Okay. That's all right. I mean, if you know.
8 A If I know what?
9 Q If you know the answer to that question.
10 A What was the question?
11 Q The question was what's the medical diagnosis?
12 A Oh, it's a medical term. I can't.
13 Q That's fine. If you don't -- if you don't know,
14 that's fine as well.
15 A I went to -- okay. January 29th medical -- Med
16 Express Urgent Care issued me pain medications. March 23rd
17 they issued me pain medications, all for back. May 10th
18 they issued me pain medications.
19 In 2009 I was receiving pain medicines from
20 Dr. Sullivan at the Abbeyville Family Clinic on Abbeyille
21 Road for back pain, severe. It gets severe. I have to use
22 a walker some nights.
23 Q I think you said you went to Leola Chiropractic?
24 A Yeah, Leola Family Health Clinic. Family Health
25 Clinic.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.98
39
592
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
40
1 Q That's not a chiropractor. That's a medical
2 doctor?
3 A No, he's inside there. It's a -- it's a facility
4 where they have different doctors.
5 Q Okay.
6 A Dr. Newhart, Paul Newhart, he was giving me laser
7 treatments. I saw an article in the paper in '05 or '06 I
8 guess it was about laser therapy. Now they're using it for
9 the NFL. But it was effective for a while, and then it
10 stopped being effective a couple years ago, so I stopped.
11 Q When did you buy the bed?
12 A I bought the bed three months ago.
13 Q Where did you buy it at?
14 A Sleepy's, Manor Shopping Center.
15 Q Okay.
16 A Now, I put the bed on there. You understand why
17 I put it on there? Now, if you went and saw the bed, you
18 wouldn't think anything's wrong with it, but I'm putting it
19 on to document just what I'm telling you.
20 Q Okay. You still use the mattress?
21 A Oh, yeah. Yeah, because it's a memory foam with
22 a -- it vibrates. It moves in three different positions,
23 the head, the mid-section, and for my back it's great.
24 Q Queen size, king size?
25 A Full.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.99
40
593
of
ofof
548
673
511224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
41
1 Q Is that smaller than queen?
2 A Yeah, not by much though.
3 Q So if you're not having the back issues --
4 A Perfectly normal.
5 Q Then it's perfectly -- okay.
6 A Yeah.
7 Q All right. And $2,300, is that what you paid for
8 it?
9 A Yeah.
10 Q Okay. Laptop computers.
11 A Oh, which ones?
12 Q How many do you have?
13 A How many did I have? How many are broken? How
14 many's listed on there?
15 Q There's no number there.
16 A Let me see. I don't know why those quantities
17 aren't in there.
18 Q Yeah.
19 A Let me see. The policy goes -- the policy goes
20 back to '11, so it would have been one, two -- that would
21 be right. Two.
22 Q Okay.
23 A Two laptops, 400 bucks apiece. That's about
24 right.
25 Q What kind of laptops, what brand?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.100
41
594ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
42
1 A Oh, boy. HP. What was the last one? Compaq.
2 Q What happened to them?
3 A They just sabotage them. They fry the hard
4 drives and everything. They just fry them. Viruses
5 usually. That's what this document is. It's all in there.
6 Q So they've crashed as a result of the viruses?
7 The hard drives have crashed?
8 A Oh, yeah. Yeah.
9 Q Have you looked into replacing the hard drives?
10 A It is -- cost, it's not effective. It's not --
11 it's not worth it because by the time you pay to do that,
12 it's already outdated technology, so you're going to have
13 an old processor. You know, it just doesn't --
14 Q No, I -- I understand. The economics of it
15 sometimes --
16 A So what happened, so in August of last year, the
17 last laptop I replaced, I got a one-year service for Geek
18 Squad. I've been in there about 20 times.
19 Q The laptops --
20 A Fixing -- fixing the one I have.
21 Q Okay. These aren't -- the ones that the Geek
22 Squad's fixing, they're not the HP or the Compaq?
23 A Oh, no. No.
24 Q Okay.
25 A That's a Lenovo I have now.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.101
42
595ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
43
1 Q The HP and the Compaq, how old were those?
2 A Within a year, a year old.
3 Q When did they crash?
4 A Well, the last one crashed August of 2015. The
5 one before that was probably -- let's see. Compaq, '15.
6 Maybe 2012. Probably two thousand and -- maybe '13. Maybe
7 2013.
8 Q Did you make any report to your insurance agent
9 or to Allstate about the one that crashed in '13 before --
10 A No.
11 Q -- last month?
12 A No. I do -- no, this is the way I do this. I do
13 it in bulk. It's too time consuming. I'm too busy with
14 litigation. I'm too busy trying to defend myself and
15 everything else, too busy documenting things I have to
16 document.
17 Q Okay. The next item you have is cost to repair
18 computers from hacking.
19 A Right.
20 Q Which -- are you talking about the same
21 computers?
22 A Yeah.
23 Q The --
24 A I went to -- I went to other services after Geek
25 Squad was not performing their service effectively.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.102
43
596ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
44
1 Q Let me hold you up for a second now. We talked
2 about the HP and the Compaq, and then you said you bought a
3 warranty in August to have a different computer serviced
4 by --
5 A A Lenovo.
6 Q -- the Geek Squad?
7 A Right.
8 Q Denovo?
9 A Lenovo.
10 Q Lenovo?
11 A L-e-n-o-v-o.
12 Q Is that the one that you're making the claim to
13 have repaired?
14 A I had that serviced, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I had it
15 done by the people on Harrisburg Pike there. He just
16 moved, right there at The Grille there, near the campus. I
17 forget what his name is.
18 Q Near F&M you mean?
19 A Yeah, The Campus Grille. He had a computer
20 repair shop in there, but he just moved. I think he moved
21 out to Liberty Place or somewhere.
22 Q And you paid $400 for that?
23 A No. That was -- to the repair?
24 Q Yeah.
25 A Let me see. Cost to repair computers from
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.103
44
597ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
45
1 hacking. I guess that's cumulative over the past four
2 years.
3 Q Okay.
4 A That's probably what that is. A Plus on Columbia
5 Avenue. Here's what happened. Last year I made a formal
6 complaint to the Lancaster DA's Office. Okay. I met with
7 the detective. He goes, well, Stan, he goes, listen. He
8 goes you're going to have to do something for me. You're
9 going to have to go get a private firm, analyze your
10 computer and get a report. I did that, paid for it, never
11 seen the detective since.
12 Q Okay.
13 A He never returned my calls. He never -- I guess
14 I called him out on it. I guess he thought, you know, I
15 wasn't going to do it, or it was going to come back saying
16 there wasn't a virus in it or it wasn't hacked, but he was
17 wrong, so he flew the coop from me.
18 Q So the $400 is cumulative --
19 A Yes.
20 Q -- for three different computers?
21 A Three or four.
22 Q And this would be over how many years span?
23 A Three or four years.
24 Q Okay. Do you have the bills for any of those
25 repairs?
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.104
45
598ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
46
1 A A lot of them are in here.
2 Q I'm sorry?
3 A A lot of them are in here.
4 Q Okay. Could you send me copies of them?
5 A No.
6 Q Why not?
7 A You can see them right now.
8 Q Oh, sure.
9 A I'm getting tired. I had a long week, so let's
10 wrap this up.
11 Q I'm about two-thirds of the way through these
12 items.
13 A Let's make it another day then for the rest.
14 I've had enough.
15 Q Okay.
16 A We can reschedule another time. And I take it
17 I'll get a copy of the transcript?
18 Q I'll get you a copy of the transcript.
19 A Great. You don't mind breaking, do you?
20 Q I would prefer to keep going.
21 A No, I can't. I'm up since 4 o'clock most
22 mornings, so this is enough for me.
23 Q Can you show me where those receipts are that
24 we've just talked about?
25 A Let me see.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.105
46
599ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
47
1 Q Save you and me some time.
2 A Okay. Here's one. That's $160.
3 Q In the folders that you're looking at right now,
4 are those copies of your receipts?
5 A These are the copies of the reports from the
6 technical people.
7 Q Okay.
8 A The Geek Squad was a one-time fee. Okay. Here's
9 A Plus. Okay. Here's A Plus. Now I got to find the
10 receipt. This is what they wrote. That's on Columbia
11 Avenue. Okay. Let's see. Here's my receipt for the tech
12 service, the Geek Squad. Here's my receipt for the actual
13 computer. Can I have those receipts back? I want to put
14 them where I got them. I don't want the stuff mixed up.
15 Q How can I get a copy of those receipts?
16 A Just take them right now and get them.
17 Q Ask them to copy them, you'd be all right with
18 that?
19 A Sure. Sure.
20 Q Do you have other receipts for any of these other
21 items?
22 A I have 30 years of receipts.
23 Q Here, I mean here in this building. Do you have
24 them with you?
25 A I don't know.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.106
47
600ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
48
1 Q Could you -- there was another one in there that
2 I was looking at. It was on an 11 -- 8 and a half by 11
3 piece of paper.
4 A Here, that was $160. Let's see. Let me go
5 through there quick and see if I can get the receipts.
6 Here's a receipt. This is a Verizon. What Verizon did was
7 they changed my SIM card thinking that would stop the
8 hacking, but it didn't. This is a receipt, but it's not
9 for -- that's just an in-take. These are the IC3 reports.
10 Let's see if the receipt's in here. Geek Squad. No,
11 they're all the receipts I have.
12 Q Okay.
13 A I believe. I mean, as far as the computers are
14 concerned.
15 Q And then there's no receipts in these documents?
16 A Receipts for what?
17 Q Any of these items that we're talking about.
18 A I don't know.
19 Q Okay.
20 A I don't know.
21 Q I'll make copies of these.
22 A I did not peruse all these files for receipts.
23 Q Would you like -- would you like me to make a
24 copy of that for your records?
25 A No, I gave it to you.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.107
48
601ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
49
1 Q Okay.
2 A I'm going to have to trust you. I got people
3 changing documents on me all the time.
4 (Off the record.)
5 BY MR. REESER:
6 Q Okay.
7 A Do you want to take these and copy them and bring
8 them back?
9 Q Or I can mail them back to you. Sure.
10 A Well, aren't we going to continue this?
11 Q Actually what I have to do is I have to report
12 back to Allstate, and they let me know if they want me to
13 continue it or not.
14 A Okay. You can take them then. Yeah, that'd be
15 fine. Mail them back.
16 Q Okay. And you will not --
17 A You're going to get educated. You're going to be
18 a changed man, trust me.
19 Q You will not do the continuation, assuming we
20 have one, in the courthouse?
21 A Why?
22 Q Because it's free.
23 A Why don't we do it at Allstate's office, Allen's
24 office?
25 Q Okay. I'll see if I can arrange that.
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.108
49
602ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
50
1 A Or we can do it at my house. You can come to
2 1250 Freemont Street. It's nice there. It's fixed up.
3 It's nice. I have no problem with that.
4 Q All right.
5 A I had enough of that courthouse.
6 Q Okay. So it's about 20 after 10:00 roughly.
7 A How long did this last?
8 Q Roughly an hour. I don't know what time we
9 started.
10 A That's pretty good.
11 Q So you want to adjourn for the day?
12 A Yeah.
13 MR. REESER: Okay. Very good.
14 (The examination under oath was adjourned at
15 10:19 a.m.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.109
50
603ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
51
1 COUNTY OF DAUPHIN :
2 : SS
3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
4 I, Diane F. Foltz, a Notary Public, authorized to
5 administer oaths within and for the Commonwealth of
6 Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
7 testimony of Stanley J. Caterbone.
8 I further certify that before the taking of said
9 statement, the witness was duly sworn; that the questions
10 and answers were taken down stenographically by the said
11 Reporter-Notary Public, and afterwards reduced to
12 typewriting under the direction of the said Reporter.
13 I further certify the said statement was taken at the
14 time and place specified in the caption sheet hereof.
15 I further certify I am not a relative or employee or
16 attorney or counsel to any of the parties, or a relative or
17 employee of such attorney or counsel, or financially
18 interested directly or indirectly in this action.
19 I further certify that the said statement
20 constitutes a true record of the testimony given by the
21 said witness.
22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
23 this 13th day of June, 2016.
24
_______________________
25 Diane F. Foltz, RMR
Notary Public
Stan Sponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
J. Caterbone
BRIEFTestimonies
Mind
INUnder
SUPPORT
Control
Oathof OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.110
51
604ofof51
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
June
27th17,
of
9, 2017
7, 2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Stan J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Richmond City Council

May 19, 2015
Richmond City Council Public Hearing of May 19, 2015
Passing a City Resolution 5-2 to Ban Spaced-Based
Weapons in Support of the Many Targeted Individuals
Suffering Symptoms of the City
Transcribed for Advanced Media Group, Originally published:
May 19, 2015
Richmond, California City Council hears from victims and advocates and votes in support of the Space
Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty to permanently ban spaced-based weapons.
Jovanka Beckles Council Member Introduced This Resolution
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.111
4605
ofof183
173
of673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL BANS SPACED-BASED WEAPONS
COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 19, 2015
Mayor: One is to adopt a resolution in support of the Space Preservation Act and the Spaced-Based
Treaty to permanently ban Space-based weapons. And we have 15 speakers for this item.
Council Member Beckles, would you like to introduce this?
Beckles : I would. You know I think what I would like to do is just kind of rehash the statement of this
issue for those that dont have the agenda in front of them. The city of Richmond is a welcoming and safe
area for all of our residents. We have led the way in so many initiatives that protect and provide the rights
for all of our residents to feel safe. And so its imperative that Richmond adopt this resolution in order to
stand in solidarity with residents who claim to be under assault with spaced-based weapons that should be
outlawed by the Space Preservation Act.
Now, the thing about this is that were not trying something new here. This is in support of what is already
there at the federal level. So we say as a council we support this treaty thats already in affect and we also
support our residents who are feeling attacked by certain kinds of weapons. And so the purpose of this
resolution is to show support for our residents that identify themselves as targeted individuals by
supporting the Space Preservation Act thats been passed by Congress and the Space Preservation Treaty
to permanently ban spaced-based weapons.
Now, many targeted individuals believe they have been personally attacked by weaponry that should be
outlawed by the Space Preservation Act. Some years ago one of the residents who is going to talk now, I
met with her. I met with many of them, to talk about this issue. Ive also spoken with our police
department. The representative from the department was Captain Gagan to figure out how law
enforcement can support these individuals, first of all, by at least listening and not assuming, and actually
just taking reports of incidences that are reported. And the police department was open to that, and is
open to that, and are willing to work with our residents in helping them to feel safe. Because its important
that we all feel safe living in our city. And in our city we have put forth our best effort to listen and respect
the voices and wisdom and experiences of our residents.
And so I dont intend to ignore it and Im hoping that my colleagues on this (unclear word) wont ignore,
but support those who suspect they have been exposed to these types of inhumane attacks with the intent
to cause them great emotional and bodily harm. And Im encouraged by these residents, these citizens of
Richmond, who stood up to protect these other residents here. Id like to encourage other officials at the
local, state and national level to explore methods to expand support to all residents. And as many as
you can see those of us with an agenda in front of us, and those who dont have an agenda in front of
you, who may be watching, or the livecast on the web, is that there is no financial impact to this. This is
not going to cost anything and its not going to hurt anyone to pass it. But it certainly would continue to
cause emotional distress to those who are being targeted if we dont pass this. And I urge you to support
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.112
5606
ofof183
173
of673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
all of our residents in the city.
Mayor: Do we have questions from council members? Okay, Vice Mayor.
V Mayor: Just real quickly. You mentioned that this was passed by Congress. Can you tell me when that
happened because Im trying to look it up now and I thought that was just introduced in 2001 and never
was
Beckles: Actually, Ms Anderson can probably answer that question. When was it passed at the federal
level, Ms Anderson?
Anderson: 9/10/2002. Space Preservation Act, former Congressman Dennis Cosenich had introduced
this bill.
Vice Mayor: But was that

Mayor: Were sort of getting out of our process here. I think that (word unclear) do you have other
questions?
Vice Mayor: Well, Im looking at the sheet that youre looking at. It looks like thats when the Burkley
City Council passed a resolution, not when Congress passed the law. Im looking on line at the House
website. And I know that theres, I understand that theres been multiple versions of this so I dont know if
its been passed or not. But from what it looks like here, it doesnt look like that version was passed by
Congress, so I dont know if it was. But I understand the Burkley City Council passed it on 9/10 of 2002.
Mayor: Other questions from the council?
Mayor: So I had a couple of questions. Im looking at the resolution and it talks about the Space
Preservation Act. Can you tell me what act that was? Theres never been a Space Preservation Act passed,
right?
Beckles: It wasnt passed. It was brought forward by the Representative, the Congressman at the time.
Because there were some, you know how it goes in Washington, theres just a lot of power play. So it
never gotbut it did get passed in 2002 in Burkley. So were making ours similar to the one that was
passed in Burkley.
Mayor: Well it doesnt say anything about Burkley here. All it says is the Space Preservation Act. Are you
talking about the resolution Burkley passed or are you talking about one of the two resolutions that
Representative Cosenich introduced in 2001 and 2002?
Beckles: Well because that one didnt pass were just making reference that it was brought forward by
Dennis Cosenich, and of course politics being the way they are, it did not pass. So this is, Im making
reference to and using the Burkley model as an example of ours.
Mayor: Which one of the Cosenich resolutions did the Burkley model refer to?
Anderson: HR3616. House Resolution 3616.
Mayor: I didnt hear you, what?
Anderson: House Resolution 3616.
Mayor: 3615.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.113
6607
ofof183
173
of673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Anderson: 3616. 1. 6.
Mayor: The research I did on this, that resolution was substantially different than HR2977.
Anderson: Yes sir.
Mayor: And significantly it omitted any references to chem trails, particle beams, electromagnetic
radiation, plasmas, extremely low frequency or ultra-high frequency energy radiation and mind control
technology. So, the question I have is, it seemed to me, it was your intent to include all these in it, right?
So if you go with HR3616 and we approve this, it will not include any of these things I named. Was that
your intent?
Beckles: That was not my intent. My intent, and working with staff, of course, it helped put this together,
because we know that we get help with our staff. The intention was to include all of the things that people
are feeling, yeah, that people are feeling the pressures of and feeling the attacks of, and so I think thatI
dont know how much of this issue that Burkley had in theirs. But I think that to include these, and this is
the resolution saying we support this treaty, this act. Then Id like to have it in there. Because again, to
me its important that we defend, that we support and that we protect our residents. And so if these are
the things that residents are saying theyre feeling, then it should be in there.
Mayor: Well, all Burkley did, and Im looking at the Burkley resolution, and it just says, It is the will of
the council and the city of Burkley that the US Senate and House of Representatives enact, and the US
President sign and enforce the Space Preservation Act. But Im confused because there were actually two
Space Preservation Acts introduced and I think if were going to do this right, we need to define which one
were going to support. Because theyre different.
Beckles: Youre absolutely right. And I want the best one to move forward as well, and Im sure that the
residents want the best one and so.
Mayor: Which one is the best one?
Anderson: HR2977.
Mayor: So that would be HR2977.
Anderson: Yes.
Beckles: Which is the one that includes
Anderson: Everything.
Mayor: Ok, so, with that in mind, I dont have any more council people... oh I do too. Council Member
yeah, Ive got a bunch; Council Member Martinez and Council Member McLaughlin.
Martinez: Yes, I wanted to change the language to say that we endorse the intent of the act since the
act is not actually in place.
Mayor: The intent of which act?
Martinez: The intent of the second act.
Mayor: The second one is HR3616.
Beckles: Are you talking about HR2977 which includes all that, right? Which includes the chem trails. Is
that right?
Mayor: Thats my understanding of it.
Beckles: Is that right, Council Member Martinez?
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.114
7608
ofof183
173
of673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Martinez: Is that the revision? Right.
Mayor: Council Member McLaughlin.
McLaughlin: Actually I did some research on this too. Apparently Representative Cosenich didnt read
fully the first resolution that was brought forward in his name. He brought it forward based on some
recommendations. And when he realized it was drawn out to the level that it was, he pulled it. And he
brought forward the second one, which is 3616, which I think is more general.
Many of us remember, just to share some input going back, many of us remember in the 80s, Ronal
Reagan brought forth the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was later dubbed Star Wars, you know, thats
where this all came from. Basically, it was to put weapons technology into space as a global shield, as a
supposed defense against China and the Soviet Union. It was later seen as infeasible. And many others..
many people saw this as the idea to put weapons in spacewas insane. And I happen to think it was a
crazy idea, as did the population at large.
Then the Clinton administration in 1993 morphed it into the Ballistic Missile Defense. Later in 2002, which
is currently now the Missile Defense Agency. But also, along the way, in 2002 Dennis Cosenich introduced
this bill, and its the second one that he fully introduced, 3616, which basically called for a ban on spaced-
based weapons. And then it was, I think it was just introduced, a co-sponsor was Representative Barbara
Lee, and at a certain point, this Space Preservation Act that was just introduced was brought to the UN
and the Space Preservation Treaty was linked with it. And actually the UN had previously addressedset
upestablished, I guess the basis for this treaty by saying they wanted a permanent ban on spaced-based
weapons that passed in the United Nations that passed 156 to 0. Then Burkley supported the 2002 the
Space Preservation Act and I believe also, the Space Preservation Treaty.
So thats what Council Member Beckles is referring to in terms of the resolution that shes brought
forward. I dont know how anyone can not support not having weapons in space when it has been
supported by the UN and also been supported, clearly stated by many experts that its infeasible this
original Ronald Reagan plan to dub this Star Wars.
I think the resolution is fine as it is. It basically says that the residentsthe well-being of our residents is
of importance to us and it also, it doesnt state pro or con in terms of what individuals are saying. But it
just refers to the fact that our residents deserve to be protected. And in general it states that spaced-
based weapons are something that the city of Richmond does not support. (applause)
Mayor: Okay, so would you call the public speakers?
Anderson: Speakers are Amy Anderson, Jesse Beltrand, Dr. John Hall, Dr. Edward Spencer, Ben
Colonson, Lisa Becker and Derrick Robinson.
Beckles: Amy Lee Anderson.
Anderson: Yes
Mayor: Could you come over here to the podium to speak, please?
Anderson: Good evening Council Members, Council Beckles. I really want to thank you for not deviating
your plan because I went on your Facebook and I saw why you came in office and you never deviated your
plan. You said that you wanted to first put the community first and from you doing that, I want to thank
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.115
8609
ofof183
173
of673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
you first. And secondly, as a psychologist, a child psychologist, I want to thank you for putting up with
some of those pains I have suffered along this way. But I am here in happiness, in a moment of greatness.
I have a perfect city. Nowhere in the United States, no targeted individual can get this kind of support
that I have gotten. We just needed just one person, one city. And because of that, you all are our heroes,
and we want to thank you. And I can go on and say much much.
But we are dying within because the technology is so sophisticated. Its hard for someone who has no
experience to fathom it. It is so sophisticated. So what we are saying to you all is please let us help you
understand enough, as someone outside looking in to our lives. Because were in pain, we are tortured
and we are humiliated every day in our lives because our lives have taken on a path. We dont even know
how or why we have this type of people on this planet who would harm in this type of way. And I just want
to thank you all. And you, Mayor, for you being in the cityworking in the service. Being in the service. For
others to do this, I know that should sadden you. (applause)
Jesse Beltrand: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members. My name is Jesse Beltrand.
Im the president of the International Center Against the Use of Covert Technologies. Our organization was
formed in 2010 in Sacramento California for the purpose to bring awareness to the general public and
legal systems around the world about serious human rights abuses with regards to the utilization of
remote influencing technologies. My colleagues and co-speakers today, hopefully well get John Hall, who
was the author of Guinea Pigs, Technologies of Control, which have been sent to each of you and signed. I
also have Dr. Edward Spencer, whos a Neurologist from the Yale School of Medicine and Ben Colonson who
is a PHD in psychology, and therapist, and co-author of a book about PTSD. I myself am a retired
Sacramento City Fire Paramedic and a recent graduate of HMI and do provide therapy to victims.
In 2010 I met Dr. Hall and when meeting him I discovered this phenomenon and asked, Why isnt
anything being done about this? He said its because of the symptomology. If everyone went to traditional
medicine and complained about what they were experiencing, they would be railroaded into the mental
health institutions. The fact of the matter is, this is affecting all demographics of society: the poor, the
rich, the elite. I see victims on a monthly basis and hear from hundreds of people every week. I currently
have over 23,000 correspondences from victims not only within, here in the United States, but around the
world.
What we have discovered is that there are hot pockets within the United States where there are victims
that are being exposed to these types of technologies. And as our speakers continue to speak they will
explain to you how that has developed. Currently the hot spots are New York, Florida, Chicago, Texas, and
California. Unfortunately, in California, the East Bay has the highest amount of victims that we have
collected in our database, within our study within our organization. This is why we are currently here
today.
Beckles: Your time has expired Sir.
Beltrand: Okay, thank you.
Beckles: Dr. John Hall. Dr. John Hall.
Beltrand: Dr. Hall is unable to be reached so were going to have Dr. Spencer here.
Spencer: Mr. Mayor, City Council, thank you. Thank you for attacking this very difficult problem. And
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.116
9610
ofof183
173
of673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
there are a lot of people around the world, especially in Europe, where I attended a counsel just recently,
in November, who thank you. Im a retired neurologist. I attended Stanford University, Yale University and
a residency at the University of California in San Francisco.
Ive studied this sort of problem for a period of time. And its been a mystery to me why medicine in
general does not approach this and study the multitude of documents that are out there. But this is the
case. And I wont answer this for you, because this is an ongoing study, ongoing problem. This is really
intense technology. Essentially what might be described as EEG heterodyning. The entire electrical activity
of the human brain can be captured in this super computer and certainly processed and then put back into
someone else. Imits science fiction. But unfortunately, its not science fiction. So naturally this is
difficult. So the technology is incredible. But basically this is a moral problem. Ethical problem. This is a
violation of the golden rule, any ethics, anything thats decent. And this is a major thing to consider. Its
also a violation of our constitutional rights. So thats an important thing to keep in mind.
To bring it back down to Richmond, I know there are a lot of targeted individuals here, and the police
encounter them. And cant understand this and help them. The medical community is hobbled by not
having a differential diagnosis. And many of the psychiatric disorders, they should say rule out
psychotronic disorders, but they dont. So they cant face it at all. Thank you.
Beckles: Ben Colonson
Colonson: I thank you all. Two minutes. Okay, lets go. Thank you all for your endurance. I see you listen
to a lot of humans. Im gonna talk really fast with two minutes to go. I am a psychologist. I have
evaluated many targeted individuals who have previously been diagnosed as delusional and psychotic and
my job is to deconstruct those diagnoses. Because of the methods of my colleagues that can actually
detect advanced nano-technology present in their bodies both through frequency emissions and
lymphaticbasicallylike when you fire a bullet theres a trajectory and the police can determine the
trajectory. There are chemical tests to do that. I was just gonna, very quickly, since its two minutes, this
is this months issue of Smithsonian Magazine that says, The Future is Here: Brain to Brain
Communication is Real. Targeted Individuals report synthetic telepathy, voices in their skull, people
putting thoughts in their head, things that up until now weve been told are complete delusion and lock
em up. But you know, the capabilities exist.
This is the National Nanotech Initiative. The last 15 years budgets of a billion and a half dollars just by the
federal governments non-black budgets. We dont know what they spend on the black budgets. Doing
experimental programs showing how nano sensors in people can give us much more data about humanity.
These technologies can be used for great good but they have apparently also been used for tremendous
evil in non-consensual human experimentation. There is great documentation on this.
I do think its a little unfortunate, that confusion about the Space Preservation Act. There arethe systems
SCADAS, theyre called. The acronym stands for Supervisory Control And Data Systems Systems. They
include a component of satellite communication from a central command post as well as components
inside the human beings, or targeted individuals. So although there is a component of these weapons
systems, and they are clearly weapons systems by the major nations on earth, theres an arms race on for
the mind at this time. Control of the human mind. The Human Brain Initiative is part of it. If I only have
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.117
10
611
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
two minutes I have to stop there. I hope you will listen to these people. They are suffering greatly as non-
consensual experimentees.
Beckles: A question, really quick, to the speaker. Could you repeat the names of those two references
that you gave, the magazines? Can you give me the names of those again, please?
Colonson: The first one, the current issue of the Smithsonian Magazine. A main stream magazine, which
in this months issue, says communicating brain to brain. And this is merely what they are releasing
publicly. The majority of the most advanced weapons systems are classified and we dont know the full
capabilities. This is just the supplemental to the presidents budget, this years Nanotechnology Initiative.
And what I didnt get to say in my two minutes is the National Registry of Environmental Professionals,
which certifies people to do all kinds of environmental quality testing, has just certified SCADAS,
Supervisory Control And Data Administration Systems, as something that needs to be studied for its
environmental impact on the environment in general. And I am part of the HSCADAS task force, how
these SCADAS systems are impacting human beings. And there are thousands of reports from targeted
individuals that crimes are being committed against them. And my intention in coming here tonight was to
support their claims so that law enforcement, with as much
Mayor: I think she asked you the names of the magazinesso
Beckles: Thank you very much. Lisa Becker.
Becker: Hi. Good evening. My name is Lisa Becker and I came here from Racine, Wisconsin. I have been
a victim of this technology for 14 years. I have been tortured for 14 years. My justice department has
failed me. My executive branch has failed me. My senators have failed me. My congressmen have failed
me. You are the only people in this country who have had the courage to even put this on the agenda.
Thats why I flew all this way to thank you, and to address you. This is torture. And it is enslavement. And
any one of these people can tell you the same thing. We have suffered desperately. And Im sorry if Im
emotional. But Im very tired. But if you wont save us, save yourselves. Because I promise you, this will
come back to every one of you. Every one of us in this country are going to be tapped into these computer
systems and you are gonna see what this feels like. Do something now while you still can. Thank you.
Council Member: I have a question. Could you be more specific in terms of how you feel that youve
beenthe injustice.
Becker: You mean in terms of the justice department failing me?
Council Member: Well in terms of your being a victim.
Becker: You mean in what Im feeling?
Council Member: Yeah, explain a little bit to me how you perceive yourself as being.
Becker: Sure, well I have actual photographs of burns on my body. When I went to my doctor, the
response was, Well how do I know you didnt do that to yourself? How do you address that? Ive passed
two psychological evaluations. Not one but two. The one physician said, Youre sound as a bell. I have no
idea whats going on with you. When I go to sleep, when I go to try to sleep, I feel like Im being lit up
like a Christmas tree. I feel like every cell in my body just bouncing out of my body. I cant even describe
it. I get electric shock up my rectum. I get electric shock up my nose. Ive woken up with burns on the
end of my tongue. Ive had burns on the palms of both my hands. I vibrate. I vibrate. I can barely hold a
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.118
11
612
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
piece of paper without quivering. Does that answer your question?
Council Member: Im trying to find out whats the source.
Becker: The source are these exotic weapons. They talk about, in 2977, they talk about the space
weapons, spaced-based weapons. Basically in that document they talk about exotic weapons. Thats what
were talking about. And the fact of the matter is they did complete that global surveillance network. My
cousin worked for the defense department. She worked on the global mapping of that system. And when I
told her what I was going through, all she could say was, Youre on your own. Well, I figured that out. I
figured that out. If you would please, I urge you to pass this. I realize you cant enforce it, but if you
would pass it, it might give other communities the courage to do the same thing and show our defense
department we are not the enemy. We are not to be attacked. We are not terrorists. Most of us are
defenseless women.
Mayor: Okay, thank you.
Becker: Thank you.
Beckles: Our next speaker is Derrick Robinson, followed by Laquisha Baker, Dolores Hall, Kim, Alex,
Elizabeth Adams, Robert Swegan. Please come forward. Derrick Robinson.
Robinson: Good evening everyone. Im Derrick Robinson. In regards to the Space Preservation Act that
is before you, many of us have travelled here to say thanks very much for listening and responding to so
many that have come to you over the past couple of years. This is a momentous occasion for our
organization and for humanity. You are one of the very few governing authorities that has considered the
danger of psychotonic technologies. Research in this area has been ongoing since the 50s by government
agencies, corporations, criminal elements, and religious cults, etc. But, only since the arrival of the
internet, has this holocaust been made known to thousands of people who have found that they are
victims of psychotonic technologies. And that they have been sereptisciously victimized by them. And as
the devices proliferate and the public becomes more aware of these covert activities, legislation on a local
and national level will be needed to address the concerns with regard to a vulnerable society. Your
resolution today would be a giant step forward in ensuring the health, safety and well-being for all people.
Thank you.
Beckles: Laquisha Baker
Baker: Hello to all the legislators, and city hall, Javanka, my girl Amy over there. I have been a
Richmond resident 40 plus years. Ive seen two of my friends try and fight this fight. But their minds are
gone and theres no coming back. My mother was a Black Panther. They killed her. She was only 58 years
old. And Im just happy at this moment that somebody in our town, our city, has opened the doors for
many people who couldnt make it, didnt make it, and were survivors of it. And I just want to say thank
you.
Beckles: Dolores Hall.
Hall: I did not know you were going to call me to speak. But I will share. I head up the Los Angeles
Freedom from Covert Harassment Group. Its a support group. And I have about 300 people that is in that
group. And I get over 400 emails on a weekly basis of people asking me to help them, begging me, please
help. No one will listen to me. I am 65 years old and as I walk here, up to this podium, Im in so much
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.119
12
613
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
pain. I have burns all over my body. Theymy doctor I had treated with for 16 years, my legs swelled up
from the electric magnetic frequencies hitting me on my legshe told me to go to the hospital. And when I
went to the hospital they were supposed to put an IV in me. They sent me to the mental ward because
they said I did this to myself. I would never hurt me. I have been a victim since 2007. You cant see this
horrific electric hitting you. Electric is invisible. You take a remote control to turn your tv, turn on your
television. It hurts so bad. I want to thank you for opening your minds and your time today. I am a retired
legal investigator. I have asked all my friends, I have very prominent friends, to help me. They cant do
anything about this. It is way, way over our heads. They say its the shadow government. It is people that
cannot be touched. Please help us.
Beckles: Kim, next speaker.
Buckner: Hello, my name is Kimberly Buckner and I have been a targeted individual for a very long time.
The things that Ive experienced due to being targeted, they have been unreal. However, I can attest that
they are very real indeed. My life has been destroyed in every possible way and every day has been a
struggle for me. I am very grateful to be before you today due to Amy Andersons due diligence and to
everyone else involved. I thank you council members for giving us targeted individuals a chance to speak
and to be heard. And I pray that these atrocities will soon be brought to an end. But we need your help.
Thank you.
Beckles: Alex
Rafter: Good evening, my name is Alec Rafter. I am an NYU graduate and have spent much of my time
working in a financial holding company in San Francisco. I have been a targeted individual for eight years
six months. Im from Lafayette, California, which is in this county. I am here to support and corroborate
what these other speakers are trying to convey. This technology exists and is being used on a mass scale.
It is torturous, brutal and inhumane. It happens everywhere I go. People dont understand the capabilities
of this technology. The person I came with here tonight was being shocked and stabbed in this very room
with a directed energy weapon while waiting to speak with the council. My ears are getting frequency
tinnitus while I was sitting here waiting for you as well as technology called voice to skull Dr. Alan Frey.
Like I said, this happens everywhere I go in Northern and Southern California. Ive been tortured all day,
all night, minute after minute, year after year after year. We need your help and support to stop this, to
save us, and to prevent this from happening to others. Please support banning these so called spaced-
based weapons. Thank you very much.
Beckles: Robert Swegan
Swegan: Good evening. My name is Robert Swegan. I live in Modesto California. Im here tonight after
being targeted for 12 years with direct energy weapons, voice to skull. I wake up in the middle of the
night in excruciating pain. Theres nobody I can call. Theres nobody to help me. You know, sometimes I
have suicidal idealization because theres no one to help. You know, Ive been diagnosed schizophrenic,
delusional, at 53 and 57 years old. Im a graduate of junior college with a degree in counseling and human
service. I commend you people for what youre doing here. I want toIm here to support my friends. And
I know this has been very difficult for me and my family. My familyI have 4 children. One is in prison
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.120
13
614
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
right now. I suspect he was here for about 45 minutes. And others will not even talk to me. My familys
been fragmented. I dont tell anybody whats happening to me anymore. Its a dark secret with me. I
cannot explain to people whats happening. The police in Modesto are at least talking to me now. Theyre
not taking me down to the mental health facility. I thank you very much for listening to me.
Beckles: Marilyn Languist
Languist: Good evening Mayor and Council Members. Marilyn Languist, Richmond resident. I want to
thank Ms Anderson for bringing this topic forward and for bringing so many speakers. I urge you to adopt
this resolution. As has been said, the original Space Preservation Act was originally introduced by
Congressman Cosenich, co-sponsored by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Pete Stark of the
Bay Area. And this concept was also voted on and supported unanimously by the United Nations to
prohibit weaponization of space and spaced-based weapons. These are clearly not good for anyone on
earth and not good for anyone in Richmond. You have to be aware that there are a lot of exotic weapons
research programs going on. Some of them covert, some of them not covert. A former Richmond resident
sent me a lot of emails last year about a public comment period for allowing US military testing of directed
energy weapons in the Olympic peninsula in the state of Washington, which is of great concern. In terms
of the types of weapons that are affecting these individuals, before you judge the targeted individuals, I
would suggest that you listen to them, take the time to really listen deeply to their experience. Try to put
yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you can believe them, then please do what you can to support
them. If youre not sure, then I urge you to take the precautionary principle, when in doubt error on the
side of extra protection for those who are vulnerable. So please do adopt this resolution. Thank you.
Beckles: Sylvia Gray White
White: Good evening. My name is Sylvia Gray White, a very long time Richmond resident. Tonight Im so
thankful and happy that our city is looking up, waking up and standing up. Approval of this agenda item
will make an impact on the whole world and will help us to restore our mother earth and our health. The
heavy metal toxins falling down on us daily from the chem trails are done by our military without our
approval and knowledge. Lead is one of the many chemicals in the chem trails even though our
government banned it decades ago. Banned it from paint, toys, even bullets, and other manufacturing
processes. This toxin has really negatively impacted my life. Lead is very toxic and there are no safe
levels. It displaces the calcium in your bones among many other illnesses, particularly with children. The
level of lead in my body has drastically increased in the past 3 years. Ive gotta get the lead out. We need
to stop this constant daily abuse of our universal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you
cant feel good, you cant live good. I am not the only one breathing this pollution. If you breathe, youre
breathing it too. We have rights. Stand up for them! Now in order to stand Ive got to use a cane. But I
still can stand and will stand up for whats right.
Beckles: Our last speaker is Elizabeth Adams.
Adams: First and foremost Id like to pass this cell phone around. This is what electronic burns look like.
This is my 6 year old grand-daughter who has been targeted since birth. So can I just walk around and
show this to you?
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.121
14
615
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Mayor: Give it to the clerk.
Adams: This was taken less than 30 days ago at Eden hospital. Thats when you hear of the victim speak
of being electronically burned. That is my 6 year old grand-daughter. I am 59 years old. I have 6
grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren. I first and foremost want to say that I thank God for every one
of you. And I mean literally from the bottom of my heart. I thank him for each one of you and I thank him
for the blessings that hes gonna bring your way just for addressing these issues. These issues are beyond
the average eye. The average eye cant even see it. So its not even worth even talking about in that
sense. I have sent each and every one of you information. Everything that I sent you is just what you
need to know. But theres one more thing left: your local fusion center. You need to do some deep
research into your local fusion center. Just look it up on line. That is where you will find information, ill
activities of some sort, that is going on withinIm not going to say city government because I cant
pinpoint it. But you need to look into your local fusion center. Secondly, mental health of children(timer
beeping).May I finish just two minutes please?
Mayor: No, I think we need to give everybody the same amount of time. Thank you.
Adams: Okay, no problem.
Beckles: That was the last speaker.
Mayor: (lady asked to speak) Maam, you know, if you didnt sign up you cant speak. Okay, I have Vice
Mayor Meyers.
Vice Mayor: I was just gonna briefly say that the weaponization of space as the history that was so
eloquently described by Council Member McLaughlin is something that I think is extremely immoral and we
should not be, as a nation, engaging in and so Im gonna support this resolution based on that.
Mayor: Do we have any other speakers? Okay, hearing none, do we have a motion?
Beckles: I can make a motion. I share that we adopt the resolution thats put before us.
Mayor: Motion of second?
Beckles: Pinplay has something
Mayor: Oh, Councilman Pinplay
Pinplay: I just want to address for a second this whole idea about weaponization of space and there
seems to be this assumption that just because Ronald Reagan supported Star Wars, its automatically
become some unmitigated evil. The context in which it was considered a problem was simply because
there was this perception that Star Wars or any kind of strategic defense initiative could not be made
foolproof. And it could not be made foolproof because the opponent, particularly a very well-armed
opponent like the Soviet Union could launch like tens of thousands of dummy missiles at any one point
and so it would be almost impossible to intercept all of them and to distinguish the nuclear missiles from
the dummy missiles. And the understanding was that it would be that there could be a problem created
because based on the overestimation of the effectiveness of Star Wars, namely that America might think
that it was too effective and therefore, go for a first strike and knock out all the Soviet weapons. Or, on
the other hand, the Soviets might feel it was too effective and go for a preemptive strike beforehand. And
it was only in that specific cold war context that Star Wars was considered a horrible idea. Actually, Star
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.122
15
616
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Wars is not a particularly bad idea, the whole idea is that you can knock out someones weapons before
they enter your air space, in fact, long before they enter your air space. And this, for example, was
practiced more than 20 years ago, in the Gulf War, when the Patriot system modification of this was used
when the Patriot system knocked out some of the Iraqi missiles that were launched at Israel. And it is not
just a perfectly valid system, it is actually a particularly useful system, in the time that we have now
where there are nations that are not quite as well armed as the Soviet Union used to be in the 1980s.
Which may not have the capability to launch tremendous numbers of missiles at any one time. And, in
fact, this is a fairly useful system to have. And so this automatic knee jerk reaction that because Reagan
supported Star Wars and at the time it was considered a bad idea and so for that purpose it is considered
a bad idea forever, I just think this is a wrong understanding of the system. And I just wanted to mention
that.
Mayor: So we have Council Member McLaughlin next.
McLaughlin: So, I justthe reason I was interrupting because I dont think we should get into it. Thats
kind of way off base. I was just giving the history of this in general. I will say that there were some of us
in the 80s that were talking about a nuclear freeze like to stop the arms war rather than weapons in
space. You know, I think space should be for exploration and good things to learn, scientifically. Not for a
weapons trace.
Mayor: Wait, no, were not having anything from the audience. Council Member Martinez.
Martinez: Yes, just last week on 60 Minutes there was a special on the reintroduction to the arms war,
with people trying to develop missiles to take out communication satellites. But any kind of war effort is
wrong. And we need to do whatever we can to stop all war efforts. Now when I was in university in the
1980s for humanities class, I did a paper on a science fiction novel. What I actually did was, I took all of
the predictions in this science fiction novel, and then I went to magazines and newspapers, and I was
surprised to find that every single prediction in this science fiction novel, that was written 20 years earlier,
had already come true. And they were happening there, then, in 1980. So its easy for me to see that
things which are wrong can happen because we have the wrong mindset. We have the mindset which is a
war mindset and this proposition that was put forth by Cosenich was to change our attitudes towards one
of seeking peace, and thats why Im endorsing it.
Mayor: Okay, Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor: Well, I want to say that I do think this debate is, it is on topic, because the debate on Star
Wars is sort of, was part of what initiated this. And what I would say, and its been said, that any sort of
in my viewthe idea that we dont have enough tools to kill each other here on earth and so that we need
to start doing it in space, that just is simply immoral. And you know, it may be that some wars are
unavoidable. That may be true. But whatever we can do to get our country to move away from that mind
set and move away from utilizing new methods of war, we should support. And so thats why I support this
resolution.
Mayor: Okay, if theres nobody else, lets vote. Wait. Council Member Pinplay.
Pinplay: So the motion before us, does that include things like chem trails and stuff, or no?
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.123
16
617
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Mayor: Well, let me, I think hes bringing up a good point, because, Im really confused. I think that the
resolution itself is very simple. It simply says, the city of Richmond thereby supports the Space
Preservation Act and companion Space Preservation Treaty to ensure that individuals will not be targets of
spaced-based weapons. So I see that. All the testimony Ive heard tonight is about targeted individuals.
And so, I mean, Im confused. Is this about spaced-based weapons or is it about targeted individuals? And
if individuals are targeted, whos targeting them and why? I just dont understand it.
Beckles: Its simple enough. Its saying that, on the thereforeas you read, we are supporting this Space
Preservation Act and companion Space Preservation Treaty and the reason were doing this is that
individuals will not be targets of spaced-based weapons, which is what theyre saying. All this stuff is high
technology, itsand sothats what were adopting here. And you know, whether you believe it or not, one
thing that was very clear, and Ive met with folks a lot around this issue, and some of them Im just
hearing tonight. And even the ones I heard tonight, just out of compassion for folks that are saying help
us, and us supporting this, by adopting this resolution, I think it sends out a message that, you know, we
sympathize with you, we support you, and the very least we can do is just pass this resolution to make
sure that you feel the support and love and sympathy that you deserve. Its simple, it reads right there
Mayor. Thats all were trying to pass. Whats there before you. Thats all were trying to pass. Dont
complicate it. Its simple, so vote it yes or no.
Mayor: I sympathize with everyone who is suffering some kind of affliction. But on the other hand, you
know, in 1967, the US adopted, or the President signed the treaty on the principles guarding the activities
of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies. So the
US government has acted on this, and they have, within that particular treaty, is a ban on using outer
space for military purposes. So, I just dont understand what were talking about. Are we talking about the
weaponization of space? Are we talking about chem trails? Are we talking about individuals who are being
targeted? If so, by whom and why? I mean, you know, Im just a dumb city council person and this is way,
way over my head. And I frankly think that its sort of way out of the purview of what this city council
could be taking up.
Weve got real problems here. Weve got potholed roads, weve got a budget thats out of balance, weve
got crime, weve got greenhouse gases. Weve got all these things to worry about and here Im being
asked to support a resolution that deals with things like chem trails and particle beams and plasmas and
mind control technologies. I just dont know enough about it. If I were an expert Id probably take a side,
but Im not. And so for that reason Im just not gonna support it. Maybe some time Ill learn more and be
more oriented
Beckles: Id like to call the questions.
Mayor: Council Member Bates
Bates: Well, it is confusing. Im gonna support the resolution for the simple reason that weve voted on
lot of dumber ideas than this resolution represents. And again, we know that we dont control the
universe, we dont control Congress. So this is the least of my worries. So, Im gonna support it. Now call
for the questions.
Mayor: Does anybody else want to talk about it? Okay, lets just vote.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.124
17
618
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Beckles: Council Member Pinplay? No. The motion passes 5-2 with Council Member Pinplay voting no,
and Mayor Butt voting no.
Bates: One reason I voted for it was there wasnt one speaker in opposition of it.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.125
18
619
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Richmond council passes resolution supporting ban on space-based wea... http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/richmond-council-passes-resolutio...
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Facebook
Twitter More
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.126
19
620
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
1 of 1 6/5/2016 6:44 AM
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article....
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Richmond: Space weapons resolution prompts requests to

investigate
By Karina Ioffee kioffee@bayareanewsgroup.com
East Bay Times
Posted:Mon Jun 01 18:42:20 MDT 2015
RICHMOND -- A city resolution banning space weapons within city limits has prompted dozens of calls to the Richmond Police
Department in recent days to ask the agency to investigate the alleged use of chips, bugs and other devices for mind and body
control.
On May 19, the City Council approved a resolution supporting the Space Preservation Act and Space Preservation Treaty
permanently banning "space-based weapons," such as microchips planted in people's bodies and micro waves that supporters
believe are used by nefarious sources to harm them.
The resolution was written by Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles, who works as a mental health specialist for Contra Costa County,
and aimed at "making all Richmond residents feel safe," she said.
"I don't intend to ignore the concerns from residents who say they have been exposed to these attacks that have caused them great
emotional and bodily harm," Beckles said.
The fallout has prompted worries that Richmond, which is working hard to remold its image in recent years, will be dismissed as
slightly off by the news media and other municipalities.
" I am trying to figure out how we can use this newfound fame to help market Richmond, much as desolate eastern Nevada has
used the Extraterrestrial Highway to lure tourists to an otherwise deserted stretch of desert highway," joked Richmond Mayor Tom
Butt in a recent online posting.
But the issue actually started last June, when Richmond police Capt. Mark Gagan was asked by Beckles to meet with residents who
said they were being targeted by space technology. Eager to show the department was sensitive to residents' concerns, Gagan
agreed.
"My desire was how to better serve this population from a public safety standpoint," said Gagan, a 20-year veteran with the
department. "There are people who have a huge amount of stress, anxiety and fear. These issues have public safety implications
no matter how far-fetched they seem."
The meeting had the best of intentions. But it appears to have also motivated conspiracy theorists who began to see the city as an
ally. Gagan began receiving invitations to speak at conferences organized by the "targeted individuals" community, and a rumor
started that the city had a task force devoted to uncovering government conspiracies. One organization even gave Gagan a
"humanitarian award" for his work on the issue.
"People were thrilled that someone was finally listening to them," Gagan said.
Since that meeting, he estimates that he's received more than 100 calls from people from as far away as Ireland who say they want
Richmond police to investigate their particular situations. Gagan always takes the time to explain that the department looks at facts
and has so far found no evidence to support concerns raised by callers.
"We try to refocus the conversation, and if they are local, get them into a managed program of medication and supervision," Gagan
said.
Contact Karina Ioffee at 510-262-2726 or kioffee@bayareanewsgroup.com. Follow her at Twitter.com/kioffee
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.127
20
621
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
1 of 1 6/5/2016 6:47 AM
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUPFreedom From

Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
CORROBORATING EXPERT AND FORMER NSA WHISTLEBLOWER

KAREN STEWART
DISCLOSURE OF ELECTROGAGNETIC WEAPONS USED TO KILL CERTAIN

TARGETED INDIVIDUALS DURING APRIL 10, 2016 RADIO INTERVIEW
THE DISCLOSURE
Karen Stewart graduated from Florida State University in 1979 with a BS degree in German Language
and a minor or co-major equivalent in Fine Art. She worked for NSA (National Security Agency) from
1982 to 2010. Her resume will follow.
Her video interviews can be seen on the following YOUTUBE links:
Wheel of Freedom (WUA) 4/4/16 Ex-NSA Karen Stewart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExpCL27ft10
NSA whistle blower Karen Stewart exposes targeted Individuals, 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravXai6nfMg
On March 9, 2016 I was detained and falsely imprisoned by no less than 8 NSA Security Police
on the barracks of the Headquarters of the NSA at Ft. Meade Maryland. I was handcuffed, and
interrogated for over an hour, while my car was dog sniffed and searched. I was ordered to return to
Lancaster rather than continue on to Washington, D.C., and was ordered not to enter any federally
owned property again. The following is a video of my statement:
Statement and Video of False Imprisonment re Handcuffed and Interrogation for an hour at NSA
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.128
21
622
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Headquarters (National Security Agency at Ft. Meade, Maryland) by 8 NSA Police officers on March 9,
2015 Recorded on March 11, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeXlaQn5Nhs
Karen Stewart's resume at the NSA is as follows: I Worked various projects over the years, not
just USSR/Russia, but various countries researching/reporting on foreign military status and alliances,
weapons development and proliferation, the Chernobyl disaster and aftermath, the fall of the Iron
Curtain and changing relations among newly liberated countries, economic and diplomatic
developments of certain target countries. I researched and wrote a series of intelligence reports in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom that kept secret Russian countermeasures sold to Iraq from
wreaking havoc on the American invasion. This ultimately is what got me fired because I questioned
why my work was used to promote another employee who had no experience with but, was credited
with my work .
The following transcript of an interview by Karen Stewart in which she describes the lethal
electromagnetic weapons and her experience on being on the receiving end was taken from the article
titled NSA Whistleblower Comes Out of the Shadows Into the Light and can be found at:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/nsa-whistleblower-comes-out-of-the-shadows-into-
the-light
The article was written by Sher Zieve -- Bio and Archives and published March 28, 2016. The byline is
as follows: In February, 2014 I published an interview of an NSA Whistleblower. This is a follow-up to
that column. Due to recent threats to her person and other exigent circumstances, the Whistleblower
has decided to come out of the shadows and into the light. I am honored that she again chose me to
write her story.
KAREN STEWART'S TRANSCRIPT
First of all, the case STEWART V. NSA is a righteous lawsuit, (brought in 2010) meaning it is a
clear case of employer abuse of power and position to an egregious and even premeditated criminal
level meant to circumvent whistleblower protection laws like the No Fear Act. Simply put, I asked the
NSA Inspector General (IG) to investigate why my award-winning intelligence report series supporting
Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) was used to promote an entirely different woman twice (2004 & 2005)
one who had nothing to do with my reports whatsoever, and was a known incompetent, but had
methodically sexually compromised many of the male managers within the Weapons & Space (W&S)
Directorate. Instead of following correct procedure, the IG and NSA Security decided to cover up the
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.129
22
623
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
infraction by attacking me. Threats were made to paint my complaint as paranoid and to fire me for a
non-existent mental illness if I did not drop my effort to get credit for and the promotion for my own
work, given to the wrong woman. These threats quickly took shape as false accusations against me by
the guilty personnel obviously coached by Security, manifested with stalking harassment masquerading
as an investigation by NSA Security goons from 2006-2009. In late 2010, despite all evidence
showing my innocence from ridiculous and impossible charges, I was fired by an NSA Kangaroo court
with a predetermined agenda. My EEOC appeal (lawsuit) had been accepted for adjudication and the
judge had ordered no adverse action until its adjudication but NSA ignored his orders.
I moved from Columbia, Maryland back to my familys hometown of Tallahassee, Florida in 2011.
All was quiet until February 2015 when I instructed the law firm I had hired to subpoena evidence from
the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles identifying a burglar (a now retired NSA Executive) who had
broken into my home very shortly after I had tried to make my 2006 Inspector General request for an
investigation, and stolen extra house, car, and mail keys as well as illegally bugging (burst bug) our
home and phone/internet to facilitate further harassment and likely search for blackmail material (no
luck for them there).
After the subpoena, I began noticing Security types in Tallahassee following me and photo-
stalking me by March/April. Their license plates suggested Naval Security Group from Pensacola and
NSA Security personnel from Georgia (Augusta) and Texas (San Antonio). A quick check with the Leon
County Sheriffs Department, specifically Duty Officer deputy Canon, confirmed that NSA also had
personnel land at a private airport and deputies had escorted them the the Phipps property north of
Lake Jackson (near where I now live) for a secret exercise, just before the second round of stalking
harassment began. The sequence of events seems to have been for NSA Security to contact the Naval
Security Group in Pensacola, Florida (Headquartered at Ft. Meade, Maryland along with NSA) to initially
stalk and photograph me under ridiculous false pretenses until NSA could send its own Security
personnel to Tallahassee. Once there, under guise of authority, it appears that NSA enlisted the help of
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and its civilian group, InfraGard, made up of
civilians recruited from their Ride-Along programs. As usual, NSA personnel fabricated some big lie as
to why the civilians should actively and passively stalk and harass me, and despite quite obvious
questions about why laws and due process were to be completely suspended in my case, the group
eagerly jumped at the opportunity for hundreds to gang up on one person (for Federal money, I may
add).
Thus, under NSA tutelage and FDLE auspices, suddenly I was a cast-iron target, meaning
multiple people covered me wherever I was, whatever I did. Cars were even stationed near my home
overnight on rotating shifts, beeping to each other when changing shifts but also for my benefit. NSA
also sought out willing neighbors to augment their snooping and harassment efforts, which could be
anything from hosting an NSA Security goon for accessibility to my property, both home (to bug and
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.130
23
624
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
monitor short-distance transmissions) and car (to install and switch out vehicle GPS trackers to
facilitate car stalking and impeding as harassment. ) Those were the active participants, others not
assigned to me on a certain shift were ordered to quickly text in to a special site the big bad threat to
report my location and time I was there. People even snooped in my shopping carts to be able to tattle
to someone about what I was doing, what I was buying. (God help us, she bought bananas!!! Save the
children!).
This was annoying enough but I tried to ignore it because I thought NSA once again was going
for the usual See, shes paranoid, reporting harassment every day now just dismiss her lawsuit!
But I did report acts of harassment that caused physical damage such as hit and run,
purposely sideswiping my car, (This is exatly what happened to the PETTITIONER on May 9,
2016 enroute to MEDEXPRESS for pain medications) and botching the placement/removal of
a GPS tracker under my rear spoiler that destroy my spoiler. (They feared my mechanic
would find their tracker so they botched its removal the night before my appointment). I
even made fun of my stalkers when I could, using my hobby art shop on a popular internet
site to create bumper magnets making fun of them. After all, they were mostly nave,
unsophisticated boobs who desperately imagined that they were little James Bonds and that
the greatest existential threat to their country was a woman waiting for her lawsuit to be
decided, living in Tallahassee, walking her dogs, visiting friends.
In late November 2015, however, NSA apparently decided that I was not sufficiently
being intimidated by their civilian confederacy of dunces to back off my lawsuit to recover
my stolen salary and stolen retirement at the appropriate pay level. In 2009 I had
researched gang-stalking and discovered it was a real and growing phenomenon, but when
electrical harassment was mentioned, I could not really grasp the concept and wondered
about its existence. But I was to find out first hand in November 2015 that it does exist and
is a horrific crime against humanity.
NSA and its operatives started using small, mobile devices called Directed Energy
Weapons (DEWs) against me and my family in the night. These mobile weapons emit
multiple types of electrical emanations from ultrasonic, to microwaves modulated to radio
frequencies, to other kinds of wave variations I cant say I understand yet. Now, with the
help of certain mercenary and morally depraved neighbors, the effort is almost 24/7 now
with the intention being torture and slow-kill. These types of weapons over a lengthy time,
cause cancer, autoimmune disease, heart attacks, seizures, strokes, etc. It is the perfect
stealth murder weapon for a corrupt government.
At this point, when we leave the house, a criminal base of stalkers has been enlisted
by NSA to follow us and aim the DEWs at us wherever feasible to increase exposure in order
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.131
24
625
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
to speed up death, with the help of the InfraGard dimwits still texting in my location like
good little sheeple.
The Leon County Sheriffs Department as well as the Tallahassee Police Department
are dragging their feet, making excuses, denying any such thing exists, or insulting me when
I try to enlist their help to come up with a strategy to combat this new crime before I or
one of my family is dead. They cant quite grasp the fact that this is domestic terrorism and
nothing protects the police or any official from this new weapon held and wielded by
criminals. Yet, plenty of recruits in their ranks have experience using the mobile DEWs in
Iraq. It is very interesting to me that the Naval Security Group headquartered at Ft. Meade
with NSA, is also called the Silent Warriors because they specialize in the use of Directed
Energy Weapons. Im sure the Naval Security Group base in Pensacola has many on hand
and may have even gotten a request from NSA to borrow a few for their secret exercise in
Tallahassee.
Clearly, NSA is of the opinion that you do not have Constitutional Rights unless they
say you do. If they use this to get rid of an inconvenient lawsuit such as mine instead of
simply settling for a tenth of the cost of harassment, then they must feel confident they
can murder anyone, anywhere, for any reason and get away with itincluding any leader or
politician.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.132
25
626
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
There is no doubt that NSA is now run by sycophants and sociopaths
EXCLUSIVE: Former NSA Employee Speaks Out on its

Corruption Karen Stewart
By Sher Zieve -- Bio and Archives February 20, 2014
3 Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
At the very least, for the past few months to a year it has become increasingly evident thatalthough
not allmany agencies of the US Federal government have become increasingly dirty, perverse and
corrupt and require a deep and thorough cleaning.
The US Secret Service has previously been exposed as including claims of involvement with
prostitutes, leaking sensitive information, publishing pornography, sexual assault, illegal wiretaps,
improper use of weapons and drunken behavior and the IRS was caught and admitted to denying
Obamas political enemies (aka TEA Party, Christians, religious Jews, conservatives) their Constitutional
rights while allowing progressive groups (aka Liberals, Leftists, Marxists, Maoists, Socialists,
Communists) theirs. Andlove him, hate him or fall somewhere in-betweenEdward Snowden shone a
very bright light on the unconstitutional domestic mega-spying of one of these clandestine agencies
the National Security Agency. Thus far, under Obamas increasingly iron rule, few-to-no members of
these agencies have even been indicted by Congress for their blatant crimes against the American
people.
The NSA appears to have begun as a patriotic organization that was geared toward protecting the USA
and its citizens. Whether or not that was its original intended purpose is a subject for discussion and
speculation. However, portions of the NSA seem to have devolved into something very sinister. Todays
interview will concentrate on this agency.
NSA Analyst. Due to a number of substantive reasons, this former Analysts identity cannot be divulged
at this time and will be referred to as W. I have, however, confirmed this individuals prior employment
and credentials via a well-known NSA Whistleblower. The information disseminated to me, amongst
other things tells a sordid story of corruption and how employees are silenced into submissionvia fear
within the agency,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.133
26
627
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
The Interview
Sher:Thanks so much for being with me, today, in order to provide essential additional information to
the public on how many of their tax dollars are really being spent. You were employed by the NSA for
over two decades. Would you tell the readers what initially attracted you to the agency as well as how it
has deteriorated over time?
Karen Stewart: Like many people from families with a strong history of serving our country, coming
out of college, I looked to find a way to best utilize my particular interests and talents in service to my
fellow Americans. The mission of the NSA it seemed to me, was to stop threats coming to our shores.
Its charter clearly targeted foreign nationals on foreign soil who did or could intend us harm. That
appealed to me as a righteous endeavor and honorable tack for my life to take.
Sher: Youve shared with me how the NSA deals with its employees who bring legitimate complaints to
their superiors. How thoroughly intimidating and threatening are their behaviors toward those who balk
at their adverse treatment? Would you give a few examples?
Karen Stewart: Apparently the nature of NSA Security degenerated under General Michael Hayden,
the previous Director of NSA (DIRNSA), who promoted a very questionable mid-level Security manager
to a power position within Security. Hayden had originally been tasked to eviscerate NSA since a very
shallow and short-sighted Congress believed that the fall of the Iron Curtain meant no danger existed
anywhere anymore that required the existence of a robust NSA presence. There evolved, under him, a
gratuitously vicious bully mindset that employees were to be intimidated at any opportunity not only to
drive them out of NSA but to cut back on people reporting problems that made NSA look bad, especially
problems involving upper management.
Under Hayden and his successor, General Keith Alexander, the filing of complaints to or requests for
investigations by the NSA EEO or the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) were often inexplicably
blown off despite adequate evidence or the presence of willing witnesses. Then the person who had
filed the complaint would be subjected to an out of cycle reinvestigation interview with Security as
well as polygraph exam, wherein the tone of the Security person was not neutralas it should bebut,
hostile with far-fetched or even ridiculous non-issues presented as potentially problematic. This was a
Security shot across the bow to warn the person that he had crossed the line by filing the complaint. If
he pursued the complaint, Security would lean on his managers to heavily discourage him from doing
what he thought was proper and was indeed a protected action under the law. If he persisted, did his
own amateur investigation, or told coworkers about the situation, he might be called down to Security
multiple times and accused of being paranoid and delusional based on his complaint, and his job
threatened.
The worse the infraction reported, especially if a high level manager looked to be involved, the more
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.134
27
628
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
severe the reaction by Security. In cases of egregious wrong-doing by a manager, Security would
review the personnel files, medical files, and financial statements to find anything they could use to
threaten or blackmail him with, or pretend to misinterpret some tidbit of information as something it
was not.
Some people were forced to sign admissions of guilt of preposterous misinterpretations of facts in order
to keep their jobs, thereby killing their credibility and complaint. When nothing was found in such files
that could be used, a false accusation of espionage or leaking classified materials ginned up by Security,
was used to justify a Security intrusion into the persons home to search for blackmail material, further
assess the interests and personality of the targeted individual (TI), and plant bugs and abscond with an
extra set of keys for further intrusions. The more the person objected to being bullied, the more heavy-
handed Security became, insisting that hostility toward them indicated wrong-doing on the TIs part.
Thus the TI would become harried and harassed for a crime he never committed, if it ever
even was committed, and to repeated accusations by Security Psych services of a non-
existent mental illness, more than adequately supported by years of internal, psychological
evaluations stating he was mentally sound (Paranoia with delusions is rare and certainly
never occurs overnight, but that does not deter a Security psychologist attack dog, whose
favorite mode of attack employs reference to this malady).
The more a person stood his ground, the more personal it became to Security, which then
became dedicated to the personal destruction of the TI. Under the pretext of the fake
accusation of espionage or leaking classified information, Security would slander the
individual with his coworkers, work friends and managers to isolate him and apply yet more
pressure. Many backed away from supporting the TI in fear for their careers and maybe even
freedom. Certainly this sent a message to the workforce in the TIs area that NSA Security
was at its essence, a rogue, unaccountable and psychotic entity that was to be greatly
feared.
Once NSA Security had decided upon the removal of the TI for failing to be sufficiently
cowed, then false evidence was given to the FBI liaisons assigned to NSA. This would
engender a fraudulent FISA warrant, which loosed FBI surveillance and investigators upon
the person for a few weeks or months, further slandering him to his work and social circles
and thereby putting pressure on him by their constant presence. When the FBI would find no
basis for the accusation, they would drop the case and move on. However, at that point,
Security would send in their own personnel sans warrant, to overtly stalk and harass the TI ,
24/7.
In some instances, Security has even gone into the persons

neighborhood to recruit snitches and augment harassment with
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.135
28
629
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
hostile civilians convinced the TI is an enemy of the state, based

on baseless Security slander.
Intrusions would be made into his home to remove gathered evidence or

move things around as a psychological ploy and his car would be secretly
GPSd to facilitate vehicular stalking and aggressive driving games. There
have even been reports of pet murders by poisoning as an escalation of the
harassment with the inferred threat that perhaps it could be the TIs child or
himself next. The harassment is essentially elevated until the TI either
breaks and assaults a harasser or complains to Security about the insane
and sadistic, not to mention criminal way in which he is being mistreated.
This is what Security planned for and is ready to jump on as their
springboard to terminating his employment.
His security clearance is immediately pulled, he is warehoused in a menial job until adequate paperwork
and a back-story can be fabricated or forged to falsely present a termination due to mental instability or
illness, and the person is fired. Of course there is an appeals process, but it is thoroughly corrupted. No
matter how much evidence supports the victim and how little supports NSA, NSA always wins these
cases where it is clear the person was targeted for dismissal. Of course, this does nothing but embolden
more degenerate or criminal behavior while making it clear that the person reporting evil will be
considered the problem, and that in reality no labor laws or whistle protection laws can actually protect
an NSA employee, because real watch dog entities dont exist within NSA and state and Federal
authorities routinely turn a blind eye to the reported abuses even as they become more criminal and
seditious.
I shake my head at sycophant, disingenuous politicians who claim Edward Snowden could have or
should have gone through proper internal authorities to report the abuses and criminal acts being
committed within NSA. Would that be to the thoroughly corrupted, attack dog-watch dog entities, or the
thoroughly oblivious or compromised politicians responsible for oversight who are in fact, in the NSAs
pocket due to bribery, blackmail or stupidity?
Sher: The NSA seems to suffer from the some of the same maladies as did the recent outing of the
Secret Service. Without becoming too specific, would you give us a general idea as to advancement for
sexual favors that have occurred within the agency? How defeating is that to employees who are simply
working to protect the country while their bosses are indulging in sexual liaisons with lower level
employees?
Karen Stewart: In my career, promotions were always hard to come by, meted out perhaps every
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.136
29
630
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
five years if you were a good or exceptional worker, but male managers discovered that they held the
keys to paradise in regard to attractive or even acceptable women willing to take shortcuts. These
were the women who would make promotions in stunningly rapid succession with little to no
accomplishments - of their own, that is. While others killed themselves with years of grueling shift work
or even multiple dangerous foreign assignments only to find themselves evaluated as a 3.6 on a scale
of 5, when an attractive, morally loose recent college graduate would receive a 4.8 for essentially
alphabetizing a shelf of reference books her first 6 months on the job. This made many, many people
bitter and certainly sent the wrong signal to the hardest workers and the most talented. Though many
stopped being as dedicated to their jobs, others did indeed press ahead and worked tirelessly knowing
their reward was the mission accomplished and not likely appropriate recognition. Capable men
despaired of receiving deserved promotions and women almost feared being promoted for exceptional
work, fearing they would be assumed to be one of the typically incapable promotion bimbos among the
bloated management. Expertise and knowledge became commodities to guard and not share with new
workers, fearing you would not reap the benefits of your own work. This of course created a situation
where expertise and insight must be gained and regained from scratch, losing precious time training up
area or target experts to the detriment of the mission.
It was very discouraging to see immature or degenerate bosses spending their time flirting and chasing
skirts, the very same people who were charged with competently reviewing your work, (keeping
apprised of the big picture so people felt free to specialize their research), and whose responsibility it
was to accurately and honestly represent their people before promotion boards. But the atmosphere of
secrecy, the strict laws about divulging names of NSA employees or anything that occurred there,
emboldened certain men to believe that their wives and families would never know of their
indiscretions, and turned work time into play time for them. And now apparently young males are also
being pursued as sexual toys. One has to wonder what is being missed in the realm of highly perishable
intelligence leads by distracted managerial incompetents.
Sher: As an additional example of NSA intimidation, one of the things youd said may be shared is your
experience with the 3 Amigos. Would you tell us about them?
Karen Stewart:There were three eccentric looking older males who were often seen in the NSA OPS1
cafeteria together, whom we also got to know by word of mouth, as master electricians well-versed in
computer science. They were nicknamed by some in the analyst field as Rasputin, Santa, and Choo
Choo or the engineer, due to their highly unusual appearances and dress. One eye witness being
harassed on yet another NSA Security retaliatory witch hunt, reported seeing one of these men at her
home, on her property, when she discovered indications that her home had been broken into, her cable
box broken into, and her phone hacked, leaving tell-tale clicking sounds at regular intervals whenever
she used her phone. Any phone tap done by warrant is done at the carriers hub under their auspices
and will not click, only illegal hack jobs click. She noted him not only as a trespasser being
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.137
30
631
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
somewhere he should not have been, but recognized him by his highly unusual appearance from work.
When she attempted to look him up in the NSA data base by career specialty, she found that what
should have been his photo, which should have been a source of pride since he was of the rank to be a
Flag Badger (Manager whose rank is senior enough to garner a photo with the American flag in the
background), was instead a photo of a desert animal called a Meercat indicating that he wanted his
identity hidden from the general NSA population.
Sher: With regards to many who have said that the NSAs collection of meta-data on all forms of
communication between legal citizens of the USA is unconstitutional, also indicated is the fact that not
one terrorist act has been stopped by said collection. It appears good old-fashioned police work is what
still gets the perp. In your opinion, is this accurate?
Karen Stewart: I think it is indeed true that the meta data collection ruse within the USA distracts
from tried and true research and investigation, which the latter method apparently DID INDEED
uncover the 9/11 plot months before it happened, well in time to have prevented it, according to two
separate analysts with whom I have spoken, one just two days after 9/11 as he broke down and
sobbed his heart out, repeating We could have saved them! We could have saved them! But they
wouldnt let us report it!, and the other several years later, who maintained the same story of being
threatened and forbidden to report any warning about 9/11, then being harassed and fired for a non-
existent mentally illness. However, it is a good means to track your political enemies and detractors and
their affiliates within the US - for future reference? It would appear much more for the self-preservation
and expansion of NSA as the ubiquitous Orwellian Big Brother than for the protection of the USA. With
the power the NSA wields, it could easily influence border control issues and immigration issues to
make us not as susceptible to terrorist intrusions and infiltrations, but that would undermine their
power grab and expansion within the US, something never intended at NSAs creation - and for good
reason.
Sher:As a former long time employee of the NSA, what do you believeif anythingcan be done to
correct the problems within the agency?
Karen Stewart:There is no doubt that NSA is now run by those sycophants and sociopaths who are
the least desirable to have in any position of such sensitivity and trust and are purging NSA ranks of
people with integrity. Compromising activity that would rightfully cost you your clearance, is now
viewed as intrinsic perks of the job once you reach a certain pay grade. These lesser leaders have
turned NSA into an American Gestapo Wanna-Be agency. NSA lost its way with non-serious super grade
playboys not mature enough for the responsibility of the job of managing and directing NSA,
compounding the problem by promoting sycophants to protect their backs as well as lightweights with
whom to have sexcapades behind office doors, but in that group also has risen opportunistic
sociopaths and psychopaths attracted to more and more power, any way they can get it, and by
conniving and ruthlessness have blown past incompetent, distracted management to change the very
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.138
31
632
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
nature of the NSA from watchman to the American people to jack booted prison guard.
If the Legislative Branch is possessed of anyone with the least bit of courage and common sense, they
would demand super clearances for those on the Intelligence Oversight Committees so that years or
decades of abusive behaviors, kingdom building, or even crimes can not continually be swept under the
rug by telling these particular politicians, You dont have the need to know, just trust us. Obviously,
they cannot be trusted. An appointment to that Committee would of course have to become much more
exclusive, requiring a thorough vetting as any job with a Top Secret clearance should. But to deal with
the toxic management at NSA now, I would require every Flag Badger and Security manager to account
for himself and what he adds to the mission. If he is pork, retire him or require him to laterally transfer
to another agency. Before that however, I would require that every single Flag Badger and every
Security group manager take a polygraph by non-NSA affiliated or non-NSA sympathetic sources to
account for the millions of dollars wasted on their vicious and illegal war on NSA employees who
dutifully report fraud, waste, abuse as well as sexual predation and treason. Those who are found to be
guilty of such things as falsifying accusations against innocent employees; fabricating false witnesses
and evidence; engaging in illegal acts of breaking and entering; falsifying FISA warrant justifications;
lying to the FBI about a targeted victims criminality; falsifying psychological assessments; subverting
lie detector exams by screaming at the targeted subject during or just before the exam to create false
impressions of guilt; hiding or destroying exonerating evidence supporting their victims claims;
intimidating or roughing up witnesses; coordinating or participating in criminal stalking and harassment
activities, illegal break-ins, illegal wire taps, organizing and paying civilian groups under the table to
augment harassment of targeted employees, and lastly, conspiring to effect or cover up any or all of
these actions. And any NSA employee in that group who pleads the 5th, should be fired and stripped of
his retirement since this type of betrayal rots a country from within. NSA must be recreated, and
returned to the stated task in their founding charter of focusing on foreign enemies overseas.
Sher: W, so much of the information youve provided is truly astounding! Thanks so much for being
with us today and I hope youll be available for another should ongoing events require one.
Click to view 3 Comments
Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieves op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple
internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The
Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple
university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.139
32
633
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
1NSA Whistleblower Comes Out of the Shadows Into the Light Karen Stewarty
By Sher Zieve -- Bio and Archives March 28, 2016
0 Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to PinterestMore AddThis Share
options
In February, 2014 I published an interview of an NSA Whistleblower. This is a follow-up to that column.
Due to recent threats to her person and other exigent circumstances, the Whistleblower has decided to
come out of the shadows and into the light. I am honored that she again chose me to write her story.
Her name is Karen Stewart Karen Stewart
BIO
Education
Freshman year - Schiller College, Strasbourg, Fr.

Sophomore - Senior years, graduated from Florida State University (79)
BS in German Language and a minor or co-major equivalent in fine art
Work History: 1982-2010 NSA (National Security Agency

Underwent initial retraining from 1982 - 83, on the job training to become a linguist in a needed foreign
language (chosen to train in depth in Russian since my college major, German was not in demand but I
had also studied Russian and French with good results).
Worked various projects over the years, not just USSR/Russia, but various countries
researching/reporting on foreign military status and alliances, weapons development and proliferation,
the Chernobyl disaster and aftermath, the fall of the Iron Curtain and changing relations among newly
liberated countries, economic and diplomatic developments of certain target countries. I researched and
wrote a series of intelligence reports in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom that kept secret Russian
countermeasures sold to Iraq from wreaking havoc on the American invasion. This ultimately is what
got me fired because I questioned why my work was used to promote another employee who had no
experience with but, was credited with my work.
Note...Due to the Top Secret nature of the work, the above summary is slightly vague, by design.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.140
33
634
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
The Interview
Sher: Karen, thanks for taking the time to speak with me and its so good to have you back and this
time under your name! As a Whistleblower, what finally made you decide to come out from the
shadows?
Karen: I always intended to link my name with my story because it is a story that needs to be told, but
since I have a lawsuit against NSA (technically an appeal of an unlawful, employer action, i.e. my
termination at the 28 point year of my career for trying to request an investigation by the NSA
Inspector General), sitting under a gag order demanded by NSA, on the docket at the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Baltimore, I could not do so without risking the
adjudication going against me for that reason alone. However, in 2015 NSA Security made the decision
to yet again engage in a massive slander campaign against me in my new location, thus breaking its
own gag order so I feel no compunction to be held to a standard required by the EEOC judge at NSAs
request that NSA itself clearly holds in utter contempt.
Sher: Since we last talked, a lot has happened with you. You have refused to drop your discrimination
lawsuit against the NSA and have shared with me that the agency has stepped up its efforts against
youpersonally.
Youre now being stalked by what appear to be NSA operatives. Is that correct? As you reported to me
they, also, seem to be using electronic emanation technology to both stop and damage you. I believe
former NSA employee and Whistleblower Russel Tice reported on this, also. This is really deep dark
side information. Would you tell the readers what theyre doing to you, [possibly] others and why?
Karen: First of all, the case STEWART V. NSA is a righteous lawsuit, (brought in 2010) meaning it is a
clear case of employer abuse of power and position to an egregious and even premeditated criminal
level meant to circumvent whistleblower protection laws like the No Fear Act. Simply put, I asked the
NSA Inspector General (IG) to investigate why my award-winning intelligence report series supporting
Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) was used to promote an entirely different woman twice (2004 & 2005)
one who had nothing to do with my reports whatsoever, and was a known incompetent, but had
methodically sexually compromised many of the male managers within the Weapons & Space (W&S)
Directorate. Instead of following correct procedure, the IG and NSA Security decided to cover up the
infraction by attacking me. Threats were made to paint my complaint as paranoid and to fire me for a
non-existent mental illness if I did not drop my effort to get credit for and the promotion for my own
work, given to the wrong woman. These threats quickly took shape as false accusations against me by
the guilty personnel obviously coached by Security, manifested with stalking harassment masquerading
as an investigation by NSA Security goons from 2006-2009. In late 2010, despite all evidence
showing my innocence from ridiculous and impossible charges, I was fired by an NSA Kangaroo court
with a predetermined agenda. My EEOC appeal (lawsuit) had been accepted for adjudication and the
judge had ordered no adverse action until its adjudication but NSA ignored his orders.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.141
34
635
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
I moved from Columbia, Maryland back to my familys hometown of Tallahassee, Florida in 2011. All
was quiet until February 2015 when I instructed the law firm I had hired to subpoena evidence from the
Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles identifying a burglar (a now retired NSA Executive) who had
broken into my home very shortly after I had tried to make my 2006 Inspector General request for an
investigation, and stolen extra house, car, and mail keys as well as illegally bugging (burst bug) our
home and phone/internet to facilitate further harassment and likely search for blackmail material (no
luck for them there).
After the subpoena, I began noticing Security types in Tallahassee following me and photo-stalking me
by March/April. Their license plates suggested Naval Security Group from Pensacola and NSA Security
personnel from Georgia (Augusta) and Texas (San Antonio). A quick check with the Leon County
Sheriffs Department, specifically Duty Officer deputy Canon, confirmed that NSA also had personnel
land at a private airport and deputies had escorted them the the Phipps property north of Lake Jackson
(near where I now live) for a secret exercise, just before the second round of stalking harassment
began. The sequence of events seems to have been for NSA Security to contact the Naval Security
Group in Pensacola, Florida (Headquartered at Ft. Meade, Maryland along with NSA) to initially stalk
and photograph me under ridiculous false pretenses until NSA could send its own Security personnel to
Tallahassee. Once there, under guise of authority, it appears that NSA enlisted the help of the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and its civilian group, InfraGard, made up of civilians
recruited from their Ride-Along programs. As usual, NSA personnel fabricated some big lie as to why
the civilians should actively and passively stalk and harass me, and despite quite obvious questions
about why laws and due process were to be completely suspended in my case, the group eagerly
jumped at the opportunity for hundreds to gang up on one person (for Federal money, I may add).
Thus, under NSA tutelage and FDLE auspices, suddenly I was a cast-iron target, meaning multiple
people covered me wherever I was, whatever I did. Cars were even stationed near my home overnight
on rotating shifts, beeping to each other when changing shifts but also for my benefit. NSA also sought
out willing neighbors to augment their snooping and harassment efforts, which could be anything from
hosting an NSA Security goon for accessibility to my property, both home (to bug and monitor short-
distance transmissions) and car (to install and switch out vehicle GPS trackers to facilitate car stalking
and impeding as harassment. ) Those were the active participants, others not assigned to me on a
certain shift were ordered to quickly text in to a special site the big bad threat to report my location
and time I was there. People even snooped in my shopping carts to be able to tattle to someone about
what I was doing, what I was buying. (God help us, she bought bananas!!! Save the children!).
This was annoying enough but I tried to ignore it because I thought NSA once again was going for the
usual See, shes paranoid, reporting harassment every day now just dismiss her lawsuit! But I did
report acts of harassment that caused physical damage such as hit and run, purposely sideswiping my
car, and botching the placement/removal of a GPS tracker under my rear spoiler that destroy my
spoiler. (They feared my mechanic would find their tracker so they botched its removal the night before
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.142
35
636
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
my appointment). I even made fun of my stalkers when I could, using my hobby art shop on a popular
internet site to create bumper magnets making fun of them. After all, they were mostly nave,
unsophisticated boobs who desperately imagined that they were little James Bonds and that the
greatest existential threat to their country was a woman waiting for her lawsuit to be decided, living in
Tallahassee, walking her dogs, visiting friends.
In late November 2015, however, NSA apparently decided that I was not sufficiently
being intimidated by their civilian confederacy of dunces to back off my lawsuit to
recover my stolen salary and stolen retirement at the appropriate pay level. In 2009
I had researched gang-stalking and discovered it was a real and growing
phenomenon, but when electrical harassment was mentioned, I could not really
grasp the concept and wondered about its existence. But I was to find out first hand
in November 2015 that it does exist and is a horrific crime against humanity.
NSA and its operatives started using small, mobile devices called Directed Energy
Weapons (DEWs) against me and my family in the night. These mobile weapons
emit multiple types of electrical emanations from ultrasonic, to microwaves
modulated to radio frequencies, to other kinds of wave variations I cant say I
understand yet. Now, with the help of certain mercenary and morally depraved
neighbors, the effort is almost 24/7 now with the intention being torture and slow-
kill. These types of weapons over a lengthy time, cause cancer, autoimmune
disease, heart attacks, seizures, strokes, etc. It is the perfect stealth murder
weapon for a corrupt government. At this point, when we leave the house, a
criminal base of stalkers has been enlisted by NSA to follow us and aim the DEWs at
us wherever feasible to increase exposure in order to speed up death, with the help
of the InfraGard dimwits still texting in my location like good little sheeple.
The Leon County Sheriffs Department as well as the Tallahassee Police Department are dragging their
feet, making excuses, denying any such thing exists, or insulting me when I try to enlist their help to
come up with a strategy to combat this new crime before I or one of my family is dead. They cant
quite grasp the fact that this is domestic terrorism and nothing protects the police or any official from
this new weapon held and wielded by criminals. Yet, plenty of recruits in their ranks have experience
using the mobile DEWs in Iraq. It is very interesting to me that the Naval Security Group headquartered
at Ft. Meade with NSA, is also called the Silent Warriors because they specialize in the use of Directed
Energy Weapons. Im sure the Naval Security Group base in Pensacola has many on hand and may
have even gotten a request from NSA to borrow a few for their secret exercise in Tallahassee.
Clearly, NSA is of the opinion that you do not have Constitutional Rights unless they say you do. If they
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.143
36
637
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
use this to get rid of an inconvenient lawsuit such as mine instead of simply settling for a tenth of the
cost of harassment, then they must feel confident they can murder anyone, anywhere, for any reason
and get away with itincluding any leader or politician.
Sher: Why in the world do you think the NSA simply didnt settle the suit? With all of the
documentation you have, it seems that they are guilty of the discrimination and could have spent far
less of the taxpayers money to simply pay you off and make it go away. They would, also, have
avoided this coming out into the open. Are they that arrogant and Narcissistic?
Karen: This has truly NEVER made any sense to me or any of my friends, even those who worked at
NSA. NSA could have investigated, claimed a mistake had been made and retroactively promoted me
without even addressing the unethical behavior of W&S personnel. Instead, the IG refused to
investigate, illegally of course, but I could not have made him do his job. Plus, the guilty were
instructed to blame me for what turned out to be the first leak by ex-NSA executive Thomas Drake,
despite the fact that I had no access to, knowledge of or training in the type of material he leaked
(computer technology) and he was identified as the source of that leak six months before I was fired.
The polygraph section of Security actively tried to sabotage my polygraph exams in response to the
false counter-accusation by inappropriately screaming and threatening me, making it impossible to pass
a polygraph, which ruined my first polygraph in this regard though I passed the next two of the three
given in reaction to the false accusation.
The EEOC is capped at $300,000 actual damages, no punitive allowed. My intention was to get the lost
difference in my wages as a GS-12 when I should have been a GS-14, and to get the appropriate level
of retirement. Yet, clearly, NSA has spent millions organizing and paying civilians (and greasing the
palms of crooked law enforcement) to harass, bully, intimidate,and quite obviously viciously slander
me.
Do they engage in such psychopathic behavior because they can? Because they simply have no real
oversight? The operational head of NSA Security is indeed rumored far and wide to be an actual
psychopath who is obsessed with paintings of Dantes Inferno.
A coworker who worked in NSA Human Resources says she remembered when the resumes of
inappropriate people (criminals, perverts, mentally unstable) were automatically thrown away but
suddenly when General Hayden, a former NSA Director, promoted this particular man, the resumes of
thieves, moral degenerates, etc., were then coveted by Security. She said that she was so upset that
she had to find a different job. I did read an opinion on the Anti-polygraph site that NSA Security
leadership, and hence all of Security in essence, could be said to suffer from Dark Triad personality
disorder, which is a dangerous combination of such things as (malignant) narcissism, sociopathy, etc.
Their egos are such that they are obsessed with winning at all costseven fighting to keep a known
false accusation from being proven false by their victim, because they exist in their own projected
narrative. They exist in their own lies and cannot stand being exposed. This means they follow their
own agendas. What is good for NSA Security leadership, even at the cost of NSA or the USA. Their
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.144
37
638
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
allegiances are to themselves. This has made me wonder, of late, if the woman who Security protected
instead of reprimanding or firing for sexually compromising W&S management was not a Security plant,
meant to do just that. And, in so doing, was NSA Security procuring a means to blackmail these
managers for themselves or another entity, perhaps foreign?
Sher: You have multiple photos and even drawings youve made of you stalkers. Youve also indicated
to me that the NSA has been in touch with your local law enforcement. Said law enforcement is siding
with the NSA against youa private citizen. What do your attorneys have to say about these?
Karen: At the beginning of my search for a law firm to take my case, Melville Johnson PC informed me
that I had potentially two cases, in 2009, an employment law case and a criminal case. I could only
afford to pursue the employment case since I was facing illegal termination on false pretenses within a
few months. While my lawyers have recorded the information about the new assault campaign by NSA
in Florida, thus far their pleas with the EEOC for some kind of response because their client is now in
physical danger have been completely ignored.
What has been going on in Florida is entirely criminal and could be a separate lawsuit, to even include
law enforcement in regard to their depraved negligenceif not complicity. But, at the moment, I am
concerned with surviving the relentless Directed Energy Weapons assaults. If I do not, then my family
will have to consider a wrongful death lawsuit against NSA, FBI (that refuse to get involved because
NSA is involved), and the FDLE, the TPD and Leon County Sheriffs Department as well as certain
complicit neighbors accepting a new riding mower or new carpeting in exchange for helping NSA
murder an inconvenient person who actually thought she had any Constitutional, human, or Civil
Rights.
Sher: With regards to your lawsuit, what are your current plans?
Karen: Good question. Reporting and recording the new barrage of assaults has whittled deeply into
my retainer. This was hard enough to maintain after spending about $110,000, thus far, and often
countering ridiculous and frivolous legal shenanigans by NSA to waste my money. With an outrageously
unresponsive EEOC, which may indeed be a complete and obscene sham for show, one wonders why
continue with the pretense that we exist as a nation of laws? Clearly, we do not.
The government has no desire for a level playing field to impede its quest for complete tyranny. We are
now a nation of wolves and sheeple. Im sure that after getting wind of this article, NSA will come to
the EEOC with big crocodile tears claiming they need to win by default because I broke the gag order
after they themselves spent millions, bald-faced lying to thousands of civilians, law enforcement and
(apparently) the FBI about me, invoking National Security Letters to swear them to secrecy and to hide
the true nature of their faux secret exercise in Tallahasseei.e., enticing a foolish community to stalk,
harass and commit murder for Big Brother.
But, God forbid the victim would speak out!
It truly sickens me that I spent my career trying to protect and serve my fellow Americans when not
only my government but these unworthy mercenary, sociopaths have stabbed me in the back. Some of
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.145
38
639
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
the stalkers have even been Iraqi War veteranssome of whom might not have returned alive without
my reports.
I cant think a lot about the lawsuit with each nocturnal assault leaving me wondering if I or one of my
family will not wake up tomorrow. Im sentenced to death for being a patriot. What a country. I read
Psalm 91 & 94 nightly, praying God will want to erase this growing evil from our country. But, I also
remember that Ruth Graham said a while ago, if God doesnt judge America, Hell have to apologize to
Sodom and Gomorrah.
Americans are just not the people they and we used to be and, therefore, our leaders are either
apathetic cowards who tolerate evil or potentially monsters like NSA Securitywho show that they can
be and are not responsible to anyone but themselves.
Is NSA Security even able to be reined in anymore? Or would any potential leader be found dead of a
microwave induced heart attack if he tried to? Someone ought to care but I may not be around long
enough to see it.
Sher: Thanks you so much for all youve done and I sincerely hope and pray youre wrong, Karen. Its
individuals like you who founded the United States of America on Godly principles and an unwavering
sense of ethics.
*Karen may be contacted for interviews at kams56@ME.com
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.146
39
640
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
StanJ. Caterbone
Surveillance,
1250Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Greg Szymanskis Interview

With Julianne McKinney
Microwave Harassment and Mind Control
Transcribed for Advanced Media Group,
05/28/16
This interview contains information from Julianne McKinneys book Microwave Harassment and
Mind Control Experimentation, 1992, as well as current conditions world-wide. Years of
interviews turned Gregg Szymanski from skeptic to believer in the secret world of electronic
harassment, as harassment against Julianne McKinney has turned potentially lethal. They are
taking a stand to help TIs, Targeted Individuals, many civilians, escape this cruel harassment.
Julianne: Okay. I have seen evidence of a closed circuit TV and it seems to be some form of major
source of entertainment and perhaps instruction for the individuals participating in this harassment. I
dont know who runs it. I have seen aspects of that on a large screen TV across the street on which I
saw surveillance films of a TI being harassed, obviously, in an office environment. Gang stalked. Shows
brain scans and is otherwise a very sophisticated, sleek, communications operation. Why would it be
used? As I said either for entertainment, for creating a sense of unity, or for identifying persons, TIs,
who are to be harassed on the street. I mean, obviously you cant harass someone if you dont know
what that person looks like. So its a means of communicating to the perpetrators, perps, what the TI
looks like.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.147
40
641
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
TRANSCRIPT OF GREG SZYMANSKIS INTERVIEW WITH JULIANNE MCKINNEY

ON MICROWAVE HARASSMENT AND MIND CONTROL
Published May 28, 2016
Greg Szymanski: (Also) I have a guest whos never given a radio interview before. Her name is
Julianne McKinney. For those of you who dont know who she is, she is an expert in electronic
harassment and surveillanceformer military background. And those of you who have followed this
story on my show, many may know who she is and the importance she has in this field.
Were just going to lay some very solid credibility to what weve been talking about. So this interviews
quite important and I want you to remember that, as we go along, shes a very, very well-read person.
Were gonna get to that in a minute. The problem on the use of electronic weaponry on a person was
when I was working in a law office. The law office I was working for severaloh a number of years ago,
the law office I worked for prided in taking cases that were difficult. And I listened to a person tell me
about the facts regarding the use of electronic weaponry. And I had a discussion with somebody else at
the law firm and we came to this conclusion causation causation causation Greg, remember that
element. Its going to be awfully difficult to link whats happening to the person. The injuries they were
alleging, to actually the person, or the defendants, that were doing it.
So it was a case, Ill be very honest with you, that I was very skeptical over. But, as a journalist, I
started to interview a number of people, and I would like to say that this issue, after a number of years,
has come up to one of the top of my list as a problem in this country.
I talked to hundreds of people all around the country that are experiencing things that are just
unbelievable. And from a standpoint of the law, you want to get justice for these people. You hate to
see their lives destroyed, and you hate to see what happens, to a person thats been harassed. But the
biggest problem is its very difficult to pinpoint whats going on.
I have a guest today who is an expert in this field. You, the public, may not know who she is. But those
of you who have been targeted and listen to my show know very well. Shes never been interviewed
before and I feel honored that shes here. Her name is Julianne McKinney. Shes had an extensive
career in the US Army as an Area Intelligence Case Officer till 1990.
Upon her return to civilian life Julianne became a member of the Association of National Security
Alumni. That is an organization of former intelligence officers dedicated to exposing excesses by the US
Intelligence Services. Julianne became the director of the Electronic Surveillance Project under their
auspices as such she authored the publication Microwave Harassment and Mind Control
Experimentation in 1991. She kept that electronic surveillance project going for four years, funding it
with her own personal funds, obtained by her military benefits and pay.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.148
41
642
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Julianne did not copy write her work and it is out in the public domain for the public good. Microwave
Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation, the public has taken her hard copy publication and
uploaded it to several thousand domain sites over the past 15 years. It is respected as one of the most
important publications on this subject. And with that, Id like to say hello, Ms. McKinney, how are you
today?
Julianne McKinney: Please dont call me Ms. McKinney (laugh).
Greg: Okay, can I say Julianne?
Julianne: Yes, Julianne.
Greg: Now, youre an expert in surveillance and electronic harassment. The first question I have is
that, in your observation, is there a wider scale of surveillance of average people, people with no threat
to national security, in your estimation?
Julianne: I would say that most of us targeted are not, and never have been, a threat. I think that
what happened initially, when these operations began probably 30 years, ago people were singled out,
perhaps, because of some affiliation, either direct or indirect, with the United States government, and
invited attention. But they were not singled out as being a threat; they were singled out as being
lucrative targets of experimentation.
In the past 15 years, since shutting down the Electronic Surveillance Project, primarily to seek
employment, which I did seek, and did obtain, I had occasion to observe many, many, many instances
of individuals in the corporate environment being singled out and targeted simply because they were
convenient targets of opportunity. And, I have to comment on something I heard you say
Greg: Okay
Julianne: Early on you referred to the difficulty of establishing causation in order to pursue these
claims.
Greg: That, I might add, that was made is a legal sense, based on the fact that we were nave people,
not really understand I have to be honest with youI had not understood the problem back then,
and felt it would be a difficult problem, based on the fact of how the crime was committed and knowing
how to pin that crime on someone. Go ahead.
Julianne: I understand the legal implications, certainly. There is enough literature, on the internet and
elsewhere, that establishes the existence of these weapon systems. To pinpoint, for purposes of
prosecution, to pinpoint their existence would be difficult and the position I take is that rather than
pinpoint for prosecution purposes, easy enough to single them out by electronic means to destroy
them. But I guess thats taking the matter a little far left field.
I think, frankly, we still face, until congress establishes laws that forbid the use of these technologies
for involuntary experimental purposes, that were going to get absolutely nowhere in attempting to
prosecute.
Greg: Okay, listen, I need to take a break Julianne. And well be back in three minutes on the
Investigative Journal.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.149
42
643
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Julianne: Okay.
Greg: Okay, back for the second half hour. My guest is Julianne McKinney. Shes an expert on
surveillance and electronic harassment. And Julianne, I gave you an introduction at the beginning of the
show.
Julianne: Yes
Greg: A brief introduction. But I think our listeners would like to know your background and why
youre qualified to make these statements. I think its important.
Julianne: Okay.
Greg: If you could do that for us.
Julianne: Well, I would take exception to the term expert in these weapons systems.
Greg: Okay.
Julianne: I certainly have had experience with them, having, for approximately the past 40 years,
been on the receiving end of this type of harassment. Expertise in surveillance comes with my
employment in the intelligence field. I understand what constitutes surveillance and am capable of
immediately spotting the surveillance and I can see, as in the case of gang stalking, a subject that you
have addressed on prior occasions. I can see those who I label as covert want-to-bes fumbling through
what they think are covert activities and Id find it really rather amusing if it werent so perverted in the
ultimate objective.
Im not certain what more I can add. I do have experience with these weapon systems. Ive had
sufficient opportunity over these past many years to observe the progressive threat of these
harassment operations. And Im talking specifically about electronic weapon systems.
Greg: Well, youve been a voice - I mean a strong voice - for warning people of these systems for at
least the past 10 years regarding the installation of specialized electronic equipment and utilities. What
are these electronics and what are their capabilities?
Julianne: Their capabilities, generally, are to inflict pain in a highly focused fashion, and to alter
mental states. Certainly, when you have a frequency aimed at your brain, your mental functions tend to
alter. In amplified form, theyre sufficient, the frequencies are. They have the capacity to kill. Though
thats one reason the department of defense refers to them as less than lethal rather than non-
lethal weapons. As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense has gone so far to eliminate them, to
remove them from the category of even less than lethal weapons to bury them in the category of
electronic weapons trying to make them a little bit blacker.
Greg: Now is this protocol of surveillance and harassment seemingly patterned after a government
protocol now applied to the general civilian population?
Julianne: Its difficult to pinpoint everything on the US government exclusively because these are
global operations.
Greg: Okay.
Julianne: The pattern the protocols, are virtually identical on a global scale so someone is
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.150
43
644
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
overseeing the entire activity. The government obviously is complicent because otherwise these
operations would not be allowed to exist. Why? Its hard to say. Whether its for testing electronic
weapon systems for future use under combat conditions or whether ultimately there's a holocaust. (no-
intelligible) Its hard to say.
Greg: Well, you know what I find interesting.how people who arent aware of this problem cant
believe its happening to begin with. And I try to mentionI have run stories about the Duplessis
Orphans. Its a program thats been verified, that the government actually used money in Canada and
the United States to do medical testing on children, on adults. Ive talked to people on the POW issue,
one Dr. Joe Douglas, who has documented how, that our government has done allowed foreign
governments to do illegal experimentation on POWs. So why would people think that they wouldnt
allow it on just average citizens? Just in your mind. Do you have an answer for people?
Julianne: Why wouldnt they allow it?
Greg: Yeah, my thing is that they do it, theyre doing it. But some people that deny it cant believe
that our government would do something like this.
Julianne: I find, even among the community of, I hate using slang terms, but the term TI is common,
referring to targeted individuals. Those are people who know they are on the receiving end of electronic
weapon systems. And even amongst TIs, there is a perception in certain areas that our government
wouldnt do this; a case of not recognizing reality. First of all if this were not being done by our
government, congress would step in because of the hundreds of complaints they have received,
thousands of complaints, no doubt, over the past 10-15 years, from citizens who recognize whats going
on. Congress, back in the early 90s, late 80s, took the position that anyone complaining about these
systems were imagining things because they simply didnt exist. In two years, by 1992, they were off
the drawing boards, and in fact, being fielded and conveyed to law enforcement agencies.
Congress recognizes that these weapon systems exist and funds them, and knows, as a result of
appropriate briefings, what the bio-effects can be. Yet they have passed no legislation prohibiting their
use under unconstrained experimental circumstances.
Thats number 1. Number 2, given the nature, given the nature, given that the systems draw on
existing power grids, it would be necessary for the FCC at a minimum, and the Department of Energy,
as a minimum, give some oversight and control over what is going on. Though obviously, those with
Congress, the FDA and the Department of Energy, the FCC and the Department of Energy are
knowledgeable and yet unwilling to do anything about it. So, there is complicity, but the question is,
whos knitting, and submitting, the US government, allowing these operations to take place?
Greg: Now from your experience, how intense is this surveillance of targeted individuals? And tell us
about the ways that the targeted that this is accomplished.
Julianne: From what I have observed, first of all I should explain that the standard that I address this
in Microwave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation, it was a pattern that was unfolding as I
was dealing with other targeted individuals whothat contacted me. It was a pattern of harassment
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.151
44
645
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
which indicated that there had been some surveillance going on, some monitoring of their private lives.
There had been entry into their houses. There was systematic harassment. And then, ultimately, as part
of a softening up process, and then ultimately, electronic harassment, which followed; which would
include the inducement of auditory input, which is now being referred to as Z2K.
In answer to your question (laugh) Im not certain if I I think Im probably missing the point there,
but in order to target someone, it requires that that person be put under surveillance, so that their
personality traits, their capacity to inter- relate with people, their capacity for corruption or non-
corruption, that seems to be a critical point. And even their religion factors into it.
Following a period of harassments, they are singled out for preliminary stages of harassment which
includes gang stalking, entry of their private homes or apartments, followed by gradually intensified
and ultimately extremely intensified electronic harassment. This is the pattern that has unfolder over
and over and over.
Greg: And so, when you, I guess what Im getting atthats a very good answer. Youre seeing a
pattern amongst these individuals. I guessyeahis there any pattern about how they choose them?
Julianne: I cant speak for men. But it appears that quite a few of the women who have been singled
out appear to be somewhat, too independent; perhaps too intelligent. Tend to live alone or tend to
pursue professional careers. Theres a heavy predominance of those types of women in the TI
community, the community of targeted individuals. Men are in a smaller proportion and seem to be
those who have a propensity to fly off the handle. Have a sense of self-esteem and pride that seems to
invite targeting. And I did mention a curious predominance of a certain lack of religion amongst TIs, as
opposed to a certain predominance of a particular religion amongst those who are participating in these
operations.
Greg: Now you mentioned this was a global problem. Have you communicated with people from across
the Atlantic regarding whats going on in other countries? Is it similar to here?
Julianne: Its virtually identical, virtually identical. When I was running the electronic surveillance
project I was in extensive correspondence with people overseas and patterns were the same. The
nature of the gang stalking and harassment were the same.
Greg: Now, when youre talking about specific numbers I know youreyouve been following this for
years and years and years. Is there any way that you can give our listeners a kind of an idea of how
wide spread this problem is in terms numbers in our country and compared to maybe overseas?
Julianne: I would say that the person who has realized what is going on is just a drop in a bucket. The
persons whom I have seen being targeted are completely unaware of whats happening. So those who
are complaining of this are, as I said, the tip of the iceberg. I would say this is very, very, widespread.
But I cannot under the circumstances come up with any figures. Many, many, many thousands, no
doubt, are involved. But I would say that the bulk of them are running to their doctors and taking
totally unnecessary prescription drugs to cure ailments that dont exist.
Gregg: I guess that you have to ask this question even though its very difficult to answer. And you
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.152
45
646
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
mentioned, you said it earlier. But I really have to ask it because its on my mind and I know its always
in the back of everyones mind when they think of this problem. Why?? What is the major reason, I
mean, outside of just pure experimentation Im interested; for example, lets say that they have
targeted 100 people in Oklahoma. What do they, first of all, why are they doing it? Is it for, basically, a
blanket statement controlling the population? Orand, what do they do with this information once they
get it?
Julianne: I dont think they do anything with the information once they get it, other than to establish
a harassment protocol which will follow that targeted individual for the rest of his or her life. Why are
they doing it? I see a number of reasons. First, I dont know if youve done any research on the
phenomenon of capturing a percentage of the population in order to install a dictatorship. There is
always a percentage of the population, roughly 20% or so, that will buckle and throw whatever
constitutions might exist into the toilet and eagerly join the efforts at destroying the remainder of the
population.
Part of the problem or part of the objective they are seeking obviously is testing the latest and greatest
in electronic weaponry and other forms of technologies. A part of it is to control and choreograph those
who are involved in these harassment operations on the dispensing end. And it would appear that those
being targeted are simply objects who I see as ultimately being disposable. In other words, I think that
once full control is established over a major percentage of the population, and enough of the population
is silenced and unwilling to stick their necks out, that we inevitably would be heading toward a
holocaust.
Greg: The question, if I was, for example, lets say we have a person, who suspects, and lets just for
hypothetical purposes, say this person is being targeted, okay? Now, tell our listeners, because Ive
always wondered this myself, okay. Im sitting in my house and I see around me theres telephone
poles, there may be a tower in the distance that I dont see that handles the cell phones. Theres of
course a grid of electric going on around me. Ive talked to people and I try to say, how does this get
into your house? And I wanted to get your opinion, if a person is targeted, how basically are they
beginning to intrude their premises, and violate their constitutional rights, not only their rights ofnot
only trespassing on their property? Go ahead. How would that happen?
Julianne: Now, are you talking about, how would the frequencies impact upon them and how would
they first become aware of it? Or how would they first become aware of the fact that their privacy has
been violated?
Greg: Well no, I guess I didnt explain the question right. I wanted to know how they physically, are
doing it? I mean are they using a cell tower? Are they using a truck thats in the distance? How is this
being transmitted into the home to target the person and to use this weaponry on them, from your
experience?
Julianne: Well, first of all, in order to target a person you have to be able to see that person. And
while they may not be able to, they may, on entering the house, plant miniature cameras, miniature
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.153
46
647
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
microphones, as a means of, for their monitoring a person. But that is not necessarily the means by
which they hone in on a person. There are plenty of technologies that allow for the imaging of a person
that might be sitting in a chair, as you mentioned you might be.
Using infrared imagery techniques, for example, they can capture your image by monitoring the
concentration of heat emanating from your body using certain acoustical frequencies, they can detect
mass. And using sophisticated computer software, they can convert those images to likenesses on
computers, which conceivably could be used in a software program that could be connected to an
electronic weapon system. And in that context I should point out that, while devices draw on the
existing power grid, and while theyyes indeed, they do involve microwave towers
Sounds like youve got a commercial coming on
Greg: Yes we do, and thank you for making my job easier. Well be back in 3 minutes on the
Investigative Journal.
First, Ive put this in the top 3 of my stories that I believe are important, that the American people need
to deal with, because as Ms. McKinney, who is a, I consider her an expert. She would only say shes an
authority. But let me tell you, Julianne, you are an expert in this. The reasons could be, like she said at
thebefore we went into the break, and a total testing of our population to see, basically, perhaps
maybe there is a holocaust in the future or a dictatorship in the future. And they want to see how
people react to it. That may be a simplistic way to look at it. Not a simplistic way that Julianne looked at
it but my way of explaining it.
But lets get back to some of the things here, the last few minutes that are important. What can you tell
us, Julianne, about the microwave energy on citizens in terms of the existence of such a program and
the nuts and bolts of what they do?
Julianne: Microwave energy is only one aspect of the entire electromagnetic frequency spectrum.
Microwaves can be lethal depending upon how theyre used. Obviously in order to achieve appropriate
effects on people, they have to be pulsed, because otherwise the individual would be cooked from the
inside out. The objective of using microwaves as opposed to other electromagnetic frequencies would
be to inflict extremes of pain to cause thermal heating. Thats a common complaint which leaves a hot
spot on the scull. Again, primarily, just to inflict extremes of pain. I was just wondering, we kind of
skipped over or didnt quite complete a preceding topic.
Greg: Oh, go ahead, go ahead. Youve got free reign.
Julianne: You were talking about the use of the electrical grid throughout the country, the use of
microwave towers, the use of devices affixed to poles that are connected to power lines. But what
wasnt addressed, what you havent mentioned, is also that these weapon systems are used by
neighbors surrounding persons who have been singled out as targets of opportunity.
Greg: Are they solicited to do this or what?
Julianne: Thats something that Ive been pondering for some time. Again, what Ive noticed is, there
seems to be a predominant, particular religion that makes it particularly easy for them to cooperate.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.154
47
648
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Greg: Well listen, lets talk about that after the break, a short break, and then Ive got something to,
some business I have to take care of for 3 4 minutes. Then well get back for our 2 nd hour with
Julianne McKinney. Well take some calls. Back in 2 minutes on the Investigative Journal.
(In this section there seemed to be jumping around, like maybe the video was edited or there was
some problem with the recording.)
by some of the Tis and thats Targeted Individuals.
That song rose to number one without any publicity on the internet. And that song called TI, well play
that again Dr. McKinney. I think it hits the nail on the head. I mean theres a lot of people out there
suffering. And I know youre one person, an authority in this field. And for my guests who are just
picking us up this hour, Dror excuse me, Julianne McKinney is a very highly regarded person in the
field of electronic weaponry, and surveillance in studying this issue. Shes a former area Intelligence
Case Officer until 1990 in the Army. And her credentials can be found, will be found, you can go to
RBNLive.com and go to my archives in the Investigative Journal and read about that. Shes well
qualified. Shes still with us this hour. And Dror excuse me, I keep calling you Dr. and you should be.
Julianne: (Laugh) Im not a Dr., thank you. Dr. Americus.
Greg: Dr. Americus. You know, thats funny. I have a doctorate in law. And nobody ever calls me that
and I hate being called that, a doctor. But Im interviewed on a Tehran TV station once every blue
moon, couple months, and they refer to me as Dr. Szymanski. And its nice to hear once in a while. Ill
be honest with you. Every two months is good enough. Otherwise they just call me the jerk on the
radio, which is better.
But, lets go from here. Youre adding such credibility to this story, adding credibility in my mind as I
speak. Because, Ive talked to hundreds of these people and was a doubting Thomas in the beginning. I
must mention that. I did not think it existed, and that was years ago. I thought people were either
insane, or crazy, or trying to get attention. But you know something? I will admit I was totally wrong
with that initialI guessthe look at the situation and have come around to fully believe in most of the
people I talk to and really sympathize with their suffering as I see their lives being ripped apart.
Are there any things you can dowere going to get into a few more things here as far as the technical
aspects of this but what can targeted individuals do to get some peace in their life? I mean thats one
thing theyre looking for. Is there anything they can do?
Julianne: (prolonged silence)
Greg: Difficult question there.
Julianne: Its very difficult to advise targeted individuals how to acquire peace. These frequencies can
be blocked or deflected. All of these frequencies I have found, some may contest this, but I have found
can beare vulnerable, and are subject to deflection. And the pain can be immediately (word unclear),
if not halted all together. Finding peace by writing to members of congress or to state legislators might
not be a better alternative because you will be treated as something worthy of the circular basket. They
just wont intervene. Writing to the various agencies and calling a meeting with them serves no useful
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.155
48
649
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
purpose either because they will say there are no laws prohibiting these types of activities. They cant,
say for example, the FBIand I was given this statement on a number of occasions.there are no laws
prohibiting experimentation with these weapon systems. Youre talking to the wrong people.
So my advice would be to do what you can to secure your premises, because so long as your house is
or apartment is being entered, you are susceptible to, in addition to being targeted by electronic
weapons, there is a potential for having drugs put in your food. And Im not exaggerating there.
Greg: I had a few targeted individuals I talked to send me some questions that Id like to ask you.
Julianne: Certainly.
Greg: And the one was Are targeted individuals also broadcast around the country via closed circuit
TV? And, What purpose does this serve? Im fully in the dark on this question, but, go ahead.
Julianne: Okay. I have seen evidence of a closed circuit TV and it seems to be some form of
major source of entertainment and perhaps instruction for the individuals participating in
this harassment. I dont know who runs it. I have seen aspects of that on a large screen TV
across the street on which I saw surveillance films of a TI being harassed, obviously, in an
office environment. Gang stalked. Shows brain scans and is otherwise a very sophisticated,
sleek, communications operation. Why would it be used? As I said either for
entertainment, for creating a sense of unity, or for identifying persons, TIs, who are to be
harassed on the street. I mean, obviously you cant harass someone if you dont know what
that person looks like. So its a means of communicating to the perpetrators, perps, what the
TI looks like.
Greg: Okay, now, before I get to some more, I want to put out that call for people to call. I got a
couple emails. A lot of times Tis dont want to go public. And theyve sent me some emails. I want to
get to one in a minute. But one question I have for you is, how can people gather evidence to support
their beliefs that this is happening to them? Many people will say, well its only a lack of sleep. I mean,
you have a sleep disorder. Maybe theres a problem with your joints, I dont know. It could be anything
that the answers are when you suspect youre being targeted. What kind of evidence do you tell people
to gather to support their beliefs that this is actually happening to them.
Julianne: Well, when youre gathering evidence, obviously you have an objective in mind and that
generally is legal. What you want to do with that evidence. Theres really nothing you can do with it. So
in the absence of that, the main thing is to try to protect yourself and to alleviate the pain that youre
experiencing. Collecting the evidence, if you were to go to, frankly, Id strongly recommend that you
keep your faculties together and avoid going to see psychiatrists and psychologists, because the pattern
that is evolving is that they are highly complicit of these operations.
And if you go to a medical doctor, you do not talk about it because medical doctors, many, are also
involved. What you do when you see a doctor is that you define your symptoms and get a very clear
statement that, well, we cant figure this out. Well, thats a clear indication that it is not indigenous,
its not part of your system. Its not coming from within you, so obviously something is happening from
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.156
49
650
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
outside. If they prescribe drugs and yet cant find the ecology, the basis for your disease, dont take
those drugs.
Greg: Now earlier we were talking about the fact that they may, whoevers doing this, youve
delineated, youve led a good course into whatyoure tracking these people. But what I was getting at,
we never got to the point where ifyou mentioned something about a religious group that may be
targeted. What did you mean by that?
Julianne: The way I dont.well let me put it this way. Im not out to start a religious war. I have
found over the years that the persons involved, both in gang stalking.Ive made it a point to get to
know these people. Ive had to necessarily. Im not the type to
Greg: Youre talking about the perpetrators or the targets?
Julianne: The perpetrators.
Greg: Okay
Julianne: As well as theIve been drawing distinctions. And what Ive found is that the perpetrators
appear to belong predominantly to one particular religion; whereas the targeted individuals do not
belong predominantly to that particular religion.
Greg: And what is the particular religion of the perpetrators?
Julianne: Right. So, at this stage, again, Im not particularly enthused about the idea of starting a
religious war. And I have challenged other TIs to get out there and become acquainted with, and get to
know, the people who are harassing them, to draw those distinctions themselves, because Im not
going to be making brash claims. This is something Ive observed over the past 10 years.
Greg: Thats fair enough. And maybe, perhaps, I could talk to you about it just for my own knowledge
off the air.
Julianne: That would be fine.
Greg: And I will keep your name out of it at that point and let people know what the targeted group
may be and what the other group may be.
Julianne: There is a religious influence but thats not to say these people arent just being used as
puppets by some broader interest.
Greg: Very good point. Can you stick with us one more segment of 5 minutes?
Julianne: Okay.
Greg: Were interviewing Julianne McKinney, our last segment. Juliannes an authority in the use of
surveillance and electronic weaponry. And this is an email question, kind of a technical one from a TI.
Let me read this to you. Perhaps you can answer it. Are the protocols for each individual modified based
to custom tailor it for the specific targeted individual? And if so, how does this process work?
Julianne: Yes indeed they are modified. There is a basic protocol that the perpetrators begin with. But
the TI contributes to the modification. A good example of that would be, if someone. Im trying to
think of a good example. If the TI feels the need to cooperate, even in the most subtle fashion, with the
persons who are harassing him or her, he or she will modify his behavior, in pathlobean condition, which
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.157
50
651
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
alters the protocol. Theyre constantly, targets are constantly monitored, and if they respond
emotionally to a particular trigger, that will be built into the protocol. If the target displays a certain
sense of guilt or embarrassment about a subject, that will be built into the protocol. Its an ongoing
process. And one thing I want to emphasize is no TI should look for a reason as to why this is going on.
Its a serious, serious mistake. I know I did that myself when they started on me and over the years I
came up with probably 6 different excuses.
Greg: Is it still going on with you?
Julianne: Oh yes. Not to the degree that it was before but certainly in very lethal form.
Greg: Now, how has this hampered your life?
Julianne: Its come close to being lethal on a number of occasions. I deal, I dealt with gang stalking
head on and I essentially put that to rest. I deal with.Ive developed a means for communicating with
perps directly and made them feel like the trailer trash that they are. So gang stalking is not one of
their favorite activities in my case. So the primary activity now is to see what I can survive in the way
of an induced brain aneurism or stroke or a heart attack.
Greg: I just had a caller who doesnt want to get on the air but wants to know, does moving help;
moving your location?
Julianne: Running, if youre talking about moving to a completely new location, no. This country is
wired to the hilt for immediate transfer. Your protocol follows you wherever you go so its a waste of
time. Moving about physically in place will not change anything. Other than, if you make a 180 degree
turn you will notice the targeting will suddenly stop because the weapon systems are programmed to
focus on a particular area of your anatomy. So if you turn, the targeting will suddenly end. If you turn
back itll hit you again.
Greg: Interesting. Now, going full circle in the last 2 minutes here, in 1991 you published Microwave
Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation. This has been passed around the internet and over
thousands of domain sites over the past 15 years. Can you tell us how someone can get ahold of this
publication to be informed?
Julianne: Its not copy-writed. All they need to do is plug in my last name, McKinney, and type in the
title Microwave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation and innumerable sites will appear and
just read it from there. It will give you a good insight into what the pattern is when harassment begins.
Greg: Now, let me just spell your name for people that are going to do that. Thats MCKINNEY
McKinney. And then its Microwave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation for an authority in
the field.
I guess since 1981, have you seen.I guess a question I wanted to ask, from 2001, have you seen any,
from the time of 911, has there been an increase in the last 4or 5 years, with this type of, that youve
seen, in the number of people contacting you. Has it been more wide spread since 911?
Julianne: Not since 911. WhenI would say back in the early 90s Ive seen a tremendous expansion
of these activities since the early 1990s. And it has moved forward in consistent fashion. Its become
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.158
51
652
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
ever more sophisticated and ever more wide spread. There was no sudden burst or flurry of activity
since 911.
Greg: And you have no help whatsoever with the political arena in this. Correct? Politicians will not
touch this with a 10 foot pole?
Julianne: Thats right. And even those who purport to be liberally inclined, and Im speaking about
members of the democratic party, will not touch it, because quote unquote, and they know, they know
whats going on. They dont they simply dont have the funds to be able to pursue it. All sorts of
humma humma excuses will be furnished for not pursuing something like this. Before you close.I hear
the music in the background.
Greg: We can stay another minute if you want.
Julianne: Okay.
Greg: Why dont you come back for 2 minutes on the other side of the break and then well finish up.
Okay?
Julianne: Okay.
Greg: Okay, back with Julianne McKinney and 3 minutes on the Investigative Journal. You wanted to
say something at the break.
Julianne: I did. I want to thank you very, very much for taking on this subject. There are so few in the
media, as a matter of fact, youre the only one I know of, who has the guts to address it.
Greg: And you know, it really doesnt just in defense of every other media person. I dont think its
guts, in a sense, maybe it is. I dont consider myself having guts in this issue. I consider it to be an
issue that you need to take time to understand it. And thats what I would recommend to the people in
the media that havent touched this issue. If it isnt being down right censored by someone above you,
at least take the time to talk, Ill spend time talking to you about it. Because it took me a little time to
figure it out. And, Ill tell you what, its people like you that need to be applauded because its your
efforts that are bringing this to the forefront. Youre laying the credibility on the line. But I thank you
anyway for your kind words.
And with that, I wanted to say goodbye to you. And were going to have to move on. And well have you
on again to talk about this. And thank you so much.
Julianne: And thank you so much.
Greg: And that was Julianne McKinney. And she is an authority in the use of electronic weaponry and
microwave weaponry and she was with us for the last hour and a half.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.159
52
653
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Dr. Nick Begich Author and Expert Researcher

of Electromagnetic Weapons
Biography
Dr. Nick Begich is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman
from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr., and political activist Pegge Begich. He is well
known in Alaska for his own political activities. He was twice elected
President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage
Council of Education. He has been pursuing independent research in the
sciences and politics for most of his adult life. Begich received Doctor of
Medicine (Medicina Alternitiva), honoris causa, for independent work in
health and political science, from The Open International University for
Complementary Medicines, Colombo, Sri Lanka, in November 1994.
He co-authored with
Jeane Manning the
book Angels Don't Play This HAARP; Advances in
Tesla Technology. Begich has also authored Earth
Rising - The Revolution: Toward a Thousand
Years of Peace and and his latest book Earth
Rising II- The Betrayal of Science, Society and
the Soul both with the late James Roderick. His
latest work is Controlling the Human Mind - The
Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak
Performance. Begich has published articles in
science, politics and education and is a well
known lecturer, having presented throughout the
United States and in nineteen countries. He has been featured as a guest on thousands of radio
broadcasts reporting on his research activities including new technologies, health and earth science
related issues. He has also appeared on dozens of television documentaries and other programs
throughout the world including BBC-TV, CBC-TV, TeleMundo, and others.
Begich has served as an expert witness and speaker before the European Parliament. He has spoken on
various issues for groups representing citizen concerns, statesmen and elected officials, scientists and
others. He is the publisher and co-owner of Earthpulse Press. He served as Tribal Administrator/Village
Planner for the Chickaloon Village Council, a federally recognized American Indian Tribe of the
Athabascan Indian Nation for five years and served four years as the Executive Director of The Lay
Institute of Technology, Inc. a Texas non-profit corporation. Currently Begich consults for tribal
organizations, private corporations and others in a number of research areas.
Dr. Begich is a single person with five adult children, and four grandchildren.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.160
53
654
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 1
1 Covert Harassment Conference

1-2 October 2015, Berlin, Germany
2
3 DR. NICK BEGICH

Mind Control: A Brave New World together with HAARP -
4 The Update
5 DR. BEGICH: Hello, and thank you for being
6 here and thank you to Peter and the rest of the team for
7 putting this together.
8 Everyone hears me okay, yes? In the back?
9 Okay. Good.
10 All right. I want to give a little bit of
11 background in terms of my interest in these areas. For
12 those that don't know my family story, it really goes
13 back quite a ways.
14 My father was in the United States Congress in
15 the early 1970s during the Nixon Administration. He was
16 lost in a plane with Hale Boggs. Some of you may
17 remember this if you've got a little bit of gray hair.
18 Hale Boggs was our House majority leader at the time,
19 one of the most powerful people in the United States
20 Congress. He was also a Warren Commissioner. He had a
21 strong dislike for J. Edgar Hoover, because he basically
22 read everybody's mail, tapped everybody's phones,
23 including the United States Congress, and then,
24 essentially, blackmailed political leaders to follow
25 whatever script he laid out.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.161
54
655
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 2
1 Boggs was a pretty outspoken individual. At
2 the time -- it was just before the second election of
3 Richard Nixon -- Boggs came to Alaska to work on my
4 father's campaign, which would have been his second term
5 in the United States Congress.
6 Boggs, before they flew out on October 16th,
7 three weeks before the second election of Richard Nixon,
8 began to talk about this scandal brewing in Washington,
9 DC. In fact, that very scandal, had it unfolded a
10 little bit differently -- for those that remember, the
11 planes disappeared.
12 Three weeks later, Nixon's elected for his
13 second term. It wasn't too much long after that that
14 the Watergate scandal broke. Agnew was thrown out of
15 office. Ford moved up. Then Nixon resigned. Ford
16 moved up again. For those that don't remember,
17 Rockefeller then slid into the Vice President's slot.
18 And then one of the old Manson women from the Charles
19 Manson days tried to assassinate Ford, which would have
20 put Rockefeller in the White House.
21 What would have otherwise happened, most
22 likely, the election would have taken place. Nixon
23 would have won. Agnew and Nixon would have been thrown
24 out at the same time. The Democrats would have
25 controlled the Congress. The Speaker of the House would
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.162
55
656
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 3
1 have elevated to the Presidency. The Democrats would
2 have been in control. But the opposite, of course,
3 happened and history tells us a lot about what really
4 happened there.
5 Twenty years later there was a report, an
6 investigative report by a publication called "Roll Call"
7 in Washington, DC. That report was looking into all of
8 these various Congressional deaths. You know, plane
9 crashes are kind of the hazard of political leadership,
10 it seems like.
11 But in researching that, what they found in the
12 FBI files were a couple of telexes -- this goes before
13 FAX machines -- and telexes coming from California into
14 Washington, DC reported that two people had been found
15 at a crash site. Those sources were later looked at by
16 the FBI to determine whether they were credible. A
17 follow-up telex came through saying, yes, they were.
18 That plane was never recovered. There were no survivors
19 officially; yet 20 years later, we find out, in fact,
20 there were.
21 So I know about conspiracies. Conspiracies are
22 conversations that happen in a room like this when
23 there's a bunch of people standing on the outside who
24 might not agree with us. But the reality is, even in
25 the political life, even at the highest levels, things
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.163
56
657
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 4
1 happen. Things happen that aren't easily explained.
2 Maybe a few decades go by before the truth is finally
3 revealed.
4 So I have a strong motivation foundationally in
5 terms of how I approach controversial issues. I don't
6 do it with fear. I've been doing this work for over 20
7 years. Fear isn't part of the equation. In fact, that
8 is the absolute adversary for getting anything
9 accomplished on this planet.
10 My interest in these areas started with HAARP.
11 And how many in this room do not know anything about
12 HAARP?
13 Okay. Well, that's a lot better than it used
14 to be. All right. It used to be the other way around.
15 Twenty years of this work and the work of others have
16 kind of brought this into the public.
17 So the first image -- I'm going to use HAARP as
18 sort of the backdrop as I move into the mind control,
19 mind effects-related technology. This is just an image
20 in my part of the world. I come from Alaska. I don't
21 know if -- maybe I've come the farthest for this
22 presentation. But I appreciate being here and I
23 appreciate the opportunity to inform people about this
24 subject.
25 So HAARP is a large array, a field of antennas
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.164
57
658
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 5
1 in Alaska, currently 180 antennas. They're
2 approximately 20 meters tall. They have a cross dipole,
3 which you can see, which is the very top of these
4 antennas. And what these are designed to do is focus or
5 concentrate radiofrequency energy into a relatively
6 small space.
7 If you think about the energy of a flashlight,
8 for instance, or a torch, as they say here in Europe, I
9 shine that against the wall, the beam starts out small,
10 and then it broadens as you get further away from the
11 source.
12 The same is true with radiofrequency energy.
13 You can think about it as an inverted funnel starting
14 here at the transmitter and then spreading out and
15 getting thinner and thinner, less dense, which is why
16 the further you get away from radio broadcast antennas,
17 the weaker and weaker the signal.
18 With HAARP, the opposite occurs. They have
19 figured out a way through what's called cyclotron
20 resonance, which would be focusing or concentrating the
21 energy. So if you could visualize it, it would look
22 like sort of a cork-screwing kind of motion that got
23 smaller and smaller as you move further and further away
24 from the transmitter.
25 So it concentrates that energy or focuses that
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.165
58
659
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 6
1 energy so you can manipulate it in various ways. And so
2 the HAARP array, which was originally designed by a
3 gentleman, Bernard Eastlund, who's now deceased, was
4 intended to do a number of things as a weapons
5 application. This is the earlier version when it was
6 half the current size of the transmitter in Alaska. You
7 can see the field of antennas. In this case there were
8 90 antennas in the array.
9 And here's another image as they expanded the
10 array to 180. And another image showing the array.
11 Now, they also upgraded the technology pretty
12 substantially over the years. So it became much more
13 efficient. So with a much smaller system you create
14 much bigger effects.
15 So what does it do? Essentially, it's sending
16 energy or focusing energy up into an area known as the
17 ionosphere, which in this image in miles -- I apologize
18 for that -- is approximately 37 miles to 620 miles out
19 into space.
20 Now, this is a highly energized area. If you
21 think about radiofrequency signals or shortwave signals,
22 they would come from the earth, they'd bounce off of us,
23 and then bounce back down to the earth to transmit over
24 large distances.
25 The ionosphere also is an area that can be
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.166
59
660
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 7
1 disturbed by solar radiation, radiation from the sun.
2 When it becomes destabilized, it interferes with
3 terrestrial communications of every kind.
4 So part of the idea in this technology was to
5 learn how to stabilize the ionosphere during these
6 periods or deliberately disrupt the ionosphere to
7 interfere with communications on a global basis.
8 Now, what caught my interest when I first
9 looked at this issue of HAARP was a very short article
10 in a publication, an Australian publication, that talked
11 about this big system in Alaska.
12 Now, I come from a family that's pretty
13 politically engaged. Besides my dad being in the
14 Congress, my younger brother just finished a term in the
15 United States Senate. My family's been involved in
16 politics a very long time.
17 Alaska is a very big region, but we're a really
18 small population; 700,000 people in our entire region.
19 And when you think about big projects, you know, you
20 think you know something about them.
21 Well, I'm reading about this project in my
22 state in a journal in Australia and I'm going, you know,
23 why doesn't anybody know about this?
24 And so I decided I would go in and look into
25 this issue independently. And I did. I picked up maybe
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.167
60
661
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 8
1 30 articles and papers, design specifications, some
2 things, and with friends encouraging me to publish, I
3 published the first article that I had written on HAARP
4 back in 1994. So it's been a very long time ago.
5 What also caught my interest was the idea that
6 they were primarily utilizing, in some applications,
7 extremely low frequency signals or ELFs. These are
8 signals that can be biologically active, can affect us
9 as human beings and in very specific ways.
10 And in particular, certain applications of the
11 technology -- and this gives you sort of a graphic
12 illustration of the focus. These view graphs, actually,
13 were given to me by the inventor, Bernard Eastlund,
14 prior to his passing. And we utilized them in our
15 publications and in some of our work. So this gives you
16 kind of a graphic showing the radiofrequency from the
17 array, moving up into the ionosphere and focusing that
18 energy.
19 His initial concept was to create a global
20 shield, to be able to utilize the natural magnetic field
21 lines that surround the earth, be able to punch energy
22 into this and then create this kind of global shielding
23 effect. And the idea was that any electronic device
24 piercing that energy would be disrupted, like
25 satellites, intercontinental ballistic missiles,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.168
61
662
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 9
1 virtually any electronic device that ran into this field
2 of energy that was being amplified would be destroyed.
3 Now, one of the other interesting parts of
4 this -- and this kind of shows that, again, utilizing
5 one of Eastlund's graphics. So you can see like a field
6 line and then you see this cork-screwing energy going
7 around it. That energy naturally is occurring from the
8 southern polar regions into the northern polar regions.
9 And, in this case, they actually couple -- actually
10 utilize the energy on the ground to couple with the
11 natural energy, and then coming from the north to the
12 south, create this cork-screwing effect, which
13 accelerates the electrons and then creates this global
14 shield.
15 Now, that was his initial concept. And as a
16 concept, it caught the attention of a number of people
17 and eventually got funding from the Congress, initially
18 at 30 million, and over the last few decades now over
19 almost 300 million, which in dollars is not a lot of
20 money, but when you consider, this is sort of the
21 pinnacle of billions of dollars spent in ionosphere
22 research over many decades.
23 What caught my attention in terms of the
24 technology of Eastlund -- I'm going to skip some of
25 these that are not so relevant -- was the idea that you
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.169
62
663
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 10
1 could manipulate the ionosphere -- and I'll use this as
2 a better example. So one of the thoughts was that if
3 you could punch or pulse energy into the ionosphere --
4 so think about this energy going up and, like, a hammer
5 ringing a bell. Every time it hits that ionosphere, the
6 ionosphere itself vibrates and then it begins to send a
7 signal in the ELF range. So you have a high frequency
8 signal going up, punching the ionosphere, the ionosphere
9 which is energized then acts as a broadcast antenna in
10 the sky bringing back an ELF signal to the earth, and in
11 this case covering an entire hemisphere.
12 Now, ELF signals, extremely low frequency
13 signals, are very long wavelengths. They penetrate the
14 earth and sea. They're utilized for communication with
15 submarines, as an example, the depth, because short
16 wavelengths won't penetrate the earth and sea. They're
17 also used for what's called earth-penetrating
18 tomography, which in simple language or by analogy would
19 be like x-raying the earth or looking into the earth for
20 underground structures.
21 But one of the side effects of ELF is the
22 entrainment effect on the human mind. Because ELF
23 signals will lock onto in what's called a frequency
24 following response. And you can use a lot of different
25 techniques to create a frequency following response.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.170
63
664
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 11
1 You can use flickering light, you can use binaural beat,
2 which I'll explain in a few minutes. You can use
3 electromagnetic fields such as this, or even the power
4 grid itself can be modulated in such a way to create a
5 signal that the human body will join with, will couple
6 with, and begin to follow. It doesn't take a great deal
7 of energy to accomplish this.
8 This is the one that triggered my real interest
9 in HAARP, because this is the one that everybody kind of
10 ignored and said, oh. In fact, the HAARP planners said,
11 well, if ELF has a biological effect, it's a side
12 effect. It's an unintended consequence. We heard that
13 phrase earlier today. But I don't believe that. I
14 believe that it's an intended consequence. It's
15 intended to grade populations in very specific ways.
16 Now, this book was mentioned by my friend
17 earlier today, "Between Two Ages", by Zbigniew
18 Brzezinski. And why this is an important book, it was
19 written, actually, in 1973, when Brzezinski was at
20 Columbia University. This is before he became National
21 Security Adviser to President Carter. This is around
22 the time that Kissinger and he and others were starting
23 to think about the Trilateral Commission organizing this
24 think tank, so to speak.
25 Now, find this book. I really encourage you to
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.171
64
665
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 12
1 find this book and read it, because it is not a
2 prediction of what will come with technology. It's the
3 blueprint, in fact. You can read this.
4 When I first read it -- he writes in a pretty
5 convoluted style. It's a little difficult even in
6 English to understand. But I really encourage you to
7 read it because he predicted the economic changes that
8 took place, the political changes that took place in the
9 world over the last 40 years with a great deal of
10 accuracy. And some will say it really wasn't the
11 prediction. It was the plan.
12 If you look within this text between Pages 54
13 and 56, you'll see a section that's dedicated to the
14 kind of technologies we're talking about today, a mind
15 control technology. And what Zbigniew referenced was a
16 guy named J. F. Gordon MacDonald. And he was a
17 geophysicist at UCL. He wrote a book -- or, actually, a
18 chapter in a book and the chapter was called, "How to
19 Wreck Your Environment", which this is before Earth Day,
20 okay, so he could get away with that. It was 1969 when
21 that book was actually published. But what he said that
22 caught Zbigniew Brzezinski's attention was, he said, if
23 we could ever figure out how to electronically stroke
24 the ionosphere in just the right way, we could return a
25 signal to the earth that would influence the behavior of
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.172
65
666
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 13
1 people over huge geographic areas.
2 Now, that's a pretty profound thing. But we
3 didn't have a way to stroke the ionosphere in 1969. But
4 we did by the 1990s. And that was, in fact, and is, in
5 fact, the HAARP system that can accomplish this.
6 So the idea was -- and it was kind of, in a
7 gross sort of way, primitive, if you will, but what the
8 intention was, was that if you could pulse the
9 ionosphere, return this ELF signal to the earth, you
10 could agitate the population in very specific ways. You
11 could make them passive, less aggressive, or the
12 opposite by just amplifying that signal. And I'll
13 explain a little bit of that as we go on.
14 The other person that comes out in the last
15 presentations, Jose Delgado, and this book he wrote,
16 "Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized
17 Society". And this is, again, a 1960s book. Those
18 images that you saw in just this short video clip of
19 Delgado's work, there is a good section in this text as
20 well showing that.
21 But in those days they used implants. They had
22 to physically put something in the brain. And what Jose
23 Delgado originally did -- he was actually educated in
24 electrophysiology at the University of Madrid. He
25 graduated in 1950. Electrophysiology, as a degree
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.173
66
667
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 14
1 field, thinking about it in 1950, now 65 years ago, most
2 people don't even realize that's an area of higher
3 education today, much less that far back.
4 One of my mentors, Raul Makayla (phonetic), he
5 actually graduated University of Madrid in 1958, and his
6 area of interest was, essentially, the same, biomagnetic
7 and electric fields, effects on human physiology, and he
8 spent his career studying that.
9 Delgado, at Yale University, he initially was
10 mapping the brain of primates and humans by stimulating
11 various portions of the brain to figure out what was
12 responsible for what kind of activity. And then he
13 began to utilize the implants in those dramatic ways in
14 those film clips with the charging bull and he throws
15 the switch and the bull stops, to demonstrate that you
16 could take a creature from passive to highly aggressive
17 to passive to highly aggressive, just like flipping on
18 and off the lights in your living room.
19 What Delgado discovered by the mid-'80s is that
20 you didn't need any implants. You just needed to
21 manipulate the energy itself. And you didn't need a
22 great deal of energy.
23 Now, we've heard -- I forget the amount of
24 energy surrounding us now. Was it a quintillion? I
25 believe it was 18 zeros after the one that we heard
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.174
67
668
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 15
1 earlier. Back when I wrote the HAARP book in '94, just
2 radiofrequency energy alone, it was 200 million times
3 more around us every day than nature created in 1994.
4 Now, when you think about it, what did Delgado
5 discover? He discovered that one-fiftieth of the amount
6 of energy in the natural background noise of the earth
7 was sufficient to manipulate the behavior of human
8 beings if you could hit the right frequencies, if you
9 could hit those window frequencies that stimulated that
10 kind of activity.
11 Now, if you think about this -- again, by
12 analogy, think about dialing through the radio stations
13 on a radio. In between the stations you get the white
14 noise, the static, you get no clear signal. But when
15 you have resonance between the transmitter and the
16 receiver, then you get a nice, clear signal.
17 The same is true in our physiology. Whether
18 you're looking at stimulating or affecting a specific
19 element in the body, molecules in the body, cell
20 structures or organ structures or even the human mind,
21 it's about manipulating the underlying energy.
22 When you think about medical science in terms
23 of how the fork in the road is and how this kind of
24 applies to why don't we know more about this today,
25 well, there's lots of literature now. 25,000 sources, I
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.175
68
669
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 16
1 think we heard quoted earlier today. 25,000 sources
2 talking about the energy interactions with the human
3 body. That is a lot of information.
4 But what happened in medical science? A lot of
5 people that went into life sciences, they were really
6 good in the chemistry, a little weak in the math, so
7 they went to life sciences. People who were a little
8 better in the math, they went to physics. And then once
9 upon a time, these two came together and we got
10 biophysics, which is really the root of real health
11 science. If you really want to get to the meat of it,
12 you've got to get to the energetic interactions that
13 create chemical reactions that then manifest in the
14 body.
15 And that's what we kind of miss in so much of
16 our medicine. We followed a pharmaceutical model as
17 opposed to an electromagnetic model. In the '30s, prior
18 to World War II, that fork in the road was being
19 explored pretty aggressively, the energetic models. But
20 they were somehow lost in that shuffle and we ended up
21 with the pharmaceutical industry, and the results of
22 that, I think we can all not be quite so proud of.
23 In terms of where the technology is going and
24 where a lot of the science is going, it will be
25 electromedicine that cures most of what we call
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.176
69
670
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 17
1 incurable. It will also be that which enhances or
2 debilitates human consciousness itself.
3 Now, Jose Delgado, when he figured out that you
4 didn't need implants, you just need to manipulate the
5 energy itself, this became kind of the essence of sort
6 of where everything went from there.
7 But I want to roll back a little bit, a little
8 bit back in time, and talk more about the evolution of
9 mind control as technology starting with the work at
10 Harvard University of a gentleman, Estabrook, who was
11 working in the Harvard hypnotherapy labs in the 1920s.
12 You can look Estabrook up. Look him up at the Library
13 of Congress and you'll see his list of publications, and
14 I recommend that you do that.
15 What he decided was that you could create what
16 we would call today a Manchurian candidate. You could
17 take certain individuals, put them in a very, very deep
18 state of hypnosis and then over a period of time train
19 them so they would be like this super spy that you could
20 send into another country and they'd hang out for a year
21 or two, but if they got captured, they wouldn't really
22 remember any of their former self, and then when they
23 came back, in this case, into the United States, that we
24 would then give them the appropriate suggestions and
25 then extract the intelligence from them.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.177
70
671
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 18
1 And this is what Estabrook was working on. By
2 the 1930s, a lot of his work was being classified and he
3 continued to work in this field up through the 1960s.
4 His last book -- and I always like to read the last
5 thing someone writes, you know, because it tells you a
6 lot about, sort of, the conclusions and there are things
7 that you might discard bits and pieces as science
8 enlightens you and your experience enlightens you. And
9 what he talked about in that last book were the
10 experiments he was involved in using LSD and other
11 hallucinogenics in mind control, which he actually
12 talked about in a favorable sense.
13 And for those of you that remember, the CIA was
14 heavily involved in this in the 1960s and, in fact, the
15 whole area pre-1960s going back even to the Korean War,
16 which is sort of my next mark on the timeline.
17 The Korean War, we had prisoners, patriotic
18 young Americans come back from war and they're handing
19 out Communist leaflets on street corners, and the term
20 or the phrase brainwashing came into being. That's
21 where it came from. It came from that series of events
22 after the Korean War.
23 The idea of being able to manipulate people's
24 behavior and change them so profoundly became of
25 interest to the predecessor of the Central Intelligence
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.178
71
672
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 19
1 Agency and then later the Central Intelligence Agency.
2 And what they looked at were lots of different ways to
3 manipulate human behavior.
4 Now, when I was researching my first book with
5 Jeane Manning, "Angels Don't Play This HAARP", I was
6 looking for a good source document that would speak to
7 this, because you always read about this in secondary,
8 tertiary sources. And so I'm in a book room, a big
9 surplus book room, and I'm telling this guy that I know,
10 I really need this source. And as I'm having this
11 conversation, I reach unconsciously behind me into a box
12 and I pull out this book.
13 This is a really interesting one. This is
14 actually a presidential report. This is a report that
15 was commissioned at the time, 1975, to look at the
16 abuses of the CIA. Now, this came out of the Church
17 Committee reports, which were Congressional hearings
18 that took place in the early '70s to investigate the
19 abuses of the Central Intelligence Agency, the kind of
20 abuses that we read about today, because nothing really
21 changed. Supposedly, this was to change things.
22 Now, what's in this report? The LSD
23 experiments were in this report. The idea the Central
24 Intelligence Agency was domestically infiltrating civil
25 rights groups, antiwar groups, people that, essentially,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.179
72
673
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 20
1 opposed the government within the United States, which
2 was not part of their mandate, in fact, was illegal.
3 The fact that they were reading people's mail, utilizing
4 unwitting victims and experiments for mind control. All
5 of this came out in this report in 1975. And yet, the
6 CIA continues to do it even to this day.
7 Think about the kinds of activities that have
8 been reported pretty widely over the last few years,
9 whether it's digging through garbage to blackmail other
10 diplomats, which is something our Intelligence community
11 does, whether it's to send pallet loads of money into
12 countries like we did in Afghanistan to bribe officials
13 as a way of doing business, or whether it's to
14 assassinate people with drones, kidnap people and
15 torture them.
16 Now, most of us don't know people like this,
17 but this is the government that I unfortunately have
18 guiding my country right now. It's a government of
19 criminals. Now, people want to talk about, oh, this
20 couldn't happen here.
21 It has happened here. It's happened for
22 decades in the United States. This report by the
23 President's Commission touches the very tip of that
24 iceberg.
25 This is another document. This is -- this guy,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.180
73
674
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 21
1 Captain Tyler, he later became a colonel and retired.
2 He was involved in pretty much the sort of esoteric side
3 of some of the government research. This book -- this
4 chapter out of this book is called, "Low-Intensity
5 Conflict and Modern Technology". It was prepared by
6 Maxwell Air Force Base in 1984. And it was talking
7 about a large -- a variety of technologies.
8 But in this particular one, if you look at,
9 certainly, the subject lines, you have stimulation of ,
10 bones* generation, healing of fractures, treatment of
11 disease, healing of wounds. You look at behavior
12 modification in animals. You know, some of these things
13 that are listed here were kind of under the mysterious
14 category. They couldn't really explain what was
15 happening in 1984.
16 But the idea was to stimulate research in these
17 fields. So a number of things happened. A lot of money
18 started to flow into these areas. One of the reports
19 that came out in the 1980s as a result of some of this
20 was the Radiofrequency Dosimetry Handbook. It was a
21 big, thick handbook. It was produced by the University
22 of Utah under contract to the United States Air Force to
23 determine the radiofrequency dosages that were required
24 to override every vital organ of the human body, whether
25 it be the heart, the liver, the lungs, the kidneys, just
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.181
74
675
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 22
1 sort of preempt their natural function to be able to do
2 it remotely.
3 And the idea was to take that leap of
4 technology and begin to apply it into weapon systems.
5 Mind control. "The Economist". Cover story. Some of
6 you will remember this one. This is 2002, I believe.
7 Yeah, 2002. And what this cover story was about was
8 about the ethics of mind control. Not saying, hey, does
9 it exist or doesn't it exist? It's just saying it's
10 here right now. We really need to be debating whether
11 we should advance this technology, whether we should
12 limit this technology. "The Economist" is certainly a
13 credible publication. Not too much happened from this
14 story.
15 This is -- unfortunately, it's not showing up.
16 November -- you can get this one on my website. I'll
17 give you my website, because this is a very important
18 document. The Navy set up a new set of regulations for
19 human experiments. It was approved in 2006. You know,
20 in history, that's like tomorrow and yesterday, right?
21 It's, like, now. And in this they specifically call out
22 mind control experiments and who has the authority to
23 approve them. And the persons with the authority to
24 approve them is under secretaries of the Navy in the
25 case of Navy Intelligence or Naval research.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.182
75
676
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 23
1 Now, it's not just CIA. Naval Intelligence
2 does this work. The Marines have a section on
3 non-lethal weapons that this falls under. The Air Force
4 has the electromagnetic directorate, which is working in
5 an area called controlled effects, which deal, again,
6 with mind control and physiological effects on human
7 beings. In fact, they publish a publication called
8 "Technology Horizons". I believe it's the June 2004
9 issue. You can look it up. The cover story is on
10 controlled effects.
11 Now, what are controlled effects? The first
12 effect is attacking hardware; you know, like equipment,
13 like machines, to be able to interfere with the flow of
14 electrons through circuits to disrupt those machines to
15 operate. Not using bombs and bullets and the things of
16 history, but using energy itself to manipulate hardware.
17 The second sort of level of controlled effects
18 talked about in that article is the idea of manipulating
19 the software, the systems that run those systems, so
20 that you can disrupt the software, then you disrupt the
21 hardware, and things collapse.
22 And the third leg of controlled effects is the
23 human operator. And what they say in this particular
24 article produced by the electromagnetic director of the
25 Air Force is that we can target or create the illusion
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.183
76
677
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 24
1 of all of the senses in the human body; sight, sound,
2 touch, taste, to give people complete memory sets,
3 complete experiential sets that you wouldn't be able to
4 distinguish the synthetic from the real.
5 Now, think about that for a moment. What does
6 that do to court testimony in 20 years if this becomes
7 the norm? They're now talking about using this for
8 post-traumatic stress syndrome folks, people coming back
9 from warfare. This just sort of cleans up the garbage
10 of the mind and gets rid of that stress. Some people
11 think that's a great idea. Personally, I think that's
12 the biggest mistake we could ever make. Because
13 whatever those servicemen and women were engaged in --
14 what used to happen in warfare -- what happened in World
15 War II when everybody came back, they said, I don't ever
16 want to see my children in these things, I don't want to
17 see my grandchildren in these things. Wars need to be
18 put down, not amplified.
19 When you take the human factor out of warfare
20 and it becomes like a videogame, then our willingness to
21 withdraw from direct conflict no longer happens.
22 And think about where our military science has
23 gone. In fact, I want to mention another very important
24 publication. It was produced by the US Army War College
25 in the early 1980s. It's called the "Revolution of
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.184
77
678
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 25
1 Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War". And this
2 particular paper was talking about revolution of
3 military affairs. What is that exactly?
4 This is a leap as important as the introduction
5 of gunpowder in the middle ages in Europe, as important
6 as atomic weapons in the last century. And that's how
7 they characterize it. And what this is is the leap
8 where we move from ordinance, from bullets, bombs,
9 things that rip tissue and tear things up, to
10 electromagnetic weapon systems that keep sort of the
11 hardware intact, but debilitate the human operator to
12 the point of being combat ineffective. Or conversely,
13 enhance the possibilities within our own combatants
14 while degrading the abilities of others.
15 There's simple ways that you can achieve this.
16 You can introduce to the battlefield certain elemental
17 compounds that in small background amounts would not be
18 considered dangerous. Let me give you iodine as an
19 example. We all need a certain amount of iodine in the
20 body to maintain thyroid function. But if you have too
21 much iodine, you'll get poisoned. You'll die. You'll
22 get sick.
23 So what can you do? You can send a signal in
24 that resonates the very same signal strength and
25 frequency as iodine, you can send that signal in and the
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.185
78
679
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 26
1 body will begin to react as if its gotten this massive
2 load of iodine and show all the symptoms of iodine
3 poisoning. You check the thyroid; check the blood, it's
4 not there. Mystery illness.
5 Something as simple as that for manipulating
6 large populations, not necessarily with their consent
7 and not necessarily with clear knowledge, and nothing
8 shows up in the background that would say why this
9 poison actually exists that would account for this. A
10 simple way.
11 One of the other ways that this technology can
12 be exploited is really quite simple. There was an
13 article produced by "Parameters", which is a military
14 publication. "Parameters". You can look it up. It's
15 the -- I believe it was the Fall 1998, but you can look
16 up the article name called, "The Mind has no Firewall".
17 It's a very important article. This article talked
18 about all the various ways in which you could introduce
19 mind effects or mind control technologies using modern
20 technology today. And the original article was actually
21 written in a military journal called "Orienteer"
22 published in what is now Russia.
23 What's interesting about this is it said you
24 could use any electromagnetic carrier, whether it be
25 radio, TV, the Internet, now cell phones; but,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.186
79
680
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 27
1 essentially, any of these carriers, you can modulate a
2 signal on them that will manipulate behavior of segments
3 of the population.
4 And the Russians demonstrated this in a couple
5 of different ways. There was a program. It was called
6 "Undercurrents". It aired in the CBC, which is the
7 Canadian Public Broadcasting System. "Undercurrents"
8 did two really interesting stories that I got to
9 participate in. One was on HAARP and the other was on
10 mind control. And on the mind control story that they
11 did -- this was a very popular program in Canada at the
12 time and this particular segment was their highest rated
13 that they had ever run. And they had folks that came in
14 who were involved in the "Star Wars" initiative during
15 the Reagan Administration that couldn't talk about what
16 they did in the White House, but they could talk about
17 what they observed in Russia.
18 And one of the things that they talked about
19 was the idea that you could -- you could create, sort
20 of, this white noise and on this white noise carry a
21 signal. And so they put out this message, bring us
22 cake. And Russians at tea time, you know, they eat
23 these little cakes? I guess you do that in other parts
24 of Europe as well.
25 And so at the appointed time they began to
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.187
80
681
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 28
1 broadcast this. And workers from within that building
2 and on the street were bringing cake into the meeting
3 room without really knowing why they were doing it.
4 They just felt like doing it. Well, that was, in fact,
5 what they were programmed to do.
6 Now, this goes back. We're talking about
7 15-year-old technology. And when you think about sort
8 of where did it go from there, in 2006, there were a
9 couple contracts left by DARPA, which does research for
10 the defense industry in the United States. And DARPA
11 used to be run by a guy named Tony Tether. Tony Tether
12 was a good friend of Ben Eastlund's.
13 Now, what they were doing then was, they had
14 left two contracts to the University of California for
15 what's called electronic telepathy. Okay. Electronic
16 telepathy. The idea of reading another person's mind at
17 a distance by analyzing the emanations coming from this
18 area, being able to analyze that and determine and
19 interpret what it is. And then the other half of the
20 contract was to create complex signals to see if you
21 could transfer that array, so to speak, of signals into
22 another person's consciousness and whether they would
23 perceive the same images.
24 Now, there was work done by Elizabeth Rauscher
25 and her late husband, Bill Van Bise, in this very same
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.188
81
682
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 29
1 area. In fact, I have a copy of their unpublished paper
2 where they actually built an electronic circuit where
3 they could take a person in one room and a person in
4 another room, attach this person to that circuit and
5 this person to that circuit, and then, you know, the
6 psychic card where they show the triangles, the squares
7 and the circles and the little squiggly lines, a hundred
8 percent accurate with nine test subjects who had never
9 experienced consciously in any way any sense of
10 extrasensory perceptions or psychic perceptions. They
11 did it with hardware, transferring thoughts from one to
12 the other.
13 Now -- which tells me it's probably a little
14 more simple than what DARPA's doing. But when Ben
15 Eastlund was doing work on HAARP and he was doing other
16 work for DARPA at the time and we had talked about him
17 in our first publication, and then actually after
18 publication became friends, and Ben Eastlund's attitude
19 was, you know, some things just shouldn't be done. And
20 one of the things that he had been working on was
21 whether modification technologies, which he was at that
22 time and when we first met, making that technology
23 available to the military. And after some dialogue with
24 us and others, he decided there's certain technologies
25 that are not safe in the hands of military.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.189
82
683
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 30
1 At one point along the course I began doing
2 quite a bit of work on this whole mind effects issue.
3 And I caught the attention of a woman, Dorothy Lay.
4 Now, Dorothy is one of the heirs to the Lay, as in
5 Frito-Lay and PepsiCo Corporation. So a very wealthy
6 family. Dorothy was very interested in this technology
7 specifically as it applied to victims.
8 And so she approached me at one point and asked
9 if I would become a member of her board of directors for
10 a non-profit that she was setting up to deal with these
11 kinds of technologies. And I've got to think about
12 whether I should tell you the rest of this story, and I
13 think I will, because why not?
14 So I have this thing, intuition. All of us
15 have it. I used to not pay as much attention to it as I
16 do today. When my intuition tells me something, I
17 listen, because when I really think about it, it's never
18 been wrong. Neither has yours, if you really think
19 about it. Or maybe you don't think about it and just
20 start acting on it.
21 So my intuition said -- and this was a very
22 difficult time for me in 2002. In 2002, I had been
23 betrayed by a very good friend, economically was
24 bankrupt in the middle of this work, because I started
25 this work in '94. Economically was being crushed. And
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.190
83
684
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 31
1 at that point I was deciding whether I was going to stay
2 in this work at all.
3 And I'm going through a bunch of my files and I
4 see this file and it's marked Lay. And I remember this
5 person had contacted us needing some information and we
6 provided it. And we never charge for that. I mean, the
7 way we operated is, I sold books. And people like you
8 bought my books. And they allowed me to do this work.
9 I didn't write for grants where somebody could
10 manipulate me and control me and tell me what to say. I
11 didn't go out and find some publisher that would edit
12 out my work. I risked my own money. I published my
13 book. And then I asked people to help me by supporting
14 that work by buying that book. And I tell you, I made
15 two and a half million dollars and I spent that two and
16 a half million dollars over 20 years doing what I'm
17 doing right now.
18 A VOICE: Thank you.
19 (Applause.)
20 DR. BEGICH: And the whole idea was just to
21 educate. I didn't deal with victims. Okay. And the
22 reason I didn't was because I felt that that was putting
23 the cart before the horse. We first need to educate
24 people that the technology is real, that this could
25 really happen to people and from that foundation, and
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.191
84
685
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 32
1 that became the foundation of my work in this.
2 So Dorothy calls me on the phone and she says,
3 will you be on my board? And I talked to her for about
4 an hour. At the end of the hour, I said, no, I can't be
5 on your board.
6 She said, well, why not?
7 I said, because my intuition is telling me I
8 really can't be on your board.
9 And she goes, well, I deserve more than that.
10 I said, okay. I don't know your board members,
11 I don't know who your board is, but something in here is
12 saying there's a problem there and I don't want to be
13 associated with them.
14 (Applause.)
15 DR. BEGICH: So it was a couple of months later
16 I got the call back. Because I told her also, I said,
17 you have millions. You have the ability. Go research
18 what they say they're doing. Go see if it's really
19 being done and find out for yourself. Do your due
20 diligence again.
21 And she did. A couple months later she came
22 back and she said, you were right. They were defrauding
23 me a number of ways. I've cleared out my board. It's
24 just me now and my attorney. Will you be on my board?
25 Now, bear in mind, I'm in a pretty desperate
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.192
85
686
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 33
1 situation economically. At the time I have five
2 children at home. I've got people to take care of. I
3 have an economy that I've got to manage. And I tell
4 Dorothy, no, I can't be on your board.
5 She says, well, why not?
6 I said, well, I need to meet you first in
7 person, eyeball to eyeball. I said, we're going to talk
8 for three days. We're not going to talk about your
9 foundation. I want to know everything I'm ever going to
10 read about you and your family in the newspaper. I want
11 you to have the same knowledge level of me. And I want
12 to know what your world view is before I join with you
13 in achieving that world view, because you have the means
14 and I have the willingness if that world view is shared.
15 So we spent a few days. We decided that I
16 could do this. And for four years I worked with her.
17 And we put together, as her major effort was, a
18 conference on mind effects. But it wasn't open to the
19 public. It was closed to the public. And it was to
20 bring some key people together to have a conversation
21 that would be open and free.
22 And one of those people I invited was Ben
23 Eastlund, who by then I'd gotten to know, had watched
24 what he had done in terms of his career. He was well
25 connected with DARPA at the time.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.193
86
687
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 34
1 And I called him and I said, you know, Ben,
2 would you consider participating in this conference?
3 And he said, you know, if you had asked me this
4 seven or eight years ago, on a scale of one to ten, ten
5 being the relevance and importance of this, and one
6 being irrelevant and unimportant, I would have given
7 this a one or a two. He goes, but -- he goes, every
8 time I talk to Tony Tether or others at DARPA, nobody's
9 laughing about mind control anymore and it's a nine or a
10 ten and, yes, I'll participate in your conference.
11 The next person I asked was Garth Nicolson.
12 Does that name ring any bells for anybody? Okay. Garth
13 Nicolson was a full professor, I believe it was Texas
14 A&M. He taught medical students. He taught over a
15 thousand medical students. He was the guy that blew the
16 whistle on Gulf War Syndrome and testified in our
17 Congress six times before his wife was fired as a
18 molecular biologist from Texas A&M. And he was tenured;
19 they couldn't fire him. But they definitely harassed
20 him, because he was one of the first courageously enough
21 to step up to the plate and complain about what had been
22 happening in the Gulf War; we depleted uranium and some
23 of the other technologies that were being applied there.
24 Well, the best thing that ever happened to him
25 was he got out of the university system. He formed a
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.194
87
688
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 35
1 nonprofit to deal with chronic disease. And he was
2 somebody that I watched maintain his course under really
3 difficult circumstances. So he was invited to that
4 conference.
5 I invited the daughter of my mentor, Raul
6 Makayla. She's an electrophysiologist. She serves on
7 one of the boards in Russia that regulates medical
8 applications of lasers. She's an electrophysiologist.
9 Quite brilliant. We invited her.
10 We invited Rosalie Bertell. Does anyone
11 remember Rosalie Bertell? Okay. A few. Rosalie's
12 passed. Also deceased now. She was a mathematician,
13 physicist, biologist. She taught higher mathematics to
14 doctoral students at Berkeley. She was also a nun.
15 It's kind of an odd combination. She was the lead
16 statistician to go in to Bhopal for the World Health
17 Organization after that huge chemical disaster. But she
18 was considered one of the top people in the world for
19 dealing with victims of radiological experiments,
20 including electromagnetic radiation. She actually took
21 some of our work and added to it and published a book on
22 the HAARP system and its effect on human beings on this
23 sort of broad scale. So we had invited Rosalie, who had
24 been through some really difficult times as well, rose
25 out of her own ashes and maintained her ethical
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.195
88
689
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 36
1 platform.
2 The other person we invited was Alexander
3 Kaivarainen. Does anybody recognize that name? He was
4 the former head of the USSR Academy of Science
5 Biophysics Department for ten years. And this is the
6 area that really gets into the meat of what we're
7 talking about here today. Now, what got -- Alex, I
8 believe, is deceased now also. You know, all these
9 guys, you know, they're a lot older than me and they
10 keep dying of old age. But Alex got his stimulation in
11 science at a young age watching a demonstration of the
12 paranormal, ESP, telepathy, these kinds of things in
13 Russia when he was a teenager. And it just really
14 caught his interest.
15 When I met Alex, he was in his 60s and he was
16 the brightest top five physicists on the planet,
17 recognized by institutions around the world. And what
18 he had determined is that there were rational reasons
19 for why these things manifested. So he was invited to
20 this conference and actually presented a paper giving
21 the mathematics and the physics that lends itself to
22 these extrasensory possibilities, these things that the
23 military now calls anomalous human capabilities. We
24 used to call it extrasensory perception or ESP, but now
25 they give it a new name because there's a lot of
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.196
89
690
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 37
1 connotations with that that kind of get you discredited
2 in certain segments of the scientific community.
3 So I want to talk -- roll back again a little
4 bit -- I want to talk about binaural beat, which I had
5 mentioned earlier in this presentation. And I jump
6 around a little bit. It's kind of my style. I used to
7 not even use these things, but I think people feel more
8 comfortable using them.
9 The binaural beat. We can't hear these really,
10 really low frequency signals, because the human ear
11 doesn't quite work that way. Below a certain frequency,
12 the human ear won't hear.
13 Now, a gentleman by the name of Robert Monroe
14 developed a method using binaural beat where you could
15 send in a signal within the range of human hearing, say,
16 at 15,000 Hertz or pulses per second or cycles per
17 second, coming in one ear at, say, 15,000, another
18 signal coming in the other ear at, say, 15,007. Within
19 the cranium they will cancel each other out and leave a
20 beat frequency of seven, the difference between the two.
21 15,000, 15,007. The beat frequency becomes seven Hertz,
22 seven pulses per second, which happens to be in the
23 upper Theta range, and this is where the brain then
24 drives to.
25 At the same time that that occurs, you get a
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.197
90
691
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 38
1 hemispheric balance, a distribution of energy across
2 both hemispheres of the brain, the analytical side and
3 the creative side and working together. This is
4 actually how human beings are supposed to function.
5 This is how young children predominantly function, with
6 more of a balance between the hemispheres, where the
7 energy is more balanced. And then we educate them.
8 And with young girls, who we say are more
9 intuitive and have this other operation of the brain,
10 and young boys are more analytical, and now we kind of
11 treat everybody the same so we kind of dumb them all
12 down to the same level. But when you look at young
13 children and you look at where their brain activity is
14 and between 3 and, say, 5 or 6 years old, they have
15 this predominant brain frequencies or a lot of Theta
16 brain frequencies coming in and then some ELF and then
17 higher frequency ranges.
18 Now, what is Theta? Theta states if we're in a
19 Theta state, we're kind of like in that dream-like state
20 between awake and asleep where you're consciously aware
21 of your dreams. That's where 3 to 5 year olds spend a
22 good deal of their time. That's why their imaginations,
23 as we call it, are so active. And we keep saying, oh,
24 don't pay attention to that, don't pay attention to
25 that. This was our first attempt to shut down the
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.198
91
692
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 39
1 intuitive combinations of the way the brain is actually
2 supposed to work.
3 In fact, for those who have a Christian
4 background, you know Jesus Christ himself said, look at
5 the little children, watch what they do. You know, I
6 think I heard somebody say something about this earlier,
7 little children come to the table kind of innocent with
8 a view of the world that's quite different than the rest
9 of ours. But the brain activity of children is unique
10 and we begin to take that out of them in the structure
11 of the way we educate.
12 So what Robert Monroe -- he was actually a
13 radio engineer. He owned a bunch of radio stations. He
14 had this really weird experience. It's an OBE, an outer
15 body experience, that he had that kind of threw him.
16 You know, it didn't make any sense to him. So he
17 began -- he also noticed that in the background there
18 was this kind of noise that he perceived.
19 So he began to experiment and he created this
20 technique for binaural beat. He developed a whole
21 series. In fact, he actually got US patents on a
22 binaural beat. This is an image taken out of one of
23 those US patents from 1994, and this is showing the
24 brain before the activity, before turning on the
25 Hemi-Sync, and this is after, showing a more even
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.199
92
693
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 40
1 distribution in a more rhythmic pattern in the
2 brainwaves as you see in the upper right-hand corner.
3 Let me roll back again so you can kind of see
4 the comparison. Normal brain, kind of disorganized
5 activities happening all through the brain, and then a
6 coherent signal creating a hemispheric balance and an
7 optimization of brain potential.
8 So what did he do with this? He developed a
9 whole series of things; audio input technology,
10 essentially, to manipulate behavior, but where you're in
11 control of that manipulation. So you want to quit
12 smoking, you get his CD on quit smoking. It affects the
13 brain in such a way, becomes compelling, very affective.
14 Sleep disorders can be addressed in this way.
15 They have someone be able to relax, meditation,
16 concentration, accelerated learning. A whole array of
17 things can be done. And they did this by working with,
18 over the course of many, many, many, many years, and now
19 his daughter doing the work of working with thousands of
20 people to determine which signals actually created which
21 effects and then developing technology that they could
22 place in the hands of individuals to make the choice on
23 how to use it.
24 Now, that's kind of an interesting way of
25 looking at technology. It was my area of interest, in
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.200
93
694
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 41
1 the beginning of all of this work, was not looking for
2 the dark side of all of this, but in the mid-'80s I got
3 very interested in light and sound stimulation of the
4 brain that capitalized on sound signals and flickering
5 light for brain entrainment. Entrain the brain where
6 the brain will follow that external signal or what's
7 called FFR, frequency following response. So very
8 little energy.
9 Let me roll back to Delgado again.
10 One-fiftieth of the amount of energy the earth creates
11 is sufficient to move your brain into very specific
12 states. Dialing that radio up, if you will. This is
13 just another technique for altering brain activity that
14 might be beneficial, but you're in control of it, not
15 somebody else.
16 I'm going to skip some of these just because
17 they're not so relevant. And I'm going to close the
18 images and let me just go back into the whole dialogue
19 of this, mind effects.
20 When I think about sort of where do we go with
21 this conference, when we put that conference together
22 with the Lay Institute, our purpose was to put together
23 these really good thinkers to try and see if we could
24 create a synergy between them.
25 And when I first got interested in doing
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.201
94
695
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 42
1 something actively in science, it wasn't about HAARP and
2 it wasn't about mind control. The role that I thought I
3 would play -- and I was working in a government office
4 at the time, and it was -- my friend said, you make your
5 living with your left foot. Because I could make my
6 living, but the rest of my creativity could be engaged
7 elsewhere and me working in bureaucracy was really a bad
8 match.
9 But the point was, my youngest son, when I was
10 getting really frustrated with my work, said, change
11 channels.
12 You know, I'm thinking about this, because I
13 had just given him this discussion about creativity was
14 like changing the channels on the TV set, right, and so
15 he's feeding it back, time to change the channels, Dad.
16 So I thought about it. And what I decided I
17 would do is -- I read independently in science over 20
18 years. I had read some really compelling things from,
19 say, one guy in one branch of science. I thought, boy,
20 if this person could ever meet that person, you could
21 really see something happen.
22 And the first paper I actually ever presented
23 in science, I was 19 and it was at another obscure
24 conference that I ended up in on biorhythm research.
25 And my paper was contrasting at that time the Soviet
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.202
95
696
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 43
1 method of research versus the US method. Now, the US
2 method was compartmentalization, separate. You know,
3 distill things down to the smallest subspecialty and
4 then push these people into a corner and let them do
5 this bit of the research. And then you've got nine
6 other people over here and ten other groups over there
7 and fifteen groups over there, and somewhere all of this
8 stuff comes together and it gets really sloppy. Okay.
9 It's sloppy because there's a lot of repetition; it's
10 very expensive.
11 Now, the Russians, Soviets at the time, they
12 didn't have the money for that kind of research, to
13 spread it out that way, and they used a very different
14 method. They took experts from all of these different
15 fields, even though they didn't seem like they should
16 connect. They put them in the same room to work
17 together to develop science. That's why when you look
18 at the exposures that we had seen earlier, what are the
19 regulatory exposures of electromagnetic fields, the
20 Russians in the '90s and the '80s were a thousand times
21 more stringent than they were in the US.
22 Well, why was it? Because they had actually
23 made the observations that we hadn't made and actually
24 connected the dots in a way to say, hey, this is
25 dangerous. That doesn't mean they followed their own
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.203
96
697
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 44
1 regulations, because they probably didn't. They did
2 whatever was expeditious there. But at least they
3 recognized the physiological responses to
4 electromagnetic fields and the fact that you could
5 manipulate it.
6 What was discovered by a guy named Allan Frey,
7 he was looking at microwaves, and he discovered that
8 there's this flickering effect, but it only occurred
9 when you pulse-modulated the signal. And if you look
10 at -- I heard earlier, it's always scalars. It's always
11 scalars. It's not vectors. It's not electromagnetic
12 fields as we think about them.
13 But if you look at the ones that affect human
14 psychology and physiology, if you look at those signals,
15 they have a very quick rise time and a very fast drop.
16 They're like the punch, like punching that ionosphere to
17 create the ELF. It's like those signals. Those
18 modulations on these other carriers are meant to trigger
19 that effect by you entraining to that pulse, that
20 firing, or some submodulation being carried on a general
21 carrier.
22 Now, if you remember the first Gulf War, the
23 first Bush War, and you remember how the Iraqi Army just
24 sort of gave up. The fourth largest Army in the world
25 just like school children on their first fire drill
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.204
97
698
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 45
1 throwing their hands up and surrendering, you know,
2 thousands of guys to a few dozen. What was that about?
3 Now, I speculated on this. And then it was
4 Scottish media that later reported on this and said it
5 was Project Solo, which was a project operated by the
6 United States. And what we did is we had this C-130
7 flying over the country at the time and it was taking
8 and piggybacking the signal on the radio broadcast going
9 into the region that were broadcasting the Muslim music
10 and prayers.
11 So all these guys are in their bunkers
12 listening to their favorite radio station. Unbeknownst
13 to them, the subsignals being played on that broadcast
14 created anxiety, high levels of anxiety and fear. And
15 then you watched this Army just collapse under this.
16 And that was kind of the -- in my view, the
17 first test of could you really do this, could you do it
18 in this adversarial environment.
19 And one of my friends joked, hey, it's the
20 perfect Republican weapon, right? You can keep all the
21 hardware in place, but totally wipe out the population.
22 Zbigniew Brzezinski said, in between two ways,
23 it doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Conservatives.
24 They just use different rationale for accomplishing
25 their political ends. On the conservative side, the
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.205
98
699
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 46
1 Neocon side, it might be the fascination with gadgetry
2 and new technology, as Zbigniew Brzezinski said, and on
3 the liberal side it might be the idea that we're doing
4 this for your own good. The government is here, right?
5 And we've all heard that before.
6 The fact of the matter is, when you start
7 thinking about mind control technologies as a concept,
8 the idea that someone believes that they can interfere
9 with your free will, this is something that most
10 religions in the world say God won't even do. Yet, men
11 think this is their appropriate direction in technology,
12 to interfere with the way consciousness flows.
13 Now, think about for a moment what are the
14 things that -- what is the easiest way to manipulate
15 consciousness? The easiest way, the simplest way.
16 Create an environment of anxiety and fear. Because what
17 happens at that point is you cannot reach your higher
18 states of consciousness.
19 If you look at Monroe, rhythmic patterns in the
20 Hemi-Sync as an example, higher states of consciousness
21 are associated with those rhythmic patterns within the
22 brain; not that incoherent scattering of death and
23 information and energy.
24 So if you create a certain environment of fear
25 and anxiety and you look at an EEG monitor and the brain
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
Page
No.206
99
700
of
ofof
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 47
1 activity of an individual, you see it's kind of
2 scattered in patterns. One person is experiencing
3 higher emotions; love, compassion. You begin to see
4 rhythmic patterns.
5 Another simple way of seeing is something that
6 you can actually measure. Take two people that are in
7 love and they -- you know the saying, and I looked into
8 her eyes, right? If you actually gaze into the eyes of
9 another individual and hold that gaze, you'll begin to
10 mirror each other's brain activity in a pretty unique
11 way. Your breathing will even synchronize if you do it
12 long enough. Two people's breathing begins to
13 synchronize. Their energy fields begin to synchronize.
14 And at the same time, their awareness, their
15 intuitions elevate and their rhythmic patterns in the
16 brain can be seen. If you can create an environment of
17 fear -- think about the advertising you see on
18 television. It's all about how you smell, how your
19 breath is, you know? It's all these things to make you
20 uncomfortable.
21 Think about the 6:00 news. Now, we heard
22 someone talk about the 6:00 news and how that kind of
23 works. You come home from a hard day at work. Most
24 people sit down in front of the television set. They're
25 already fatigued. They begin to watch the television.
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.207
100
701ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 48
1 And then their spouse hollers, it's time for dinner;
2 it's time for dinner. How many of you've been there,
3 right? Nobody's listening. No one's hearing. Because
4 they're in a light trance-like state.
5 Now, if you look in a dark room -- the
6 television is here -- look behind you at the white wall
7 and look at the flicker rate. If that flicker rate is a
8 coherent signal within a certain range through the optic
9 nerves, your brain will lock onto that signal. If you
10 monitor the brain activity at that time, you'll drop
11 into this highly-suggestive state and now you listen to
12 the advertising.
13 Now, every school of psychology teaches
14 frequency following response today and that you can
15 create these kinds of effects. Would they apply in
16 advertising? Of course they would. That's why
17 advertising works so well. It works because it's
18 convincing and compelling.
19 When you look at the 6:00 news, would somebody
20 utilize that in broadcasting the news of the latest
21 propaganda from whatever source it's coming from? I
22 would speculate -- today I would speculate and say yes.
23 When you think about how simple it is to create
24 that agitation. There was a person at Valencia
25 University who published a paper in 1995 talking about
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.208
101
702ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 49
1 this whole concept. And what he said back then was you
2 could create a complex signal, broadcast it out over a
3 large area that just created the sense that something's
4 not right. Unease.
5 And then you go watch the 6:00 news and they
6 indict some specific ethnic group, maybe it's Muslims,
7 and then a certain amount of that anger gets diverted
8 that way. Well, in a day where a lot of things are
9 decided on the laser edge of populations, on majorities,
10 this is a very, very powerful tool and one quite simple
11 tool to apply in the modern world.
12 When you think about news feeds today, how much
13 is really investigative reporting and how much of it is
14 just spitting out somebody's press release, right? Very
15 little investigative reporting today because it's
16 expensive, because it's not immediate, and when you look
17 at the news media today, it's almost immediate and most
18 of it is just meant to entertain. It's not meant to
19 inform.
20 You know, freedom of the press, it used to have
21 something to do with keeping an informed public so we
22 could make good decisions and we could govern as a
23 public. Today we debate the media as freedom of speech.
24 Say whatever you want, say it however you want, but
25 nobody takes responsibility and we have the neutered
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.209
102
703ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 50
1 neutral news. And if you really believe it's neutral,
2 come on.
3 Everybody who assigns a story to a reporter
4 knows that reporter's biased. The editors have bias.
5 It comes out in the news and what gets published and
6 what doesn't. How many stories about mind control hit
7 the news? Occasionally. The economists might pick it
8 up. Somebody might pick up a little bit, a piece of it.
9 But no one has really taken it on as a topic and
10 consistently pursued it.
11 Yet, when you think about modern technology and
12 the resolution -- now, we've been talking about things
13 that have happened in the past, and somebody even
14 mentioned this, MK-ULTRA is a program -- you've heard it
15 alluded to. That was the CIA's program. It had 144
16 subprojects under it.
17 Most of the records surrounding that were
18 shredded by a guy named Gottlieb, who was responsible
19 for that at the Central Intelligence Agency during the
20 Church Committee hearings. We never really got the
21 truth back then. But the resolution, the ability to do
22 this, has become increasingly refined as our technology
23 has advanced.
24 When you think about technological advances,
25 one of the things I read says that technology from the
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.210
103
704ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 51
1 invention of the wheel to where we are today, it doubles
2 about every nine to ten months. Wow. Think about it.
3 Invention of the wheel to where we are today, ten months
4 from now we're going to double that, and then we're
5 going to keep doing that.
6 It used to be every five years in the 1980s,
7 and it kept shrinking as our computing power increased
8 and our ability to manipulate large amounts of data
9 increased.
10 Now, a super computer, think about a super
11 computer. A super computer will do somewhere, when I
12 was doing this work, about 280 teraflops a second, which
13 at that time would be like six billion people on the
14 planet with hand calculators doing a calculation every
15 60 seconds for 60 hours to do what that super computer
16 could do in a second.
17 Well, the next evolution -- some think it's
18 already here -- are the quantum computers. What will
19 the quantum computer do? A quantum computer in one hour
20 will do what a super computer does in a trillion years.
21 It's back to this analogy of how much EMF do we have out
22 there.
23 Well, think about the same kind of
24 amplification and computing power. You look at privacy
25 as a concept. It doesn't exist in the world today,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.211
104
705ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 52
1 right? Virtually everything about us is catalogued,
2 tracked, whether it's your GPS on your phone, whether
3 it's your phone conversations -- in the United States,
4 every piece of mail is photographed for who it went to
5 and who sent it.
6 When you think about your telecommunications,
7 your Internet connections, Google, AT&T, Verizon, all of
8 them have violated the very essence of what personal
9 privacy is all about.
10 Because today, in the 21st Century, we need a
11 revolution, an evolution of what privacy is all about.
12 Because you, experiencing the victimization of this
13 technology, are the pinnacle of the abuse. But everyone
14 is subject to abuse of personal privacy.
15 You used to think about it, it would start and
16 end in our physical doorway in our home. It has nothing
17 in your home compared to what is in data banks stored on
18 every single human being in this room.
19 Now, people say, oh, don't worry about it. We
20 don't have the ability to collect. We don't have the
21 resolution to look into it. Quantum computers will give
22 that resolution. Whichever government finds quantum
23 computing first will be able to hack through every
24 security code for every system on the planet within
25 hours. They'll be able to predict with so much accuracy
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.212
105
706ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 53
1 by collecting all that data and analyzing that data, it
2 will almost seem a spiritual event.
3 But it will only be accurate up to a certain
4 point. And then there will be a little bit of a flaw.
5 And over time that flaw will amplify to where it's big
6 flaws. But we'll rely increasingly on these systems to
7 guide our world, to guide our ideas, our philosophy, and
8 how we pursue the world.
9 The Internet. What people think about that is
10 the world wide mind of the 21st Century. PBS, our
11 Public Broadcasting System, did a special called "The
12 World Wide Mind". And they say within 100 years -- and
13 I say within 20 years or even now -- maybe it already
14 exists now -- but within 20 years that you'll be able to
15 connect the physical minds of all of the people on the
16 planet in a world wide mind.
17 Now, that might appeal to some. It doesn't
18 really appeal to me from the standpoint of technology.
19 I think we already have that on a certain level. I
20 think we already are connected on a certain level. Our
21 belief systems limit our ability to access that level,
22 but I believe it's here.
23 And I've seen enough demonstrations of it. You
24 know, all those scientists I had in that room for that
25 mind effects conference, the part that really blew me
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.213
106
707ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 54
1 away that I didn't expect was what they really centered
2 on was the idea -- and this was Rosalie Bertell, the nun
3 and physicist, and she said that the next leap is going
4 to be the leap where we realize or we recognize or we
5 remember our extrasensory perceptions, our anonymous
6 capabilities as human beings and that becomes the next
7 evolution of the human kind.
8 And what suppresses that is fear and anxiety,
9 because you cannot reach those cases of consciousness as
10 long as you're in fear and anxiety. And anyone who
11 purports or is a victim of these technologies, do you
12 have anxiety, do you have fear? Of course you do. Do
13 you have the ability to reach those higher states of
14 consciousness in that condition? It's physiologically
15 not possible.
16 So when you think about entire populations,
17 whether it's religion injecting fear or whether it's
18 government injecting fear or as my friend used to say,
19 you know, the king keeps you poor and the church keeps
20 you dumb, kind of was the early idea when you think
21 about how things evolved in Europe several hundred years
22 ago.
23 When you think about modern technology on the
24 backdrop of that concept, what's changed? Nothing's
25 changed. It's just the same deal. You know, 6,000 wars
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.214
107
708ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 55
1 in 4,000 years, most of them over religion; let me give
2 you a clue, God doesn't need any help killing anybody.
3 God can probably do it himself or herself.
4 The fact of the matter is, the idea that people
5 would just be evil on -- and I think I heard earlier
6 today that the psychopaths are in the minority. I
7 believe they are. I think really evil-to-the-core
8 people, they're out there, but they're not this mass.
9 Most people do things because they believe they're
10 right, and then they want to impose their rightness on
11 other people.
12 And this is kind of a mistake and then we end
13 up in this conflict between ideas without being fair and
14 recognizing people's right to disagree. And I heard it
15 said earlier, certain things you can't say in Germany.
16 Certain things you can't say in a movie theater, too.
17 You know, you can't yell fire. Now, it makes good
18 sense. You don't want to yell fire in a movie theater.
19 Some would say what we're doing here is yelling
20 fire in a movie theater because we're letting people
21 know what we know, what we've concluded from a good deal
22 of research.
23 You know, my books are written, every page at
24 the bottom of each page are the footnotes. Some of you
25 find that distracting. Personally, I want to know where
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.215
108
709ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 56
1 the information came from as I'm reading it, not a week
2 later as I'm contemplating it. I want to know the
3 source.
4 And so in the publications that I've written,
5 1600 source documents, reviews out of a matrix of a
6 hundred thousand that we had available to us, more or
7 less. 20,000 have made it into my archives and 1600
8 have made it into four books on technology dealing with
9 mind effects, dealing with HAARP, dealing with personal
10 privacy issues. A lot of the things go unreleased in
11 the last four years.
12 You can look at my publications from 1999 and
13 2000, and you'll see the same things, because the old
14 literature showed enough to come to those conclusions.
15 When I testified in the European Parliament in
16 the '90s, at their invitation -- and this was another --
17 a good side story for technology. A gentleman by the
18 name of Thomas Spencer, he was from the UK, he was a
19 Parliamentarian at the time, and he was the Chairman of
20 the Environmental Subcommittee of the European
21 Parliament. And he had contacted me. Somebody had
22 given him the book on HAARP and he was very interested
23 in this. So we had a conversation. And at my expense,
24 I flew to Brussels and spent a few days with him talking
25 about the issue and brought with me a couple feet of
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.216
109
710ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 57
1 unclassified documents for his research team to take a
2 look at.
3 What happened then is he moved in the European
4 Parliament -- he was a Conservative, by the way, and he
5 moved into a Foreign Affairs Chairman, a very powerful
6 position, an ideal position for dealing with the things
7 that we were dealing with at the time.
8 So we -- at his invitation, I came over to
9 testify in front of the group on security and
10 disarmament in the European Parliament on HAARP and on
11 non-lethal weapons, the kinds of things we've been
12 talking about today, the manipulation of human beings.
13 Now, they do it a lot differently than we do it
14 in the US. In the US, when you have public hearings,
15 the public actually gets to come. In the European
16 Parliament, the public meeting is you have to have an
17 invitation to come. So that's kind of different. You
18 know, I hadn't really thought much about that.
19 And they also -- they can also do things behind
20 closed doors, which, you know, we theoretically can't do
21 in the United States. You can't have a meeting without
22 the public invited or the media invited.
23 So what happened the night before the hearing
24 is the Committee met with myself, one of the other
25 people testifying, and a member of the press and we
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.217
110
711ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 58
1 spent five and a half hours in a non-official meeting to
2 talk about these issues, so that when we actually gave
3 our testimony the following day, they would have
4 formulated a set of questions to give us the opportunity
5 to follow along. So it was a great way to do it,
6 because then they at least had a good base of knowledge.
7 Now, in that private meeting we demonstrated a
8 technology using infrasound where you could transfer
9 sound through electrodes attached to the skin where you
10 would perceive that proverbial voice in the head. We
11 demonstrated that to the Parliamentarians in that closed
12 session.
13 And then we went into the hearing the following
14 day. And it was Rosalie Bertell, which is where I met
15 her, testifying on our side. It was -- I can't remember
16 the gentleman's name, but he was from a group called
17 GRIP in Brussels that does research on weapon systems
18 particularly and he had done his Master's thesis on
19 HAARP, and so he was there.
20 We had someone from the International Red Cross
21 that had done work on non-lethal weapons and was a
22 specialist in this particular area. And then I was
23 there.
24 We each got 15 minutes to present. And then I
25 got an hour of questions from the committee in the open
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.218
111
712ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 59
1 hearing where I had the opportunity to talk about some
2 of these things. And right around that time there had
3 been this incident in Japan where children watching a
4 cartoon that had a certain flicker rate had caused over
5 700 children to go to the hospital with epileptic
6 seizures. Now, remember, non-ionizing radiation is not
7 a problem, right? A flicker of the TV caused 700 kids
8 to go into the hospital.
9 Now, some say that was by design. Some say
10 that was by accident. But it was a perfect illustration
11 for talking about non-ionizing radiation in the European
12 Parliament because they had all read that story. It was
13 fresh.
14 The other thing demonstrating infrasound,
15 something that had never been demonstrated, to my
16 knowledge, in that type of a meeting, to show that you
17 could actually transfer sound without necessarily
18 involving the ears.
19 Now, there's another technology that was
20 advanced by a guy named Woody Norris -- he won the
21 Lemelson Prize at MIT for this particular technology,
22 and I believe the year was 2004. You can look up Woody
23 Norris -- and his was using acoustic heterodyne where he
24 could send in two signals from two different sources,
25 point them at an individual in the crowd, and they would
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.219
112
713ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 60
1 hear this voice in their head and nobody else would hear
2 it.
3 Well, he won a half a million dollars for that
4 prize, organized a company called ATCO. You can look
5 them up. They're a public company. And he sold that
6 technology to the military for perimeter protection.
7 You know, where they could have these sort of alarm
8 systems so when the protestors got too close they'd hear
9 these warning signs that nobody else was hearing.
10 Now, you think about that for a moment.
11 Imagine -- this is why the European Parliament got
12 interested, because we used this illustration. Now,
13 imagine a national leader standing up in front of a
14 group and all of a sudden they hear voices in their head
15 that nobody else hears. That's the end of that guy,
16 right? I mean, he's out of there. And that's exactly
17 what that technology can do. And that was one
18 demonstration.
19 Now, some have said that you can pulse modulate
20 on a single beam and create the same effect or utilize
21 something like HAARP, not so much for voice in the head,
22 but for certainly changing emotional state of large
23 segments of the population.
24 When we looked at all of this, we even looked
25 back -- you know, where else could this have been used?
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.220
113
714ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 61
1 And there was a device in Vietnam called the Lida
2 machine, L-i-d-a. A guy who researched this was a guy
3 named Ross Adey, who is, unfortunately, also deceased.
4 Ross Adey was brilliant and was utilized by the
5 government, by private sector as an expert in these
6 kinds of areas.
7 Well, he was asked to look at -- this
8 particular device had been captured during the Vietnam
9 War. It was a Russian device. And it created the
10 entrainment effect using flickering light and sound.
11 And they used it for interrogating prisoners by putting
12 them into that, like, trance-like state and then
13 extracting intelligence from them. Now, that's the
14 1960s. Again, this is low resolution, low technology.
15 As computing powers increased, as our knowledge
16 in human physiology has increased, as our knowledge of
17 the electromagnetic nature of human beings has
18 increased, the ability to manipulate large segments of
19 the population comes easily achieved, either as a side
20 effect or unfortunate disaster of our technology.
21 You mentioned Swiss Re, Swiss Re Insurance.
22 Swiss Re Insurance wrote a paper on Electrosmog. I
23 believe it was 2002. And they said to the insurance
24 industry then, don't insure electromagnetic field
25 effects because it will result in a bigger lawsuit than
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.221
114
715ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 62
1 Firestone on their tires or the smoking industry,
2 because the knowledge is here and now and nobody insures
3 that risk.
4 Lloyd's of London insures anything, but they
5 won't insure that risk. Nobody does. Because insurance
6 companies don't like to lose money. It's as simple as
7 that. And yet the telecom industry on cell phones --
8 before cell phones were invented, the University of
9 Washington had investigated those very same frequencies
10 on chick embryo studies and determined they were
11 harmful. Cell phones didn't exist then.
12 Then cell phones come out and everything's safe
13 all of a sudden. That same guy that did that research
14 says, now, wait a minute, we did all this research.
15 This is a dangerous thing. But the telecom industry is
16 a powerful adversary.
17 So it went to the Congress. You remember this.
18 There was a guy in Florida. Brain cancer. Big
19 controversy. It ended up in the Congress. Congress
20 said, we need a study. So the industry says, oh, we'll
21 pay for the study. They spend 25 million dollars on the
22 study.
23 I can't remember the guy's name who did it, but
24 he eventually published a book because his findings
25 were, hey, this is dangerous. All right. He issues his
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.222
115
716ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 63
1 report. They figured, hey, they got him. You know,
2 they got the 25 million into his queue. He got to spend
3 it all on these projects. He got to make some money
4 himself. Hey, he's our man.
5 Well, he wasn't. This guy actually had some
6 integrity, and I apologize for not recalling his name.
7 A VOICE: George Carlo.
8 DR. BEGICH: Which one is it?
9 A VOICE: George Carlo.
10 DR. BEGICH: George Carlo, that's correct. And
11 he wrote a book called, "Cell Phones", a very important
12 book.
13 And when it comes to children, one of his
14 observations was -- he had the simple observation of
15 damage to skulls. You know, you have a four-year-old, a
16 five-year-old, 400 percent more energy transfers to the
17 skull into the brain than an adult. Ten-year-old,
18 twelve-year-old, approximately 200 percent.
19 This is one of the main reasons why you don't
20 want children using cell phones or, even worse, the
21 portable phone in the home because it's even less
22 efficient with the battery and the energy with even more
23 leakage. And what do we do? Try and find a hard line
24 phone today where you actually pick it up and talk into
25 it. You can't even find them anymore. They're almost
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.223
116
717ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 64
1 impossible to find.
2 When you look at what we have learned about
3 human physiology and the effects of electromagnetic
4 fields on the human physiology, it is the revolution in
5 science that will collapse the pharmacuetical industry
6 one day. And one day we're going to wake up and
7 recognize that the pea in the soup of electromagnetic
8 radiation has been the cause and the root to most of the
9 chronic disease we see on the planet today.
10 When you combine that with that concept that I
11 used, that example of iodine, everyone has a little bit,
12 now you have these complex interactions, 5,000 new
13 chemicals are introduced or compounds introduced to the
14 public every year without really any serious studies,
15 and then you add this on top of it, and now you have a
16 very toxic world. And then you take the technology of
17 manipulation from the propaganda of World War II to the
18 downloading of that. What does the military hope to
19 achieve? They want to be able to train military
20 personnel with a download. Blap. There's your 12
21 years' worth of education. Now, let's go on.
22 And now here's the thing. Think about that
23 kind of education. No critical thinking involved. Just
24 programming. It's like writing to a disk. No critical
25 thinking involved. Who controls that? Curriculum
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.224
117
718ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 65
1 controls the way in which our society goes. This is the
2 risk.
3 What about evidence in courtrooms when you can
4 create a synthetic memory or wipe one out? What does
5 that do to a Democratic Republic or a Democracy where
6 people have the power? That power has been taken from
7 us as we become increasingly transparent to governmental
8 agencies and they become increasingly opaque.
9 It is the opposite of what should be occurring.
10 There shouldn't be a camera in every household. There
11 should be a camera in every government office. Because
12 the technology's there. We should be able to dial in
13 and look at what our employees are doing, right?
14 Wouldn't you like to be able to dial up your
15 Congressional office and see that conversation they're
16 having in real time? And why shouldn't we be able to do
17 that? What do they have to hide?
18 You know, you think about government and you
19 start saying that and, you know, the only people
20 protected from that kind of intrusion in the US are
21 federal employees. They have a higher level of
22 protection than the average citizen within the country
23 that I live in. For what?
24 And when you think about government, everyone
25 points to the politician. I can tell you, most
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.225
118
719ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 66
1 politicians are ignorant. In fact, most political
2 parties in the United States the preference is to have
3 people that are -- they look like the news announcer,
4 but they couldn't think their way out of a phone booth,
5 right? We don't even have a phone booth anymore, but
6 they couldn't think their way out of one. Because they
7 want people that are smart enough to look good, but not
8 smart enough to think on their own. That's the ideal
9 politician for political parties, because they can be
10 told what to do.
11 Look at how much money is being spent in
12 political outcomes. Huge amounts of money. Some people
13 have pointed and looked at, like, Australia to mandatory
14 voting. Everybody votes now.
15 Worst possible thing that you could ever do.
16 And here's why: When the population doesn't vote, who
17 pulls the lever? Those that are informed, right? So
18 maybe 20 percent of the population votes, but at least
19 they're informed. They've educated themselves.
20 If you force people to vote to keep their
21 driver's license, their medical benefits, or whatever
22 social programs you've got running and you say, you will
23 vote, now who decides what they vote on? Whoever can
24 buy the 30-second or one-minute ad on TV that influences
25 them. The moment they walk into the booth, they go, ah,
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.226
119
720ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 67
1 and pull the lever. Now we have a dangerous situation.
2 A very dangerous situation.
3 Democracy is something that each of us have to
4 claim internally. The change that people are looking
5 for in this group happens by a change in consciousness,
6 by us recognizing what we are as human beings,
7 recognizing the potential that we have. Because you
8 know what these government programs yielded? Everybody
9 points to the fear side of the equation. But what they
10 really discovered was that every single soul, every
11 human being has this anomalous capability.
12 Now, imagine if we could awaken those
13 capabilities, could you hide anything? I mean, if
14 people could literally look into the mind of another
15 person, that makes a politician pretty vulnerable,
16 wouldn't it?
17 That is the next evolution that I believe is
18 happening and it's the only evolution, the only
19 revolution that can change the way things are. It
20 starts with human consciousness. It starts with what we
21 believe to be right and true and beginning to act on it.
22 Not from a foundation of fear, but a foundation of
23 confidence.
24 You know, somebody asked me once, what do you
25 think about faith? I said, faith is what you know to be
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.227
120
721ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 68
1 right and true and you step into it on the idea that you
2 can achieve it. You believe it.
3 So many people I've seen in this work, they
4 keep jumping into things beyond their belief. They
5 don't believe they can achieve it. They try it anyway
6 and they fail, and they keep failing. And people who
7 are doing good work otherwise step back, do what you can
8 do with confidence, do what you can do with knowledge,
9 don't wait for a group to form. The group's already
10 here. It's called the human race. Act on what you know
11 to be right and true. If you make a mistake, clean it
12 up, learn from it, and move forward.
13 When you look across this room and you look at
14 all these folks with a little bit of gray hair, and
15 you've got the gray hair not by all of those great
16 things that happened in your life, but by the real
17 disasters that happened in your life. You know, you
18 think about bad news is a stimulation for good news.
19 People ask me, you know your father's
20 disappearance, disappeared off the face of the earth,
21 that must have been a horrible thing. Yeah, it was at
22 the time. I consider it the most important event in my
23 life because it altered my course.
24 The worst things in our lives alter our course,
25 change our direction, activate that higher potential
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.228
121
722ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand 69
1 that cause us to rise out of the ashes of our apathy and
2 our defeats and stand on our feet again and move
3 forward.
4 The pain that people experience today is the
5 catalyst for the solutions tomorrow, whether we like it
6 or not, whether it's falling down as a two-year-old or
7 standing up as an adult. If we stand up on the basis of
8 our ethics, on the basis of our values, and we
9 reinvigorate and let go of the fear and recognize what
10 we are as creative beings, we have the potential to make
11 change.
12 And with that, I'll open it to questions.
13 (Applause.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
Control
BRIEF
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.229
122
723ofof673
173
183
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,
September
June
27th17,
of
7,
5, 2017
2016
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
No.10
18
123
2307
1724
1of
1of
of
1of
of
51
172
173
174
of
51
176
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
Tuesday,
Saturday March
December
Wednesday15,
December
Sunday,March
April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! "# $
%" "&##'( #$
!"
# $ " " ! #!" ! ! % &! ' ! # ( ' )
* + , ) -
#- ) . - / * ) '
) 0 /- -
/ * . - . 0 ) - - 0 ) #- /
/- . - * - 0 1 /
* ) 0 0 . - 0 - 2 *
) 3 . 0 . /
- 0 ) . 4 * . 5678 0 )
. / 9::; ' - - 9::; /
- 0 - 0 / .1 0 - -
- 0 ) - ) <
)
) * * + + ,, -
* . /+ / , - * ,! + 0
1 , ! 2 3 + ,
- 344/// 4 5
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
7- , , - * , - , / * * 3
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
Page
No. 11
29
8
2725
124
2311of
22of
of
2of
1
of
51
172
173
174
of
51
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
No.10
12
39
125
2323726
2of
33of
of
3of
of
51
172
of
51
173
174
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
% "
% "
/
4 4 2 1
12! 1 3
" # $ "% $ $ $ & ' $ ($ "

' " & % $ ) $% $ % ) ) " % "
($ ) ' $ ' ) $% $ "" " "& %
!& ! ) "
# $ %" " "% ) " %% ) ) $

* % +, " # -
. ' * %& # & & & ) - ! & $

# &"
& ) " #' % ) $ % '" & $

* % +, "
# $ "% %% '$ "
" !
+ % / 0$
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
No.10
11
13
44727
126
233 3of
44of
of
4of
of
51
of
51
172
173
174
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
8 * 9 : * ; < *+ ; ) .
- 7 (
#- 0 - =8 * 9 : * ; < *+ ; )
. >>>
* !
& *
5, #- . - .- ) - - #- "
) )= - 0 - .- - 0 .
- ) - )-
9, 0 ( / 5697 > - ) 0 ) - .-
? 0 - ) - - .- - 0 - ? )
- - - - . - . 0 - .- ?- 0
0 - ) .- - .- 0 4 0 >
@, #- ) ) - 0 . - / - - 0 - -
) - - 0 2 #- 0 . ) -
- - 0 0 ) 0 0 - .
A,#- . 0 0 . - . ) - < -
@ ) - < . # - B 0 ) - 0
" . . # 0 . 0 - 2 .
- < ) ) ) -
.& !
# - . ) - /- ) ) 3
. 0 - . . /
) ) - ) / .C * . - . 0 - - 0 2
- 0) - < 4
$ 8 * 9 : *
) /0 / ) 0 ) / / ) 0
- - /- 0 * - / - - -
) ) - - ) - ) )- - 00 ) 0 - . )
- 0 ) . 4 * . - 0 0 ) 2 0 -
0 - - +D 5 :::, - - ) 0 0
0 0 )
) / 0 + , /- - 0 .
2 - )) - . - - + ,
. - 0 - - - 0 0 - ) / -
)
B - ) - ?- ? 0 . . * / . / ) )
) - 0 0 4 -
0 . - - . 0 E
EE
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
Page
No. 11
12
14
55728
127
2344of
55of
of
5of
2
of
51
of
51
172
173
174
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
B - ) - ? ) ? 0 / 0 .
) 0 - / - . )
/ - - 0 . )? ) ?
B - ) - ? - ? 0 / - . -
) 0 - .- - ) 00 - 0
) 0 ) / 00 0
0 / - - - - - . ) - - )
) - - ) - ) ) - - ) 0
0 / - - - - - /- - .
) - - ) ) - - ) - ) ) - - ) 0
- - ) - -
- - #- ) 0 * . - - -
- / - -
0 . )? - ?
B ) - - 0? 00 ? 0
- - 0 ) F 0 - . -
-
#- . - . . - ) ) 0
/ - - 0 - 0 ) 5: 0 - -
) - . - - . - ) . - )
- ) ) - - ) ) - ) ) - 0 -
- 00 ) 0
B ) - ? 00 ) 0 ? 0 -
. )) / - - . - /- .
- - - /- / - - F0 - . - - -
? ! - , -
/- / ) - 00 0 /- - / - .
2 - / - - ) - - 0 0
/ . 0 ) 00 * - )
- ) . /- - ) - 0
/- - 0 3 00 ) -
- . ) 00 ) F ) - -
- - ) ) - - / ) ) -
- 00 ) 0 G ) - - 0 0 ) F
B - ) - ? 00 ) 0 ? 0 /- - 0 .
- . )) / - - .
- /- . - - - /- / - - F0 - .
- - -
?! 00 ? 0 - -
0 ) F0 - . - -
8 - * + *
+ , ! /- / - - 0 *
0 ) 00 / - - - -
. . - - - ) 2 -
0 0 ) - - ) 0 . )
0 0 - . - - - 0
. ) -
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
Page
No. 12
13
15
66729
128
2355of
66of
of
6of
3
of
51
of
51
172
173
174
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
+ , ! /- 0 * - 0 *
0 ) 00 / - - - -
/- - ) 0 0 * . - -
. ) 0 0 - . - - -
0 . ) -
! /- 0 * - 0 *
0 ) 00 / - - - - -
) / * . ) 0 0 - ) ) 0 - -
+D 5 :::, 0 0 ) ) 0 - -
- ) 0 0 - . - - -
0 . ) - #- ) - ) - ) / .
0 F C
+5, #- 0 . 2 -
0 ) - )) - . - - -
+9, #- 0 * - 0 * 0 )
00 / - - - - - )
/ * . 0 - 5: 0 9A=- /- - ) 0
0 * . - - - -
0 - / * ) ) 0 0 /- ) 0
- ) 0 - / - /- 0 - - - - -
. . . 0 - - . . . . 0 -
+ , )) 00 ) - 0 0 - 00 /-
- - / 0 )) 00 )
00 0 0 . - 0 0 - 00
/- - 00 00 / . ) / -
+ , + , + , + , /- - . / - 0 *
- 3 . ) 0 - - + , + ,
+ , . -
+), ) . - F 0 ) )
- - 0 ) - -
.
+., B ) - - 0 ? 00 ?
0 - - 0 ) F 0 - .
- -
+/ - *+ /
/- - ) . 4 * . - 0 00
- ) - / - - 4 . / - -
0 0 ) ) / - ) ) F .
- +D5: :::,
B - ) - 0 - . / ) -
) . +
. 0 0 . 0 0
0 . 0 F 0 / ) 3 +! B, / ) 3 +< B,
. , . - * / . 0 )
) . - 2 1 0 . . . + - . ) - -
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEF Group
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
MindSUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
Page
No. 13
14
16
77730
129
2366of
77of
of
7of
4
of
51
of
51
172
173
174
176
50
51
51
of 51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
0 - - - 0 / = . ) = =
= 0 . 0 . - - .
. ) - ) 0) / 0
0 . 0 0 ) - 1 F . - 0 .
. - )
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
Page
No. 14
15
17
88731
130
2377of
88of
of
8of
5
of
51
of
51
172
173
174
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
!
" # #
$ # ! " %
& # ' " ( # ) * ()+
"
, - ." ! %
/ # "" # "
, %/ #
0 " %
1 ( # ) 1 ( #
- ! . # "
%2 3 # %4
" 5%1% "
%4 "' %
#
" !" "
0 % ()
! # %
() 6 7 8 0 # " # "
%9 & : ' "
# ' " %
-4, " # # "
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
Page
No. 15
16
18
99732
131
2388of
99of
of
9of
8
of
51
of
51
172
173
174
176
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
.' %
' # # !
# " "
" %'
() ;
" %
<= 0 " %
# " 9 (
" 5%1% " " !
%
( - !; . " ()
( , ! ! " >?
-1 @ . # # % @ #
" 511 @ # " ; ,
# "" # ( %
1 @ ( - ,
" % 5%1% ( 4 A 1
4 1 ) %
() # ;
# 5%1% # # " "
" " % 0 #
%B " #
# %
-4 , " #
. 0 %
, %
- 0 " C 4 $
. %- #
%' # " C%% ,
4 %.
) 7 ) - # . ' ,
" %
-: 5 1 # .)
% -@ ; %' " %@
%4, "
$ " , %.
D $ , !
2 ) $&
, 1 C% E
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
PagePage
No.10
16
17
19
10
10
132
239910
73310
of
of
9of
of51
172
173
174
176
50
of
51
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! " # $ % & '(

) *
+ &$ # $'' ,-
* & ./0 1/.2
" #
3 ! 34 0 3 " 0 # &
$* #& ' ) * " " "
& $ 5 " ) & ' $ ) # 3
$ " .678 0 ' " " ) & ) '
) $ 0 & " ' $*0 3 0 & '
0 0 & ' ) $ ' & $& '
& 9$* " : 0 &0 ' ;, &
* "$ , < " ) $ ,0 ' =. > " ' "#
$ ) & $ ) 1/.2 & ' # & $
) & ) ,# & 24.;9&#9/12269 ) ? $ *$
) 3 & 3 ' ! & ) ! &$ $ )
** 0 .29<;//
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 11
17
18
20
11
10
11
111
133
240 11
of
734of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! " #$ $ % &
' ( )' %
%) *++
!
" # # $ % " "
# &
' ( ( ) ' *
)' + , - .$
"# - / #
0 * ( 1
2 (34 ( (
( 5 #$ ' ( 6 0 * 7 8 ' ( 69
(922 ( 2 2
* (
( 2' + (
! " ! # $ % &
' % ( )% " * ) %
+ ' ',% " - "% . % . -
/0
! "## $" %& %' ( )*+*
' #% , - +. *+ /
' % , 0! ) * . *++
' , 0! ) . *++
0$
& 1 !%
2 $
$ !%$
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 12
18
19
21
12
11
12
212
134
241 12
of
735of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
)( )*+,
)*+, "%- " & &. !"& "&/ % 0 ! .

. " ! $ ! " ! % . 3 . ! .
% . " . 3 $ " 4 " ! )
4 ) " % *+ + ) ' 35 .! 0 ! ) " *+ /. 0$
& 1 !% ! "
! " ) ! 5 6 % '$ 1 7$
% ) % ! ! ) ! 3 %! ) ! 8 " "! $ 5)
" ! " *+ + ) . !
$ !%$ 3 ""9 !
)' 35 $
& ) 0$ ! : 3 ; : ! ; "
% ) " < ! ) ! ! . < ! ) 1 5! $
" = " < ! ) - 7 3
% $ 8 10 "% 2 ! / $ 10 /$ 8 !
"" <(> ( 0$ & 1 !%$ .
< )4 ' % 3 $ ! ! 0$ !
" ! " % . ! !
6 ! . 5! ! " . 4 ) ) 1 ? -""
@ @ . 4 ) 4 . 4 ) 1 ). #$ $
. " ! < ! ) ' )? -"" $ ! ! .
*+ / 1 3 A! % " % 8 B ! %!
3 $ - * % $
" )3 )*+, "%- " 4 # 1"& / 5" )*+6 2 -" #

%0 # " / / -' /# /!5" " 1-"% #" +67*),,8 / 5" /# %/! %
9 % 5" # "% /# %/! 9 " #' . / 9 "% 9/ / $ 1/! # 5" ! #" &$"
/ 1 & 4 # 0%"#/&/ $ #/ !" / :# 9/ / $ / )*+6 2 4"."% 5" " / / 4 # -"
-" $% "& & 5" ! #" 4 # # "& ; %/#&/! / 4 - #"& "4 & ! 10" / $
"./&" !" % ! 5"%" 9 5" 1/! # 4 # 9/ "& ! %" 5 &"9/!/" !' 4/ 5 &/%"!
4/ "## ! %% - % / 5" % #"! %/ /#! & ! & !" !" 9 /# /!5" "
1-"% 9 ! 4 % / $ 5" %' 4 # 9/ "& 5 # $$"# "& 5 5" # 10" "%
/!" "0 % 1" " $ $"& / # % "$' 9 < % 01" = 5 " & 5" 9 % "
1 %&"% / +88+ 5/# 4 & 9! %#" 4 4% $9 &" 5 ! /1 -" 9/ "& -' 5"
5 4 9 1/ ' 5" ! #" /# 4 -"9 %" 5" 5/%& /%! / % 9 00" # #" +,>
36** 5"%" %" 5%"" ?3@ A "# / # 5 5" 5/%& /%! / 1 ' % " B 45" 5"% 9%""
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 13
19
20
22
13
12
13
313
135
242 13
of
736of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
/# /!5" " 1-"% % $% 5"% 5"% 2 -" # %0 # & 45" 5"% $% 11 %'
&$1" "%- "/ !/./ ! / #/ - 5# " & 9"&"% ! % #
3 . 0! ) . *+ /. ' 3 5 " "

4 " ! )4 ) $ 0$ ! )
! 5 6 % 4 % $ 6 .
%" 1" % $% 1 - ) < ! ) ! " 4 $
0$ ! " ! " ! $ ! ! .
% % % ! % . ( ) C! "
< ! ) ! " 4 $ - ! ! B. *+ / 0$ "
! 3 4 " 4 ) % ) 5 < " 4 ) % !
" .4 ) $ !% D ! ! " ! "
EB++$++$
- 0! ) . *+ / 4 % " ' 35 .
-"" . -"" 5 !%. * ! " % $ %
" ! ! ) " $ < ) 4
' % % " " ! " < & <
. ) ! ) 3 " */+ 8 !
" F+* % $ % ) < ! ) ' )
! ! $ % ! 4 " = ) < ! ) ! "
4 $
- ! ! . *+ / ( ) C! " = " " <

! ) ! " 4 . > $ /9+B /$ C! ) 0! 0 "" )
. " ! $ %% . &' /B . % !% ! "
4 ) $
. ) % *B. *+ / 0$ (
4 . . " ! $ ! " ! ! "
#$ $ 4 %! 3 $
*+ / 0$ " ! < ! )
! )9 9 ! C ! ) ! ) )% $
! ) ) !%% ) 8% 0! & @ ). ) . '$
0 6 $ ! ) )% ) !%% ) % %
7 @ 3 . ! 4$ 0$ $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 14
20
21
23
14
13
14
414
136
243 14
of
737of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
% " *+ / 0$ 7 ) " %% 8 ) D/
! % " " . ! 4$ $ % "
B$ % % /&" /! % ! 4$
0$ $ % " 4$ . " 0$
. 3 ) 3 ) B+? $ . "
! 4$ 0! ) *+. *++ " " ! . ! ! $
) +? '$ 4 % . . ) >
! "6 . > 6 . '$ $. " " % ! )
" 3 " % (=5->( " )$ 4
" ) " . ! 4$ . 0 $. 3 % $
! ) "
% % ! )" ) 3 #$ $ % & $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 15
21
22
24
15
14
15
515
137
244 15
of
738of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
2
0$ %! "" !
. ) ) " $ " ! #
"" G0 1! % ) . "
F " . 0$ 8 ! 0! *F. .
! ** ) ) )$ ! C ! % ).
& 1 !%. < $. &1. < $. ! ! " %!
"" ! $ ! ) . " ! 0 1! . ""
% % ! ) E 5 ' ! 8% !
" ! ! " A 6! $ 6 . ). % .
"! %! !% ! 9!%
" 0$ " 8 ) $ ! 3 "
# ! " ) " . .
$ ! ) " ! H ! % % )H H
% ! % % )H ! % %! H
! 9 ) % ! $ ) " = 9 9
3 ! " ! $ > . 0$
% ! 3 % " 8 ** ) $
! % % ) 7 ! " ! % $
0$ % ) " $
' % " ' " '-' % #
? ) +? $ - " ? " 4 C I >
! ) ) > " $& .& ) $
! ). " " % " %!

7
- 5/%& ?3%&@ %$"# "10 '"% ! ) " < . 4 ) .

/.+++ % ) $
1"# "%/ 9 &"% & % %

7 ! ) "< .4 ) $
5" C "%% / ! & F 9 " ! #

" *$
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 16
22
23
25
16
15
16
616
138
245 16
of
739of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
" " %! "" % ,

" %$" 2 D #5. " #$ $ 4 . ' "
) $
-"% "#. " ' " ) !

) "' " $
--' ' 1 . " 5 " ' " . " ' " > .
! ) ) & = 7 $
"E &"% 2 /$. " #$ $ ) " . ) 5 "

' J
#"05 ! &". " 4 ) 6 ! " = % "

%% % " #
$
% # %& " C %& " & # %/"#. C ! %

" ! ! ) A & (
! ! #$ $ $
" ! . % " #$ $
4 -"" $
% F " " 1
5 . H % E " " ?
! $
"4#C / !/ /1"# F % 5 > @ %%

G " % H H ! A
) " ' " =
1 " A$
"4# )*C)* ) G "" !

6! A ! ) . ) " " 4 1! " .
) ! " ) ! A )
$
- 0! ) * " 0$ ! " <

) 0 % = " ! . &1. < $. K
H 5 3. $. " $ 0 %
= ! ) ! "! 0$ ? !
$
% . "%/ >+88*>**(6 < ! ) ! " 4 .

< ) 0 % = % 3. ? 9 !
! . ) " 0$ $
% . "%/ 9 +9++ D < ! ) ! " 4 . 0

1! % E $ / ! ! 5 3.
< . ! )$
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 17
23
24
26
17
16
17
717
139
246 17
of
740of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
% . "%/ 9 +9++ D < ! ) ! " 4 .
5%/# 05"% &"%5/ " 6 . # K 5 ! 3 . % 0
1! $ *++/ % # % & % 4
' % +/9 9** #$ $ ' ! " ( ' "
4 ) (=5->( $ < ! )4 . $ $.$
% . "%/ 9 +9++ D < ! ) ! " 4 .

4 % ) 0 % % 0 1! . *++
0 % % < ) ! " % ! ) #$ $
% 4 ! 7% 3$
2 >
> ) "" !
. ! " " ! H 8 H %! !% H
! H H 9 ! ! % % ) H
) H " H " % H
!% ! ! ! % $ " "
! )$ ) % %! ". !% ! B C! )
$ 3 $ "
! = - ! % 7 " % % $
% ! " 3 . ! !%
. ! % $ " % " "
% % 9!%,
) ) 0$ ) ) )
% $
) " $
) ! % % $
(8 E7 $
@ % ! " )% " !% % $
) " " " . ! . " )

" " $
% ! ! ) " < ! ) !) % "

! ). " . $.
) 3 % ) ) ) ! )
) "" " C! %! ! $
% #$ $ ) . . . 8
) G % " ! $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 18
24
25
27
18
17
18
818
140
247 18
of
741of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
) " ! $
2 2
) . " ! *++/ ) " ) ) 3 % !

" ! 3 C! $ '! ) 0$
) ) . " " % " "
% $ ) " > L 3 ) 5 ' "
! !% " 8 5 % 7
) 7 $ 6 . ) "! " %
! ) % $ ! % 8 ! .
! % " % #$ $ . " .
! ! ) $ 5 = %! 4 )
' % " ' " . > . ) !
"! $ ! " C! ! % 3 )! %
! $
6 *++/ 0$ %% %
% ". ! ) ! . # ' ! " (
' "4 ) (=5->( $ < ! ) 4 . $ $. $ +/9 9
** $ 5/# ! #" /# # / #" "& & 5 # -"" 4/ 5&% 4 -' 0 / /99
"%- " / ! -"% 9 )**F 9 "% # !!"##9 % / $ / 5" 5/%& /%! / % 9
00" # ?*(>66(6@ / "0 "1-"% 9 )**F 5" ! #" 4/ -" ! / "& 0 5" #"! %/ '
9 "./&" !" & 5" !" #" & &"#/# 9 -# % ! / 9 ; # /!" & & " 0% !"## - & )
B. *++/ ! ! 4 % . 0$ " ! $
- 3 # 5 3 !% ) ! " ( 4 ) = .
4 ) . %% % . 0$ " % " % !
% 5 3 !% ) . $ +/9*F+/ $
" # ) ! )
! " % 3 % " ! C! 9 - 7 3
' ( ) ' % . ! " ! " % )
& $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 19
25
26
28
19
18
19
919
141
248 19
of
742of
ofof
of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
411224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
D B G H B
D
- 7 3 " %! "" !
$ 7 3 ! ) %
! $ " 3 +? 0$ 3 .
M ) M$ " " " ) 3 .
. % 3 . )% . % ) $ . ! "
4 % ) = . = % < & < < !
! . ! ! $
! ! *++/$ . ! 8 "
% $ = ) % ! ! )
! ! $
*++/ #$ $ % ! 9 ! ! "
% )H ) % )H % ! ! ! " )
% ! ! ) " " A! ) ) $
! ! ! ) " " "
#$ $ ' ! . (=5->( $ < ! ) 4 . $ $. +/9 9** $
! " ) 0$ % )$
"" %% " ) 0$
*DG % % ) "
@ & ! $ 0$ % F) ) " %
! ! $ & #$ $ "! % . 5! ! "
#$ $ )? -"" "! $ ! "
" $
*++B " *++ 0$ 8

% )H H H %
&@ #< = ? ! % $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 20
26
27
29
20
19
20
142
24920
20
of
743
10 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
2
" ) ! % % ! ) " < ! ).
4 ) . ! % " . " ) ) " 0$ 3
" ,
5"% 1 " "%- " %$. 7 % ! " )
! " ! 3 ) ! )
! $ 6 3 " 5 & & )
% $ 6 !% ! 7 ! 3
$
% 5"% 1 " "%- ". !"" " )

" . 7 % . " )3 " ) " $
% 5"% 5 1 # D "%- ". !"" " )

. 0$. 5 % & ' . !
" ) ! ) $
"%- ". !"" " 5% & ' . & ' %

! 3 ) % "
! )$ ! 3 . ) !
) ! %) % 3
$ 6 ) % " ) ! " "
! ! ! ! $
5" 1/ ' 2/# %' " ! 3 B+? ! . 0 $.

" " 0$ . 3 ! %
! # > ) ! $ ! .
0 $. 3 ) % ! " &@ #< = " ? ! % $ 6 . !
$ . 3 ) % " < ' 8% " &@ #< = $ 0$
3 )% " % % ) ' % " ' " . ! ' =4
' " ) ' $ " " 0$ ? !
" ) " ) . ) " !
% . ! H H "" ! % % H
! H 3 9 % ) " % " &@ #< = " ?
! % $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 21
27
28
30
21
20
21
143
25021
21
of
744
11 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
" " " " ) ),
1 " "%- " % ? 5"%@ > ) " DF DB

! " 1! 0 3 . $ 6 8 %
! G < 6 . % %
% $ 6 )G ! $ " > ). !
! "! ) ! . " ) "
$ 6 % ) & 43 .
% % $ 5) " % ! .
" ) " #$ $ ) % $ 6
! ! 3 ) +? $ 6 !"" " 7
3 . ) % " $ 5 3 B+? .
. ! ) % % $ ! 4$ . 0 $. )
" $ ! 4$ . 0 $. )
3 %)$ ( 3 %) (8% ! % "
&@ #< = $ . % ) ! < )
4 ' % < ! ) ! " 4 $ F ! 4$
. 0$ " " * 3 " . $. 3
! $ 3 0 & & %%
. " " E +$++$ 3 ! <
) 0 " E*++$++ M % M $
) $ ! 4$ . 0 $. ) % )4
0! 0 $ 6 . ! ! * . F " . 0! 0
-='(= " % M ) "
! ) " < . 4 ) M$ 4 0! " < ! ) ! "
4 ) ) " ! " < ! ) " " * 3 "
% $ " ) " " ) % ).
& 1 !%. < $. L ! " " )0 @ -?5
% $ ! . 0 $. " ! ! 3
" " " ! . % ! . . "
" " ) " . " ! " )$ L ! "
$ - ! & ) . *++ ! 4$ 0 $. " )
" ? & ) $ 3 " E +.+++$++$
% > " *+++$ 3 . & ' ) 3
" *++ . > L 3 ) % " $ 6 % "
! $ " 8 B 3 ! ! ! $ %
0! & @ ). " "" " #$ $ ) " #$ $
% & . % ! 3 : )
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 22
28
29
31
22
21
22
144
25122
22
of
745
12 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! " ) " ; % % $ ! )" ?
! . ! $
1 " "%- " ? % 5"%@ # B +$

. 0$ ! # 1 " ! . !
$ " % " < ' 8% . &@ #< = $ 7 "
- *F. " " )1 ! C .
! " " ) 1 0 ! ) D. *$ 5)
" . ! $ 0$ " M < 'M
% $ "' */. D. 0$
A! " " ! . " " ! % ) ! )
% " $ ) 5 . " 5
4! 1! ? -"" . "" 3 ) ! " ! %
! $ ! $ 8 % !
< 6 $ " % ) ) " % .
! " ! ! " > $
5 " . 4 ) . ! % ! " ) ) $ "
< 1 6 % " . ! % "! 3 " $
! !% " " $ 7 %
"< '" 3 7 3 $
5 1 # "%- " ? % 5"%@ ! " ! ! 5 3

! " ! ! $ ! 5% ' &
' % 99 77 8 3 ) " ! B$
! 5 3 " ! 3 E *.+++ "
" ! % 0! " /$ "!
! 5 3 " " "! # ' ! "
( ' " 4 ) (=5->( $ < ! ) 4 . $ $. +/9 9** $
#< -> 5 >@ 4$ . "
) "! 3 ) $ 4$
8 % $ 4 ) " < 6 . 3 & .
6 ! 4 . 4 % ( $ " 0$4$ & 3 )
3 & $ 4$ ) ! "!
% ! " C " 0 ' 4 " #
$ 0 ' 4 " " 4 5 3. )
0 1! $ 4 5 3. ) " *F*F > ' 43 .
. 4 ) . ) 0$ $ ! "
" A! ) 8 % . % " % " &$ @
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 23
29
30
32
23
22
23
145
25223
23
of
746
13 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
@ . 8 ! " < > % % " ! " < 6
$
"%- " /# %"1 " ./"4"% ? " # " 4 ' / @. % .

" 8 % % ! % " "
! $ % " #$ $ % ! . !
% $ < ). 0$ % . %
! " ! ) %% % .
! 8% " ! $ " "
3 ) 3 ) $ 0$ *9 % & 4 <
6 . " 3$ 0$ 5
" ! ) " O $ 0$ 8
%! . 3 " "! ! /.
! & # ). ! !
+$ 0$ 8 % " ! ) ! % . "
& 1 !%. < $. 3 ) 5 " 4
! M' & MH ! & 1 !%. < $$ -
) . % 7! " ! . 0$ % " "
% ) % "" % " . )
$ ! " ! $ & 1 !%. < $.
E*+.+++ B " %% 8 ) E ++.+++ ) .
% " 8 " " ? ! A! )$
5" 1" 5" 5 5/# %' & 5" !%/1/ %"! %&# % )" .
! ! % %
) " $ - * ) A! 3 ) %! & 6 6 )
= ,
" > "./"4 5" 4 %& J " #/ B &" #/ #B " ! B ) "
! ) % " . " % ) " " )
" . " "" . % %% " "
M ! M$ ) 8 ) )$
4 > "./"4 5" 3 -%/! "& /!/&" "$ / # " " , ! !
+ J . 5! 6 % % & ) ! ) > 0 ) H ! ) J . *++/
) @ ) ( ! = 4 ' % H 0! ) . *++ " F+*
) < )4 ' % < 1 6 % $
5" %/1/ "! %& ) . ) 0$ F "
H" % ! % ! )
%% ! ) " < . 4 ) H " 0$ %%
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 24
30
31
33
24
23
24
146
25324
24
of
747
14 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
% % " $ ! % " *++ (=5->(
$ ! ) " < . 4 ) #$ $ ' ! " ( ' "
4 ) $
2
4! = % " ! " 8 #$ $ ! H
4 ) ! H < ! ) ! " 4 $ D+.+++
% " ! " ) " % )
"" $ #$ $ ! < ! ) ! "
4 ! " ! H F.+++ H
" > '9=-& "
8 " ! " ) 0$ & 1 !%.
% "" $ 0$ ++ ! 3 ! " . .
! $
4 ) # % ) % H' % " "

< ! ) -"" H < = ( 8 H < ! )
8 H ! ) 5 " H < 6
% H & # ) % H " 0$ .
! " $
% 1 " "%- " 1' -% 5"%. #

H < 6 % H & # ) % H
! ) H 5 ! ) 1! 4! ' " H
% % ! % " $
% 1 " "%- " 1' 9 5"%. # > . <

6 % H ! ) H < ! )
-"" H < = ( 8 H < ! ) 8
H ! . $. % H = ( ' & H
< ! ) ! " 4 H " ! % %
! % "
D 7
$ !%$
$" "" $
% ,GG $ $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 25
31
32
34
25
24
25
147
25425
25
of
748
15 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
2 D
PP /# /10 % " 5 # 9 5/# 4%/ / $ "1 " /"4/ $ 5 # %"!" '
-"" ! 11"%!/ /K"& -' ! %0 % " 1"%/! & !"% / % " ,** ! 10 /"# %"
#/ $ "1 " /"4"%# # ! # # 9 % %" & '#/# & 1 % " 9 %"! # # 5/# /#
9 " 5" ". / 9 1 # "!5 $/"# - % 9 5" "0 % 1" 9 "9" #"
0 "!%" "E0"%/1" # & 5" %"# / $ "!5 $/! &. !"1" # ! # '
#"!%" /." 9 % # $ 5/# 5 # %"!" ' -"" #"& / # %' 9 5" " "./#/
&% 1 J "&/ 1J 5/# # #" # ' 8 )**F 5 & %"! %&"& % &/ /."
-% &! # D2 # # 4/ 5 $ "# 5 4 # " 9 5" " &/ $ 5'#/!/#
% "& "1 " /"4"% & "E0"% 5 "# /9/"& 5/# # 1" /
' , 0! ) * . *++
0$
& 1 !%
2 $
$ !%$
5" 9 4/ $ %" $"% / #"%./!"7
$ !%$ % $
$ $ G !%+
$" 3$ G
$ $ G
$ $ $ G% " G 0
%,GG $) ! ! $ G !%
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 26
32
33
35
26
25
26
148
25526
26
of
749
16 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
"0 "1-"% ( )**8
0$
& 1 !%
*/+
< .4 ) B+F
' 3=
6 !
4$-$ 5 8 +**
.- D/*+
4 9 ++9/ 9/B
8 9 BB9DFF9D +
, " 2" " $
"7 # ' 9 ! # "% " #' . / % & G"% 9 % %$ /K"& / $ &

."% %."/ !"L
' 3.
&) % ! $ ' 3. ) !% ! <

& 6 3. C! " " $ ) ! 3
) ! )$ ! ! ) " ! "! ? " " .
! ) ! 3 8% ! ! "! $
) ) " H 7 3 !
< $ = . < " M ! M
! )$ M . " ) % B/
< ) Q 3 < ) " 7 $M
. ) !, ) +/ $
< ) ! 7 " " " 7 3

? 8% " < $
) < $' 6 "6 ! % !
G $ " )$ > +? C
! % ' 6 6 8 ) % )G & 1 !%$
6 8 !" ! ) % ) & 1 !%
'9=-& " 6 8$ " "! " '9=-& !" !
# 3 $ *++/ " .
( = ." ) 3 % ! " 6 G .
$
> . ) ! < ! )$ 5 3 +?
" < . K .
. " ! . " ! A$
3 " " $
3 < > % % K .
$
3 " 1 <9 > 5 "- F .

" $ #$ $ ' % " 0! #$ $ 4
" 4 % ! ! ! E 5
' ! $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 27
33
34
36
27
26
27
149
25627
27
of
750
17 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
3 " 4 * " 1 <9 5 $

> % ). < ) % ) = %! $ < "
! ) ! ! ! " " ! )$ <
" " " & $< 1 $5!
)M %M$ 1 6$ 5! ) %
. " ! > )M M % K
. $ " % " @ %% 5 > >
A ! )$ %
) ! " > $ *++B9 9* B+ " ( ' "& . ! ' $
> . = 1 . % ) ) " # ' " ' % .

% < $ " . ! % " =
1 ? " % " " ' "
) $ " ) ! " " %% 8 ) ,++,++ ) ! 3 "
A! " &! 3 3 = 1 )
" #$ $
%% " ! ! ! "
A$ -" ! . " $
= 1 < ! ). " "

" . & ) F. *++ $ 0 > ! ! & %.
< ! )$ 6 " & %$
> . ? ) ! 5 > > & ) *F. 8 % > .

> ! ) ),
M ). " ). 3 D$ ? > ! ) ). !% 9
#$ $ ! 3 % % % C I. "
% ! " ? > $ ! " ! %
" ! "" "" " % "1 6 % $ ! ). >
! % ! 3 3 $ ) % ) 1
) $ " . % ) % "" 8 0 $
@ ) % $ 1 ! 9 ! $ $$$ 5! % %%
4 . %% " ! " ? % . #$ $ "
% ) )9 ! 4 $ 5! ! %% .
. ). ! " $ ) +? . ! " ")
"" % $ . %% ! ) ! "
% ! 8 ) ). 8%
" " ! " ? % $ ) 8 ) "
! ! $5 D. " ). 8 ! . ! ).
! "" $M L ! $ % " & ) *F.
5 > G> $
> . 1 6$ 5! " $ M6 " F/ ) . "

0 ! ) F+. B 0 ! ) *+. $R**S 3 ) " .
! ) 3 ! ?
! ! 7 ) . 5! %
)? $R*FS % ) ' . 5! ! ) " 0 )
4 4 9 . ! % ) "
% R*DS ! .M
3% $
> . 5 ) = ) . " > ). ' " > ! ) ) > .

" ' " K . ! ) % " &
! )$ " %% % " ) ,
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 28
34
35
37
28
27
28
150
25728
28
of
751
18 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
M $ $ $ $ F 4 % ) .
? < )?$ %% %
" . ! " " ) " $
5 ) = ) 5 " ' " . $M
) 0 4 . 4 & %) B$ D. " 5 ) = )
A! " 5 ? " ' " ).
% ! ) 3 $
" 9 M M " % ) )
%% 8% $M ) 3% . $
> . " > )% ,

1 6$ 5! . " 4 " # ." ' " $
0 1! .4 ! " K $
5 ) = ) . " ' " > ! ) ) > ' "
K . $
&) " . ! 4$ .0$
6 " . ! 0$ . $
1 > ). " = C! . ! $
1 $ 5! " > )$
0
$
> 8 0 1! ? ) 3 ! *$ 6 0 %
. " 4 % $ 3 3 ) ! ! 0 % . 0 1!
0 % = . ( A$. " < . )" ) " ) 3
$ ! " % *. *++/ " % 4 ! 4 3
7 < ). 4 ' 3 )? " " ""$
< )? 1 0! ) " 3 -% 4
! ) ! $
> ! 8 0! )
" *++/ ) * " ' "
)$ ) & ) &! ! . %
% $ ) . '$ 4 % $ ) )
" $ ! ! * " ' % " ' " ' "
) ! ) 6 - ) 3
" ) ) $ ) ! % " ) ?
& 4 ) 3 !% " $ ) ! ! "
(=5->( $ < ! ) 4 . $ $. > $ *++/9 9+* " #$ $ '
! " ( ' " 4 ) $ ) "" )
" $
*++B % > 8 ! )
%% ! " ) < "
8 $ ' 6 6 1 !% " % 1 "
! 4 3$ 6 ! ! 3 % " 3
8% $ ! " ) ) % 3 5 ) $
! ) . " " $ !
! . " . 3 $ !
) % $
&) " ) ! 5 4" ! . $.
! % )" 3 !% ) F. ! .= 5 .
!% C! + " . 3 " > $
" D /$
" $ 39 9% $
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 29
35
36
38
29
28
29
151
25829
29
of
752
19 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
0$
& 1 !%
2 $
$ !%$
$ !%$ % $
$ $ G !%+
$" 3$ G
$ $ G
$ $ $ G% " G 0
%,GG $) ! ! $ G !%
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 30
36
37
39
30
29
30
152
25930
30
of
753
20 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! " #$ %
%& ' % % (( ' ) #$ % %& % % #$ %& %
% #$ % " #$ % ) * ) %# ' + %
' % ( ' # ) ' & # % '! % % $ ! ( !
! % ' % $ ' %' # % '( *',
" * & % ' # '# # % ! " ! % ( ' # %

" ( % $ ( '' % "' # ( ( " "# )
* ' & " ( - $ ' % % # ' ' ' ( * %'
* ' * ! & ' ( ./01 * % * ' ' #$ & ! !
) ' & ' "' ! 2( " ' 3 3 4 ./05 * ' %
" $# ' ' 3 $ % ! * #% & $ ( & ' ( "
% "' 6 * ' & & % ( #% * ! ' '' * #% % #%
% " ! ( " & ' ( " ( # * ' ( " ( * #' '' '
( # ( 7 "$ + #((" % 8 $ ' % ' % '
% (( %$ ( '' ' ( ! " #$ % ! & %) *
#% ' " % '' ' '' * & '# ' & ! + ' %
" ' ' " 8 798 ! %#' ' + $ :: % + ' + ' # 6
)( #"" ' 3 ;' ' ;' #' '' ) $
% '' % ) " ) ' ( #' 7 ' " " % % + $ :: '
" % '' ' ( ' & # ) < * ! !* "
"" % ( " ( %' % & '
* ! ' '' * #% % # ! % ( " % '

* #% % & " %$ ' < !" & ! ' =
' '% % ! % % !% #" "$ ' " %
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.31
37
38
40
31
21
30
31
153
26031
31
of
754of
ofof
51
172
173
174
176
of
51
41
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Saturday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
WednesdayOctober
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
10,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.32
38
39
41
32
31
32
154
26132
32
of
755of
ofof
51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.33
39
40
42
33
32
33
155
26233
33
of
756of
ofof
51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.34
40
41
43
34
33
34
156
26334
34
of
757of
ofof
51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
11,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! " #
$% &
' ( )! *+ ,
-''.#!' /0 12. )! /01- . !#!-/ 1

1!/ !1.230/. !/4 !45!/ .4 ".4-! #206)
5 ) ! ' 4
! 71 5 & !
4 +( $ %
0 8 ' 9
! "
# $ % & ' " '
()" * " ) ! + !!
, 4 ) ) 4 ) - & & ! *
.//0 1
. . 2 - ( 4 ! (0 -& , ! # .//0
2 3 ( '' ' 0 & ( ) 3
4 5 .//6 - & , ! #
7 ' / ( - ( & # .//6 ' '
! * 5 ! !)8 % 5
& ((! ' 4 ' ./,0
0 2 1 ( " ( ' ( # ( !
.//6 ' 4 ' ./,0
6 ! : 2 3 ( ' 5 # & 5 &
( ! ' ' .//6
9 5 / (' % .//: ' 4 '
: " 2 ( ' ( & #
% .//: ' 4 ' ./,0
; 5 ( ' ( * 5 .//: *
< 8 ' 4 '
,/ 3 ; (' ( & ) .//: ' 4 '
,, ' ' 4 3 ( )= 1
# .//; , ! #
,. ! 3 < 2 3 (' ( # .//; ' 4 '
,2 " 6 # " 6 ( " (
( * ! # * .//;
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.35
41
42
44
35
35
157
26435
35
of
758of
ofof
51
172
173
174
176
of
51
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
Tuesday,
Saturday March
December
Wednesday15,
December
Sunday,March
April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 17,
12,
15,
5, 2015
of
7, 2016
2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
,7 1#-& & < (' ( " ( * ./,/ ' 4 '

,0 ' 4 2 3 (' ( > 1 * ./,/ '
4 '
,6 " < (' ( 1 & $ ( !
1 4 ./,/ ' 4 '
,9 0<; < 3 (' (# .0 ./,/ # & ) ' 4 '
,: & 3 (& & ( # .6 ./,/ & 4 &
8
=' # ; (% & % #1 # .0 ./,/ 1 5
& 4 + $& & # !
5
$ 1 & 2 3 ( : ./,0 8 )
$ " 6 ( =( $ %( # $
!
1 +
$$ 5 / ( * .//,0 % 8
$, ' 4 3 ( ./,0 ?
$> 3 ( '' ' 0 #

% ./,, /0 ..::
4 5 $& 1 !
$% ? ) " * ./,0
,.0. 4 &
$+ ) '@ 3 (/ 0 3 ( ' .2 ./,0
+ 1 !8# ( '" 5 > (
1 & + (
! 1
$* " & 3 0 4 ./,6
! ! ( !
1
$A 6 & & ' & # ; ./,6
'& + 3 4 # # +
1!
$& 4 4
1 @ # ,0 ./,6
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEF Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Summary
Control Summary
of OFSummary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
No.36
42
43
45
36
36
158
265 36
of
759of 51
172
173
174
176
of
51
ofof5151
173
183
548
673
1224 Tuesday,
Tuesday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
Tuesday,
Saturday March
Wednesday15,
December
Sunday,March
April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
27th2016
June 12,
15,
5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 37
43
44
46
37
36
37
159
26637
37
of
760
27 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 38
44
45
47
38
37
38
160
26738
38
of
761
28 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 39
45
46
48
39
38
39
161
26839
39
of
762
29 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! " # " $% &
! " #
$ %
"&# '
$ ( %
' ( " ") " * ) ! " ! + " * " ,

! , "" ! " ! " ! " ! , ,
+ " - ! ! )
*
% ( *
(
%
! .
/"0 ! , * 1 ! + 2"3
4 - 1 " " 1 , ! !
4 1 , ! ! ) ** ! "
! 5 6 ) " " # 4 4 + &,,-
. . $ / ..$/
&,,0
% % 1 2 1
%
&,, 3 &,, %
4 %
%
& , , " " " !, " 5

00 6
7 8 9
%
: 7 - 8, 9 , "2 ! " , , , ! 1 , ** !
, ! : 7 ) , . 4 ;
&,,- ( &<;= 5 (
> $;$ ? $
! % % 4
1 &,,@ &,,= ,
$ >
A 1 B3 .+
&,,=
1 B3 2
>
%
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 40
46
47
49
40
39
40
162
26940
40
of
763
30 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
< ) * " ) ! A 24
1 ! ' &,, &, , A %
1 2 5 % % " #9 9
- ! ) " " " ; " , . 4

4 "$ C# &,,@(&,,= A D $
3 1 B 3 24 %
5
! %
% &,,0 4 % %
! %3 %
@ < " - "" * ,! " + , :

! * % E % 0 =
9 9
$ 0 =9 00&9 00 &,,- &, , $
!
% %
! %
D 3 $ ! % %
3
= )) /4 0 ), " $ ;
F G + 0 = / F G %
! + $ 3 00 &,,<
3 * E
3 3 " H %#
$ / %
$ D $ $ . +
&,,- &, ,
4 !- " , - .
3 * &,,@ D $ / B
$ &,,
0 6 -) ! 24 0 = . A * D
/ 4 / 00 3 $ 00=; 00 .
5 :
, # ! 7 3 %
&,,- &, , ! D $
$ ! D $ 3 D 3 $ D % A
D E 7F ! 8F
D $ &,,- &,,0 >
% ! D $
3 D A %
; % . + % %
4 E
$
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 41
47
48
50
41
40
41
163
27041
41
of
764
31 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
) 7 24 00
F F A $;$ (F 7 8 !
.
,-(&& &,,- 1 $
2 1 3
& # = $ % &,,- D $ /
B 3 1
: 5 " * < :# ) " . 0 = / F G

00 9 00=( 00 9 &,,- &, , . 3 B
B 3 1 $ 3
. / $
< > ) "" "" " 0 =

/ ;3 $ &,,@
- #, " ! "" " E % D E $

&,,- $ D 3
@ " " " 24 = 0 = &, &,,- &,,@

$ 3 D $ $ $ 3 !
= " ) " " = , D $ 3 0 =

@, &,,@ ! @, 1
&,,@
9
!
@, !
#" !, ! " "1 , " ! "* # ) ": - " E

0 = / F
G . &,,-
! !
B 3
0 " # ) . 0 = / F G 00 9
00=( 00 9 &,,- &, , . 3 B
B 3 1 $ 3 /
$ : &,,-
' 9 9 9 9 9 A
&, ( " , !
. 00 $ 3
$ ! 7 8
&, , !
F &,, &, ,
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 42
48
49
51
42
41
42
164
27142
42
of
765
32 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
& , * " *# ) F ) $
&& " : !- &,,- 4
% A D $ 3 1
&: ;! , ! " > ? " 24 &,,0

5 > ; B
%
&< ) < !- $ / %
$ D $ $ . + &,,-
&, , F $ %
&, , 5 % % (
2 %
&- - A &,,- &, , $ A )

A + .+ $ $
&@ * ! : : , * * @ 7 " . 3
0 = &,, &,,0
3 *
&= 5 ! ! 6 ) " " 7 "! ) " ": )" .

4 &,,@ E 4 &,,@
"
#
& 5 ! !6 ) " " ; . 4 &,,-
&0 ! < ") + " . / 0 = "&# @

- 9 &,,@ : 9 &,,0
9 &, , . $ $ / B
00 &,,
:, 7 ) , * * ! " F
0 =
A ;A 0 =
F 0 =
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 43
49
50
52
43
42
43
165
27243
43
of
766
33 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
3 ! ! 6 0 = 0 =
" $ . .
+ 1 $ . #
I $ $ "2
! $ + # ' J +
. 00&
+$;F &,;&, F 00 ! '
D 3 $ 24
"$ A + 1 . #
$ $ $ 1 1 "1E1# $
K 0=,K
E K 3 > L F F . A
A . F + B + 1 $
+ 1 $ $
$ 1
1 B 6 $ 3 >
+ B 1 $
$ ! 00,K
> 1 B 3 > 1 B3 F
! F ! ! A ! ! >
1 1
00 % F F
) % 3 F 7 8
&,,- & 1 1
! 4 '
A
. 3 ! 4
A F 4 0<,K 4
0=,K 0 ,K 00,K
9 A .
1 3 > % 2! 4
/ &,, F ) %$ A .
0@,K D 1 4 A? D!B
0@,K " # +
$ 0 <9 F $ $ * 00 /
7 D 18
.
E % 0 =
$ % 0 ,K M
M 1 $ 0 = 00
00= E % / % 4 !
&,,- (
9 9
; !
1 $ $ !2B+EF2
D $ 3 ,-( (&&
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 44
50
51
53
44
43
44
166
27344
44
of
767
34 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
# ") ! "
7! N (
O O
N
.
!
5 4 (
F 5 (
G A 8
A' , ? * ? 1 * " " * #" !, " " , , * 7 "
!, A ,
( > " !, '! B $C * #" !, D ! " &
73 "
# (
K ; 2
.
" #( K !
; 5
7 ! 8 9 9 9 9
9 9 %
! % (
% '
5
% !
7A 8 ! $ ' O 7D .2 (
8 ! 8 *
O
% 8
' + ( -
7 (
' % (
! % % %
4 %
K
K M M M % M
% (
K 8
' + - 6 "
7E %
' N %( (
4 (
; ! (
(
7 8 (
7 8
87 - 7 > !,
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 45
51
52
54
45
44
45
167
27445
45
of
768
35 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
! * , " 1"
! , * 1 3
@ E ! DD ! 1 * )) )
@ E ! DD -
B &. @ DD
B @ . DD ") ! " , " *" * ( ! ") "
"
B @ & DD ) "
B @ . DD ) * , " ! * 1
B @ & DD ) ! * " *
B @ $ DD ") ! 7
B @ DD 7
B @ E DD "!
" * *
. @ EB& DD ! * ) * , "
. @ EB DD ") ! 1 ,! * , "
& @ & B DD 6, " 1 ) ! "
B @ DD 5 " ! !
B @ & DD 1 "": !
B @ DD ) 1 , 1 "": !
B @ & DD > " 1 "": !
B @ DD ' " ! ! " ! * ! * " "
B@ E DD ) ; !" * , " ) ) " !

) * 1 ,"
B@ % DD *) F ) ! , ! ) F
"E # PPPPPPP " %#
>7 '?
% 4 %
" Stan J. Caterbone

# PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
F " Stan J. Caterbone

# PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
1 June 19, 2015

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Pennsylvania
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP $
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Lancaster
19
PPPPPPP June
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP 15
&,PP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Stan J. Caterbone - I was a notary from '94-'98 F 3 24 Don't Know When
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
SJC I
. . $ / I $ Q &, , "!
&, , . . $ / I #
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 46
52
53
55
46
45
46
168
27546
46
of
769
36 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 47
53
54
56
47
46
47
169
27647
47
of
770
37 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP Page 35 of 41 06/10/2007
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 48
54
55
57
48
47
48
170
27748
48
of
771
38 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 49
55
56
58
49
48
49
171
27849
49
of
772
39 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 50
56
57
59
50
49
50
172
27950
50
of
773
40 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
Advanced
Stan
15-03984
Stan
Mind
U.S. J. Caterbone
J.Motion
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Whistleblower
17-01233
Sponsored
Control
BRIEFGroup
Grop
Group
For
INExecutive
Reconsideration
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Transcripts
Testimonies
Mind
SUPPORT Release
ofRelease
Control Summary
OF Summary
Intelligence Page
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 51
57
58
60
51
50
51
173
28051
51
of
774
41 of
ofof
of51
172
173
174
176
of
51
50
51
of51
51
173
183
548
673
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
TuesdayTuesday,
March
SaturdayTuesday,
March
December
15,
Wednesday
DecemberMarch
Sunday,
Saturday, April
2016
September15,
3/15/2016
June
October27th2016
17,
12,
15,
11,
of
7, 2015
2016
5, 2015
10, 2017
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Cover Page Page 1 of 2
Sign the Resolution

Contents | Feedback | Search
DRCNet Home | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library
Historical References
General Histories | Ancient History | 1800-1850 | 1860 | 1870 | 1880 | 1890
1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN
RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
____________
AUGUST 3, 1977
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.281
775ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 1 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/cover.htm 1/22/2009
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Cover Page Page 2 of 2
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence

and Committee on Human Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1977
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock No. 052-070-04357-1
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.282
776ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 2 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/cover.htm 1/22/2009
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Staff Page Page 1 of 2
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE
(Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d sess.)
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman

BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona, Vice Chairman
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana

ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine
WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware
ROBERT MORGAN, North Carolina
GARY HART, Colorado
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
JAKE GARN, Utah
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
JOHN H. CHAFE, Rhode Island
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Ex Officio Member

HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee, Ex Officio Member
WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director

EARL D. EISENHOWER, Minority Staff Director
AUDREY H. HATRY, Chief Clerk
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.283
777ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 3 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/staff.htm 1/22/2009
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Staff Page Page 2 of 2
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri
ALAN CRANSTON, California
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
S.I. HAYAKAWA, California
STEPHEN J. PARADISE, General Counsel and Staff Director

MARJORIE M. WHITTAKER, Chief Clerk
DON A. ZIMMERMAN, Minority Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey
(ex officio)
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
LAWRENCE HOROWITZ, Professional Staff Member

DAVID WINSTON, Minority Counsel
(II)
Table of Contents
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.284
778ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 4 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/staff.htm 1/22/2009
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Prepared Statement of CIA Director Stansfield Tur... Page 1 of 6
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
Prepared Statement of Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of

Central Intelligence
Mr. Chairman: In my letter to you of July 15, 1977, I reported our recent discovery of seven boxes
of documents related to Project MKULTRA, a closely held CIA project conducted from 1953-
1964. As you may recall, MKULTRA was an "umbrella project" under which certain sensitive
subprojects were funded, involving among other things research on drugs and behavioral
modification. During the Rockefeller Commission and Church Committee investigations in 1975,
the cryptonym became publicly known when details of the drug-related death of Dr. Frank Olsen
were publicized. In 1953 Dr. Olsen, a civilian employee of the Army at Fort Detrick, leaped to his
death from a hotel room window in New York City about a week after having unwittingly
consumed LSD administered to him as an experiment at a meeting of LSD researchers called by
CIA.
Most of what was known about the Agency's involvement with behavioral drugs during the
investigations in 1975 was contained in a report on Project MKULTRA prepared by the Inspector
General's office in 1963. As a result of that report's recommendations, unwitting testing of drugs
on U.S. citizens was subsequently discontinued. The MKULTRA-related report was made
available to the Church Committee investigators and to the staff of Senator Kennedy's
Subcommittee on Health. Until the recent discovery, it was believed that all of the MKULTRA
files dealing with behavioral modification had been destroyed in 1973 on the orders of the then
retiring Chief of the Office of Technical Service, with the authorization of the DCI, as has been
previously reported. Almost all of the people who had had any connection with the aspects of the
project which interested Senate investigators in 1975 were no longer with the Agency at that time.
Thus, there was little detailed knowledge of the MKULTRA subprojects available to CIA during
the Church Committee investigations. This lack of available details, moreover, was probably not
wholly attributable to the
-5-
destruction of MKULTRA files in 1973; the 1963 report on MKULTRA by the Inspector General
notes on page 14: "Present practice is to maintain no records of the planning and approval of test
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.285
779ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 5 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/Hearing02.htm 1/22/2009
programs."
When I reported to you last on this matter, my staff had not yet had an opportunity to review the
newly located material in depth. This has now been accomplished, and I am in a position to give
you a description of the contents of the recovered material. I believe you will be most interested in
the following aspects of the recent discovery:
How the material was discovered and why it was not previously found;
The nature of this recently located material;
How much new information there is in the material which may not have been previously
known and reported to Senate investigators; and
What we believe the most significant aspects of this find to be.
To begin, as to how we discovered these materials. The material had been sent to our Retired
Records Center outside of Washington and was discovered sent to our Retired Records Center
outside of Washington and was discovered there as a result of the extensive search efforts of an
employee charged with responsibility for maintaining our holdings on behavioral drugs and for
responding to Freedom of Information Act requests on this subject. During the Church Committee
investigation in 1975, searches for MKULTRA-related material were made by examining both the
active and retired records of all branches of CIA considered at all likely to have had association
with MKULTRA documents. The retired records of the Budget and Fiscal Section of the Branch
responsible for such work were not searched, however. This was because financial papers
associated with sensitive projects such s MKULTRA were normally maintained by the Branch
itself under the project file, not by the Budget and Fiscal Section. In the case at hand, however,
the newly located material was sent to the Retired Records Center in 1970 by the Budget and
Fiscal Section as part of its own retired holdings. The reason for this departure from normal
procedure is not known. As a result of it, however, the material escaped retrieval and destruction
in 1973 by the then-retiring Director of the Office as well as discovery in 1975 by CIA officials
responding to Senate investigators.
The employee who located this material did so by leaving no stone unturned in his efforts to
respond to FOIA requests. He reviewed all listings of material of this Branch stored at the Retired
Records Center, including those of the Budget and Fiscal Section and, thus, discovered the
MKULTRA-related documents which had been missed in the previous searches. In sum, the
Agency failed to uncover these particular documents in 1973 in the process of attempting to
destroy them; it similarly failed to locate them in 1975 in response to the Church Committee
hearings. I am convinced that there was no attempt to conceal this material during the earlier
searches.
Next, as to the nature of the recently located material, it is important to realize that the recovered
folders are finance folders. The bulk of the material in them consists of approvals for advance of
funds, vouchers, accountings, and the like -- most of which are not very informative as to the
nature of the activities that were undertaken. Occasional project proposals or memoranda
commenting on some aspect of a subproject are scattered throughout this material. In general,
however, the recovered material does not include status reports or other documents relating to
operational considerations or progress in the various subprojects, though some elaboration of the
activities contemplated does appear. The recovered documents fall roughly into three categories:
First, there are 149 MKULTRA subprojects, many of which appear to have some connection
with research into behavioral modification, drug acquisition and testing or administering drugs
surreptitiously.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.286
780ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 6 of 258
Second, there are two boxes of miscellaneous MKULTRA papers, including audit reports and
financial statements from "cut-out" (i.e., intermediary) funding mechanisms used to conceal CIA's
sponsorship of various research projects.
Finally, there are 33 additional subprojects concerning certain intelligence activities previously
funded under MKULTRA which have nothing to do either with behavioral modification, drugs,
and toxins or with any other related matters.
We have attempted to group the activities covered by the 149 subprojects into categories under
descriptive headings. In broad outline, at least, this presents the contents of these files. The
activities are placed in the following 15 categories:
-6-
1. Research into the effects of behavioral drugs and/or alcohol:
17 subprojects probably not involving human testing;
14 subprojects definitely involving tests on human volunteers;
19 subprojects probably including tests on human volunteers. While not known, some of these
subprojects may have included tests on unwitting subjects as well;
6 subprojects involving tests on unwitting subjects.
2. Research on hypnosis: 8 subprojects, including 2 involving hypnosis and drugs in combination.
3. Acquisition of chemicals or drugs: 7 subprojects.
4. Aspects of magicians' art useful in covert operations: e.g., surreptitious delivery of drug-related
materials: 4 subprojects.
5. Studies of human behavior, sleep research, and behavioral changes during psychotherapy: 9
subprojects.
6. Library searches and attendance at seminars and international conferences on behavioral

modification: 6 subprojects.
7. Motivational studies, studies of defectors, assessment, and training techniques: 23 subprojects.
8. Polygraph research: 3 subprojects.
9. Funding mechanisms for MKULTRA external research activities: 3 subprojects.
10. Research on drugs, toxins, and biologicals in human tissue; provision of exotic pathogens and
the capability to incorporate them in effective delivery systems: 6 subprojects.
11. Activities whose objectives cannot be determined from available documentation: 3
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.287
781ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 7 of 258
subprojects.
12. Subprojects involving funding support for unspecified activities connected with the Army's
Special Operations Division at Fr. Detrick, Md. This activity is outline in Book I of the Church
Committee Report, pp. 388-389. (See Appendix A, pp. 68-69.) Under CIA's Project MKNAOMI,
the Army Assisted CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery
systems for use against humans as well as against animals and crops. The objectives of these
subprojects cannot be identified from the recovered material beyond the fact that the money was
to be used where normal funding channels would require more written or oral justification than
appeared desirable for security reasons or where operational considerations dictated short lead
times for purchases. About $11,000 was involved during this period 1953-1960: 3 subprojects.
13. Single subprojects in such areas as effects of electro-shock, harassment techniques for
offensive use, analysis of extrasensory perception, gas propelled sprays and aerosols, and four
subprojects involving crop and material sabotage.
14. One or two subprojects on each of the following:
"Blood Grouping" research, controlling the activity of animals, energy storage and transfer in
organic systems; and
stimulus and response in biological systems.
15. Three subprojects canceled before any work was done on them having to do with laboratory
drug screening, research on brain concussion, and research on biologically active materials to be
tested through the skin on human volunteers.
Now, as to how much new the recovered material adds to what has previously been reported to
the Church Committee and to Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health on these topics, the
answer is additional detail, for the most part: e.g., the names of previously unidentified
researchers and institutions associated on either a witting or unwitting basis with MKULTRA
activities, and the names of CIA officials who approved or monitored the various subprojects.
Some new substantive material is also present: e.g., details concerning proposals for
experimentation and clinical testing associated with various research projects, and a possibly
improper contribution by CIA to a private institution. However, the principal types of activities
included have, for the most part, either been outlined to some extent or generally described in
what was previously available to CIA in the way of documentation and was supplied by CIA to
Senate investigators. For example:
Financial disbursement records for the period 1960-1964 for 76 of the 149 numbered MKULTRA
subprojects had been recovered from the Office of Finance by CIA and were made available to the
Church Committee investigators in August or September 1975.
The 1963 Inspector General report on MKULTRA made available to both the Church Committee
and Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee mentions electro-shock
-7-
and harassment substances (pp. 4, 16); covert testing on unwitting U.S. citizens (pp. 7, 10-12); the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.288
782ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 8 of 258
search for new materials through arrangements with specialists in universities, pharmaceutical
houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private research organizations (pp. 7, 9); and
the fact that the Technical Service Division of CIA had initiated 144 subprojects related to the
control of human behavior between 1953-1963 (p. 21).
The relevant section of a 1957 Inspector General report on the Technical Service Division was
also made available to the Church Committee staff. That report discusses techniques for human
assessment and unorthodox methods of communication (p. 201); discrediting and disabling
materials which can be covertly administered (pp. 201-202); studies on magicians' arts as applied
to covert operations (p. 202); specific funding mechanisms for research performed outside of CIA
(pp. 202-203, 205); research being done on "K" (knockout) material, alcohol tolerance, and
hypnotism (p. 203); research on LSD (p. 204); anti-personnel harassment and assassination
delivery systems including aerosol generators and other spray devices (pp. 206-208); the role of
Fort Detrick in support of CIA's Biological/Chemical Warfare capability (p. 208); and material
sabotage research (p. 209). Much of this material is reflected in the Church Committee Report,
Book I, pp. 385-422. (See Appendix A, pp. 65-102).
The most significant new data discovered are, first, the names of researchers and institutions who
participated in the MKULTRA project and, secondly, a possibly improper contribution by CIA to
a private institution. We are now in possession of the names of 185 non-government researchers
and assistants who are identified in the recovered material dealing with the 149 subprojects. The
names of 80 institutions where work was done or with which these people were affiliated are also
mentioned.
The institutions include 44 colleges or universities, 15 research foundations or chemical or

pharmaceutical companies and the like, 12 hospitals or clinics (in addition to those associated
with universities), and 3 penal institutions. While the identities of some of these people and
institutions were known previously, the discovery of the new identities adds to our knowledge of
MKULTRA.
The facts as they pertain to the possibly improper contribution are as follows: One project
involves a contribution of $375,000 to a building fund of a private medical institution. The fact
that a contribution was made was previously known; indeed it was mentioned in a 1957 Inspector
General report on the Technical Service Division of CIA, pertinent portions of which had been
reviewed by the Church Committee staff. The newly discovered material, however, makes it clear
that this contribution was made through an intermediary, which made it appear to be a private
donation. As a private donation, the contribution was then matched by federal funds. The
institution was not made aware of the true source of the gift. This project was approved by the
then DCI, and concurred in by CIA's top management at the time, including the then General
Counsel who wrote an opinion supporting the legality of the contribution.
The recently discovered documents give a greater insight into the scope of the unwitting drug
testing but contribute little more than that. We now have collaborating information that some of
the unwitting drug testing was carried on in safehouses in San Francisco and New York City, and
we have identified that three individuals were involved in this undertaking as opposed to the
previously reported one person. We also know now that some unwitting testing took place on
criminal sexual psychopaths confined at a State hospital and that, additionally, research was done
on knock-out or "K" drug in parallel with research to develop pain killers for cancer patients.
These, then are the principal findings identified to date in our review of the recovered material. As
noted earlier, we believe the detail on the identities of researchers and institutions involved in
CIA's sponsorship of drugs and behavioral modification is a new element and one which poses a
considerable problem. Most of the people and institutions involved are not aware of Agency
sponsorship. We should certainly assume that the researchers and institutions which cooperate
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.289
783ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 9 of 258
with CIA on a witting basis acted in good faith and in the belief that they were aiding their
government in a legitimate and proper purpose. I believe we all have a moral obligation to these
researchers and institutions to protect them from any unjustified embarrassment or damage to
their reputations which revelation of their identities might bring. In addition, I have a legal
obligation under the Privacy Act not to publicly disclose the names of the individual researchers
without their consent. This is especially true, of course, for
-8-
those researchers and institutions which were unwitting participants in CIA-sponsored activities.
Nevertheless, recognizing the right and the need of both the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Subcommittee on Health to investigate the circumstances of these
activities in whatever detail they consider necessary. I am providing your Committee with all of
the names on a classified basis. I hope that this will facilitate your investigation while protecting
the individuals and institutions involved. Let me emphasize that the MKULTRA events are 12 to
25 years in the past. I assure you that the CIA is in no way engaged in either witting or unwitting
testing of drugs today.
Finally, I am working closely with the Attorney General and with the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare on this matter. We are making available to the Attorney General whatever
materials he may deem necessary to any investigation he may elect to undertake. We are working
with both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to determine
whether it is practicable from this new evidence to attempt to identify any of the persons to whom
drugs may have been administered unwittingly. No such names are part of these records, but we
are working to determine if there are adequate clues to lead to their identification; and if so, how
to go about fulfilling the Government's responsibilities in the matter.
Next: Testimony of CIA Director Stansfield Turner

Previous: Opening Remarks
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.290
784ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 10 of 258
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Testiomony of Philip Goldman and John Gittinger, ... Page 1 of 18
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
Testimony of Philip Goldman, Former Employee, Central

Intelligence Agency
Mr. GOLDMAN. I am Philip Goldman.
Senator INOUYE. And you are a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Over 10 years ago.
Senator INOUYE. And you were employed at the time when MKULTRA was in operation?
Mr. GOLDMAN. There were some MKULTRA's in operation at the time I was there.
-51-
Senator INOUYE. And Mr. John Gittinger, are you a former employee of the Central
Intelligence Agency?
Testimony of John Gittinger, Former Employee, Central

Intelligence Agency
Mr. GITTINGER. I am.
Senator INOUYE. Are you still an employee?
Mr. GITTINGER. No.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.291
785ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 11 of 258
Senator INOUYE. Were you a member of the Agency at the time MKULTRA was in
operation?
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Kennedy.
Senator KENNEDY. I want to welcome both of you to the committee. If we could start with
Mr. Goldman. Were you the project engineer for the safe houses in either San Francisco or
New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I know of no safe house in San Francisco.
Senator KENNEDY. How about in New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I knew of one facility that was established there, but I didn't know anything
of its operation.
Senator KENNEDY. Were you a monitor on any testing of drugs on unwitting persons in San
Francisco?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we have a classified document here that was provided by the
Agency that lists your name as a monitor of the program and I would appreciate it if you
would look--
Mr. GOLDMAN. I think the misunderstanding arises because I was project officer.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, would you take a look at that?
[Mr. Goldman inspected the document.]
Mr. GOLDMAN. This document as it states is correct. However, my--
Senator KENNEDY. That document is correct?
Mr. GOLDMAN. As far as I see on the first page, the project. But my--
Senator KENNEDY. Well, could I get it back, please.
That would indicate that you were a monitor of the program.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I was in charge of disbursing the moneys to Morgan Hall.
Senator KENNEDY. To whom was that?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To the individual whose name was listed at the top of that document.
Senator KENNEDY. And you knew that he was running the project in San Francisco?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.292
786ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 12 of 258
Mr. GOLDMAN. I knew he was the person who was in charge out there.
Senator KENNEDY. All right.
Mr. GOLDMAN. But I had no knowledge nor did I seek knowledge of actually what he was
doing, because there would be other things involved.
I did receive--
Senator KENNEDY. What were you doing?
-52-
Mr. GOLDMAN. I was collecting -- I had to be sure that all the receipts that ever were turned
in balanced with the moneys that were paid out to see that everything was run all right. There
was no illegal use of funds as far as we could determine by the receipts and cash.
Senator KENNEDY. So even though the Agency document indicates that you were a monitor
for the program, one of the few monitors of that particular program which you mentioned for
San Francisco and Mill Valley, Calif., you described your responsibility only as a carrier of
money, is that correct?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I would say as a disburser or carrying out -- seeing that the moneys were
handled properly. There was within that -- I don't know what's done or what he did do in
conjunction with other people.
Senator KENNEDY. Were you responsible for the disbursement of all the funds?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I was responsible for turning over the check to him.
Senator KENNEDY. And what did you know of the program itself?
Mr. GOLDMAN. The only thing I knew of the program was what he furnished us in terms of
receipts and that sort of thing. I didn't indulge or concern myself in that.
Senator KENNEDY. You still wrote, and I'll let you examine it -- it's a classified document --
but you wrote a rather substantive review of the program in May of 1963, talking about the
experiments, the factual data that had been collected, covert and realistic field trials, about the
necessity of those particular -- and talked about the effectiveness of the various programs, the
efficiency of various delivery systems. That doesn't sound to me like someone who is only--
Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, if you would refresh my memory, if I could read this I would
certainly agree with whatever is said there, if it was written.
Senator KENNEDY. I am trying to gather what your role was. You've indicated first of all
that you didn't know about -- you knew about a safe house in New York; now we find out that
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.293
787ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 13 of 258
you're the carrier for the resources as well and the agent in San Francisco. We find out now
that the CIA put you as a monitor. You're testifying that you only were the courier, and here
we have just one document, and there are many others that talk about the substance of that
program with your name on it and I am just trying to find out exactly what role you were
playing.
Mr. GOLDMAN. The only thing I can tell you about this and I am drawing completely on
my memory is that this individual who was in charge out there conducted these things and
reported them back to the Agency. I didn't participate in any of them. All I know was that he
furnished me with receipts for things that were done and told of the work that they had done.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, that document covers more than receipts.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, it tells of what -- they had conducted work out there.
Senator KENNEDY. It describes, does it not? Read the paragraph 2.
Mr. GOLDMAN. "A number of covert"--
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you can't read it, it's a classified document, and I don't know why,
quite frankly, but it relates to the substance
-53-
of those programs and your name is signed to the memorandums on it. I am not interested in
you trying to review for us now what is in the document, but I think it would be unfortunate if
we were left with the opinion that all you were was a courier of resources when we see a
document with your name on it, signed, that talks about the substance of the program. And
what we're interested in is the substance of the program. We have the recent documents that
were provided by the Agency, which do indicate that you were at least involved in the
substance, and I'm just trying to find out whether you're willing to tell us about that.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I am perfectly willing to tell you everything that I can remember.
Senator KENNEDY. But you can't remember anything.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I can't remember the substantive parts of these, things, I really can't.
Senator KENNEDY. Of the program that was taking place.
Do you have any greater familiarity with what was happening in New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, no.
Senator KENNEDY. And you have the same function with regards to New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. The same function with regard to New York.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.294
788ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 14 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. Did you ever go to San Francisco?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. Did you meet with the agent in charge?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And why did you meet with him?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To discuss some of the receipts and things that were there to find out if
these were indeed true expenditures and to find out if everything was going along all right for
the work that was being done.
Senator KENNEDY. What work was being done?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, the reports of these things and whatever was being done. I don't know
who he reported to but he did report to somebody.
Senator KENNEDY. You travel out there to find out about the work that's being done, and
what does he tell you, that the work is being done well and--
Mr. GOLDMAN. He told me that the work that they were doing was going along,
progressing satisfactorily, but to be very frank with you--
Senator KENNEDY. But he didn't tell you what the work was?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To be very frank with you, Senator, I cannot remember the things that
happened back in those days. I've been away from the company -- from the Agency for over
10 years, and that is even farther back than that, and that was just about the time when I first
engaged in this, so it was my first--
Senator KENNEDY. Did they disburse a series of $100 checks, to your recollection?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I don't recollect it, but if you have it there, then they did.
Senator KENNEDY. Did you know Dr. Gottlieb?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
-54-
Senator KENNEDY. How did you know Dr. Gottlieb?
Mr. GOLDMAN. He had been head of the division when I was recruited.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.295
789ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 15 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. Did you talk to him about these programs? Did you have anything to do
with him during this period of time?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I didn't have anything to do with him until I would say probably in the
sixties.
Senator KENNEDY. And can you tell us what you had to do with him then?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Just what you see there, on the papers.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is the request for the money and he approves it.
Mr. GOLDMAN. That is the request for money and he approves it, and I am quite sure that I
probably discussed with him whether the work was going along all right, whether his reports
were being turned in, and whether he was satisfied with the way things were going and did he
have any complaints about the way other people were requesting him, but I did not engage
myself in anything he was doing.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, did you get the impression that Gottlieb knew what was going
on?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I didn't ask.
Senator KENNEDY. But you told him that your impression that what was going on even
though you didn't know what was going on, was going on well, I guess? [Laughter.]
Mr. GOLDMAN. I told Gottlieb what you saw in there was that the things appeared to be
going along all right. I was repeating and parroting back the words that were given to me
while I was there.
Senator KENNEDY. What was the money being spent for, do you know?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No; I can't recall that, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you remember if we told you it was red curtains and can-can
pictures--
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Floral pictures and the rest.
Senator KENNEDY. Recorders.
Senator KENNEDY. Recorders and two-way mirrors.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Wait, hold on. You're slipping a word in there now.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.296
790ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 16 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. But you would have authorized those funds, would you not, since you
were the--
Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you say two-way mirrors?
Senator KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Where?
Senator KENNEDY. In the safe houses.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Where?
Senator KENNEDY. San Francisco.
Mr. GOLDMAN. No.
Senator KENNEDY. How about New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. You remember now that you approved expenditures for New York?
-55-
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. What were those expenditures for?
Mr. GOLDMAN. That was a transfer of money over for the use in an apartment in New York
by the Bureau of Narcotics. It was for their use.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you have any knowledge of what was going on in the apartment?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir, other than I know that it had been used, according to the
information that I have been given, it was used by the Bureau of Narcotics to make meetings
with individuals who they were interested in with regard to pushing dope -- not pushing dope,
but selling narcotics and that sort of thing.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, I am sure you had many responsibilities and it's a long time ago,
but the Agency does indicate that you were project monitor for that particular program.
Mr. GOLDMAN. That's correct.
Senator KENNEDY. Your own testimony indicates you went out to review the expenditures
of funds to find out whether they were being wisely used, that you came back and talked to the
project director, Mr. Gottlieb, to give him a progress report about what was going on out there.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.297
791ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 17 of 258
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator KENNEDY. All those things are true, and yet you draw a complete blank in terms of
what was the project itself. That's where the record is now.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I did not go out there to review the projects nor did I come back and talk
with Mr. Gottlieb and review what I had observed in terms of any projects that they -- that is,
other parts of the Agency might have in operation there. I simply reported back those things
which were told to me by the individual out there who -- and I carried them back and they --
are contained in the report that you have in front of you, word for word, just as it was given to
me.
Senator KENNEDY. The report that you examined here is a substantive report on the
particular program and project. And I don't think anyone who wasn't familiar with the project -
- this is a personal evaluation -- could write a report on the substance of it without knowing
about it. Now, that's mine. Maybe you can't remember and recollect, and that's--
Mr. GOLDMAN. No; everything I put down in there is things that I was told while I was out
there, and if there was any ancillary information involved in there I can tell you I just don't
remember that. I really don't.
At the time -- that was some years ago. At the time -- a lot of time has passed since then and I
have made quite sure that if I could recollect it at all, I would do it. If you have some papers
and you want me to certify whether yes, this is so or that is so, I can do that, but I can't recall it
mentally.
Senator KENNEDY. You just certified the principal. There are others up here.
I would like to go to Dr. Gittinger.
Mr. GITTINGER. It's Mr. Gittinger.
Senator KENNEDY. How long did you serve with the Agency?
-56-
Mr. GITTINGER. Twenty-six years.
Senator KENNEDY. Excuse me?
Senator KENNEDY. Twenty-six years.
And at some point you moved into the operational support side, is that correct?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.298
792ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 18 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And did you know Sidney Gottlieb?
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. And did he inform you about the research projects involving LSD?
Senator KENNEDY. It is my understanding that you were also aware of some of the drug
testing projects conducted on unwitting subjects on the west coast using the Bureau of
Narcotics people in the operation. Is that true?
Mr. GITTINGER. I was.
Senator INOUYE. Excuse me. Would you speak into the microphone? I cannot hear you.
Mr. GITTINGER. Sorry.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you know which drugs were involved in those tests?
Mr. GITTINGER. LSD. And I can't remember for sure much of the others. What is the
substance of marihuana, cannabis, is that right, that can be delivered by other than smoking?
Senator KENNEDY. Cannabis?
Mr. GITTINGER. There had been some discussion of that; yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And was heroin also used?
Mr. GITTINGER. Heroin used by CIA?
Senator KENNEDY. No. In the west coast operation.
Mr. GITTINGER. Absolutely not.
Senator KENNEDY. Now, to your knowledge, how were the drugs administered to the
unwitting subjects?
Mr. GITTINGER. I have no direct knowledge.
Senator KENNEDY. Why did you go to the safe houses?
Mr. GITTINGER. It's a very complicated story. Just in justification of myself, this came up
just, day before yesterday. I have not really had enough time to get it all straightened in my
mind, so I ramble.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you take your time and tell us in your own words. We've got
some time here.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.299
793ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 19 of 258
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Testiomony of Philip Goldman and John Gitting... Page 10 of 18
Mr. GITTINGER. My responsibilities which would involve any of the period of time that
you were talking about really was not directly related to drugs at all. I was a psychologist
charged with the responsibility of trying to develop as much information as I could on various
cultures, overseas cultures, anthropological type data, if you follow what I mean. I was also
engaged in trying to work out ways and means of assessing people and understanding people.
I originally became involved in this through working on Chinese culture, and over a series of
time I was introduced to the problem of brainwashing, which is the thing that really was the
most compelling thing in relationship to this, and became charged with the responsibility of
trying to find out a little bit about interrogation techniques.
-57-
And among other things, we decided or I decided that one of the best sources of interrogation
techniques would be trying to locate and interview and become involved with experienced
police interrogators in the country and experienced people who had real practical knowledge
of interrogation. The reason for this is that we had become pretty well convinced after the
experience of the brainwashing problems coming out of China, that it was the techniques of
the interrogators that were causing the individuals to make confessions and so forth in
relationship to this, rather than any kind of drugging and so forth. So we were very much
interested in interrogation techniques, and this led to me being introduced to the agent in the
west coast, and I began to talk to him in connection with these interrogation techniques.
Senator KENNEDY. OK. Now, that is the agent that ran the tests on the west coast on the
unwitting people. That's where you come in, correct?
Mr. GITTINGER. If I understand -- would you say that again?
Senator KENNEDY. The name Morgan Hall has been -- that is the name that has been used.
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And that is the agent that you met with.
Mr. GITTINGER. That is right.
Senator KENNEDY. And you met at the safe house.
Senator KENNEDY. Whom did you meet with in the safe house?
Mr. GITTINGER. This is the part that is hard for me to say, and I am sorry that I have to. In
connection with some work that we were doing, we needed to have some information on
sexual habits. Morgan Hall provided informants for me, to talk to in connection with the sex
habits that I was interested in trying to find information. During one period of time the safe
house, as far as I was concerned, was used for just these particular type of interviews. And I
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.300
794ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 20 of 258
didn't see the red curtains.
Senator KENNEDY. Those were prostitutes, were they?
Senator KENNEDY. How many different times were you there that you had similar--
Mr. GITTINGER. I couldn't possibly say with any certainty on that. Four or five times.
Senator KENNEDY. Four or five times.
Mr. GITTINGER. Over -- you remember now, the period that I'm talking about when I
would have any involvement in this is from about 1956 to 1961. So it's about a 4- or 5-year
period which is the only time that I know anything about what you are talking about here
today.
Senator KENNEDY. Did Morgan Hall make the arrangements for the prostitutes to meet
with you?
Senator KENNEDY. Did the interviews that you had have anything to do with drugs?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, as I tried to explain earlier when this was being discussed a little bit
beforehand, again I think it is pretty hard for most people now to recognize how little there
was known about drugs at the period of time that we are talking about, because the
-58-
drug age or the drug culture comes later on. Consequently, those of us who had any
responsibility in this area were interested in trying to get as much information as we could on
the subculture, the subculture drug groups, and obviously the Bureau of Narcotics represented
a means of doing this. Consequently, other types of things that were involved in discussions at
that time would have to do with the underground use of drugs. When I am talking about this I
am talking about the folkways in terms of unwitting use of drugs. Did these people that I was
talking to have any information about this and on rare instances they were able to tell me
about their use, and in most cases this would largely turn out to be a Mickey Finn or
something of that sort rather than anything esoteric.
I also was very much interested because we had relatively little information, believe it or not,
at that time, in terms of the various reactions that people were having to drugs. Therefore,
these people were very informative in terms of they knew a great deal of information about
reactions.
Senator KENNEDY. At least you gathered -- or am I correct in assuming that you gathered
the impression that the prostitutes that you had talked to were able to slip the drugs to people
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.301
795ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 21 of 258
as I understand it. Did you form any impression on that?
Mr. GITTINGER. I certainly did not form the impression that, they did this as a rule or--
Senator KENNEDY. But they bad the knowledge.
Mr. GITTINGER. They had the knowledge or some of them had had knowledge of this
being done. But again, as it turned out, it was largely in this area of knockout drops.
Senator KENNEDY. Looking back now did you form any impression about how the Agency
was actually testing the broad spectrum of social classes in these safe houses? With the large
disbursal of cash in small quantities, $100 bills and the kinds of elaborate decorations and
two-way mirrors in the bedrooms and all the rest, is there any question in your own mind what
was going on in the safe houses, or the techniques that were being used to administer these
drugs?
Mr. GITTINGER. I find it very difficult to answer that question, sir. I had absolutely no
direct knowledge there was a large number of this. I had no knowledge that anyone other than
-- than Morgan Hall was in any way involved in the unwitting administration of drugs.
Senator KENNEDY. But Gottlieb would know, would he not?
Mr. GITTINGER. I believe so, yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Could we go into the Human Ecology Foundation and talk about that
and how it was used as an instrument in terms of the support of research?
Senator KENNEDY. Could you describe it to us? Could you describe the Human Ecology
Foundation, how it functioned and how it worked?
Mr. GITTINGER. May I tell something about how it evolved, which I think is important?
Senator KENNEDY. Sure.
Mr. GITTINGER. The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, so-called, was
actually a -- I am confused here now as to whether I should name you names.
-59-
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we're not interested in names or institutions, so we prefer that you
do not. That has to be worked out in arrangements between Admiral Turner and the
individuals and the institutions.
But we're interested in what the Foundation really was and how it functioned and what its
purpose was.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.302
796ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 22 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, it was established to undertake research in the general area of the
behavioral sciences. It definitely had almost no focus or interest in, say, drug-related type of
activities except in a very minor way, because it was largely set up to attempt to gain a certain
amount of information and to fund projects which were psychological, sociological,
anthropological in character. It was established in the sense of a period of time that a lot of us
who are in it wish we could do it over again, but we were interested in trying to get together a
panel of the most representative high-level behavioral scientists we could to oversee and help
in terms of developing the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology type of program.
The Agency in effect provided the money. They did not direct the projects. Now, the fact of
the matter is, there are a lot of innocent people who received the Society for the Investigation
of Human Ecology money which I know for a fact they were never asked to do anything for
the CIA but they did get through this indirectly. They had no knowledge that they were getting
CIA money.
Senator KENNEDY. Over what period of time did this take place?
Mr. GITTINGER. As far as I was concerned , it was the period of time ending in 1961. 1
believe the Human Ecology fund finally phased out in 1965, but I was not involved in this
phasing out.
Senator KENNEDY. Can you give the range of the different sort of individual projects of the
universities in which it was active?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, it would have as many as -- I am very fuzzy on my memory on the
number of projects. It is over 10, 20, 30.
Senator KENNEDY. After it made the grants, what was the relationship of the Agency with
the results of the studies? The Foundation acquired the money to make the grants from the
Agency, and then it made the grants to these various research programs.
Senator KENNEDY. And that included eight universities as well as individual researchers?
Senator KENNEDY. Then what follow-up was there to that, sir?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, in every sense of the word, the organization was run exactly like
any other foundation, and it carried with it the same thing in terms of making certain that the
people that they had given money to used it for the purpose for which it had been granted, that
they had access to any of the reports that they had put out, but there were no strings attached to
anybody. There wasn't any reason they couldn't publish anything that they put out.
Senator KENNEDY. What, sort of budget are we talking about here?
Mr. GITTINGER. I honestly do not remember. I would guess we are talking in the realm of
about $150,000 a year, but don't hold me to that, because I don't know.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.303
797ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 23 of 258
-60-
Senator KENNEDY. What is your view about such funding as a professional person, in terms
of compromising the integrity of a university, sir?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, obviously, sir, insofar as today there is no question about it. I will
have to say at the time that we were doing this there was quite an entirely different kind of an
attitude, and I do know for a fact that we moved to start towards phasing out the Society for
the Investigation of Human Ecology and the Human Ecology Fund for the very reason that we
were beginning to recognize that it was moving into an area but this would be compromised.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is commendable, both your attitude and the reasons for it, but
during that period of time it still was involved in behavior research programs, as I understand
it.
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. On its own, in connection with this, it participated again, and
these again were not CIA-directed projects, but these were all things which would
theoretically contribute to the general knowledge at the time where the things like the study of
the Hungarian refugees -- obviously, the study of the Hungarian refugees who came to this
country after the Hungarian revolt was a very useful exercise to try to get information about
the personality characteristics of the Communists and so forth.
Senator KENNEDY. Were there other foundations that were doing similar kinds of work?
Mr. GITTINGER. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. You believe--
Mr. GITTINGER. You mean, CIA, other CIA?
Senator KENNEDY. Right.
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, my answer is in the sense that I know of no other CIA foundations,
no. There were, of course, other foundations doing similar kinds of work in the United States.
Senator KENNEDY. Have you heard of the Psychological Assessments Foundation?
Mr. GITTINGER. I certainly have.
Senator KENNEDY. What was that? What function did that have?
Mr. GITTINGER. Now, this was bringing us up to a different era. I believe the functions of
that organization have nothing whatsoever to do with the things that are being talked about
here while I was associated with it.
Senator KENNEDY. Rather than getting into the work, it was another foundation, was it not?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.304
798ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 24 of 258
It was another foundation supported by the Agency?
Mr. GITTINGER. What, the Psychological Assessment?
Mr. GITTINGER. No, sir, it was not.
Senator KENNEDY. It did not get any support at all from the Agency?
Mr. GITTINGER. Oh, yes, sir. It did get support, but it was a business firm.
Senator KENNEDY. It was a business but it got support from the Agency?
Mr. GITTINGER. It got money from it, but it definitely was not in MKULTRA or in any
way associated with this.
-61-
Senator KENNEDY. All right. I want to thank you for your helpful testimony, Mr. Gittinger.
It is not easy to go back into the past. I think you have been very fair in your characterizations,
and I think it is quite appropriately indicated that there are different standards now from what
they were 25 years ago, and I think you have responded very fairly and completely to the
inquiries, and I think with a good deal of feeling about it.
You are a person who is obviously attempting to serve the country's interest, so I want to
thank you very much for your statement and for your helpful timeliness.
Mr. GITTINGER. Thank you, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Case?
Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I had another committee that I had
to complete the hearing with this morning before I got here.
I shall read the testimony with very great interest, and I appreciate your testimony as I have
heard it. I would like to comment just on one point, and that is, it relates to a story in the press
yesterday about part of this program involving the funding of a grant at a foreign university. I
would like to elicit from you a comment as to the additional sensitivity and difficulty that that
practice involves from your standpoint as a scientist, as well as a citizen, if you will.
Mr. GITTINGER. I will say it was after the fact thinking. It was utter stupidity the way
things worked out to have used some of this money outside the United States when it was CIA
money. I can categorically state to my knowledge, and I don't claim a complete knowledge all
the way across of the human ecology functions, but to my knowledge, and this is unfortunate,
those people did not know that they were getting money from CIA, and they were not asked to
contribute anything to CIA as such.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.305
799ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 25 of 258
Senator CASE. It would be interesting to try to examine this by turning the thing around and
thinking what we would think if this happened from a foreign official agency to our own
university. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Schweiker.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Goldman, I wonder if you would tell us what your training and educational background is?
Dr. GOLDMAN. I have already given a biography for the record.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I have not seen it. Who has it? Is it classified? We may have it for
the record, but may I ask you to briefly describe your training and background for us now? I
hope it is no secret.
Dr. GOLDMAN. Well, I was told if I was asked this to say that. I was told that by your staff
people, but I have no objection to telling you. I am a resident from Pennsylvania, southwest
Pennsylvania, Lancaster County. I went to Penn State, and I am in nutrition.
Senator SCHWEIKER. In what?
Dr. GOLDMAN. Nutrition.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Were you in charge of a section or segment of the CIA in your past
capacity?
Dr. GOLDMAN. During the time I was with that organization, I was in charge of one small
section of it, one small segment of it; yes.
-62-
Senator SCHWEIKER. What was the function or purpose of that section that you headed?
Dr. GOLDMAN. To provide support for the other parts of the division.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Where in the chain of command would that put you in relation to Dr.
Gottlieb?
Dr. GOLDMAN. Pretty far down the line.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gittinger, I would just like to ask you a few questions. We
appreciate your frankness and candor with the committee, and we realize this is a very difficult
area to go into. I am not quite clear on two matters that were raised earlier. First, were the safe
houses we were talking about here used on occasion by the prostitutes you referred to?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.306
800ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 26 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. I really have not the slightest idea.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Were the prostitutes used in any way to slip the customers drugs for
observation purposes?
Mr. GITTINGER. Not to my direct knowledge.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Would you have been in a position to know the answer to either of
these questions?
Mr. GITTINGER. May I say, probably not, and may I make an aside to explain a little bit of
this, please, sir?
Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gittinger, a moment ago you mentioned brainwashing

techniques, as one area that you had, I guess, done some work in. How would you characterize
the state of the art of brainwashing today? Who has the most expertise in this field, and who is
or is not doing it in terms of other governments?
During the Korean war there was a lot of serious discussion about brainwashing techniques
being used by the North Koreans, and I am interested in finding out what the state of the art is
today, as you see it.
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, of course, there, has been a great deal of work on this, and there is
still a great deal of controversy. I can tell you that as far as I knew, by 1961, 1962, it was at
least proven to my satisfaction that brainwashing, so called, is some kind of an esoteric device
where drugs or mind- altering kinds of conditions and so forth were used, did not exist even
though "The Manchurian Candidate" as a Movie really set us back a long time, because it
made something impossible look plausible. Do you follow what I mean? But by 1962 and
1963, the general idea that we were able to come up with is that brainwashing was largely a
process of isolating a human being, keeping him out of contact, putting him under long stress
in relationship to interviewing and interrogation, and that they could produce any change that
way without having to resort to any kind of esoteric means.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Are there ways that we can ascertain this from a distance when we
see a captive prisoner either go on television, in a photograph, or at a press conference? In
other words, are there certain signs that you have learned to recognize from your technical
background, to tell when brainwashing has occurred? Or is that very difficult to do?
Mr. GITTINGER. It is difficult to do. I think it is possible now in terms of looking at a

picture of somebody who has been in enemy hands for a long period of time. We can get some
pretty good ideas of what kind of circumstances he has been under, if that is what you mean.
-63-
Senator SCHWEIKER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.307
801ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 27 of 258
Before adjourning the hearings, I would like to have the record show that Dr. Goldman and
Mr. Gittinger have voluntarily cooperated with the committee in staff interviews, that they
appear this morning voluntarily, and they are not under subpoena.
Gentlemen, I realize that this experience may have been an unhappy one and possibly a
painful one. Therefore, we thank you very much for participating this morning. We also
realize that the circumstances of that time differed very much from this day, and possibly the
national attitude, the national political attitude condoned this type of activity. So, we have not
asked you to come here as persons who have committed crimes, but rather in hope that you
can assist us in studying this problem so that it will not occur once again. In that spirit we
thank you for your participation, and we look forward to working with you further in this case.
Thank you very much.
Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to thank the witnesses. These are
difficult matters, and I think all of us are very grateful.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I think the witnesses should know that though it may not always
seem that way, what we are trying to do is to probe the past and look at the policies of the past
to affect the future. I think our emphasis really is on the future, not the past, but it is important
that we learn from the past as we formulate policies and legislation for the future, I hope that
all of the witnesses who did come before us voluntarily this morning, including Admiral
Turner respect the fact that we are questioning the past to learn about the future. I think it
should be looked at in that light.
Senator KENNEDY. I think that is the spirit in which we have had these hearings. It seems to
me that from both these witnesses and others, Gottlieb knows the information and can best
respond, and we are going to make every effort in the Senate Health Committee to get Mr.
Gottlieb to appear, and we obviously look forward to cooperating with Senator Inouye and the
other members of the committee in getting the final chapter written on this, but we want to
thank you very much for your appearance here.
Senator INOUYE. The hearing will stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.]
Appendix A: Testing and Use of Chemical and Biological Agents by the

Intelligence Community
Appendix B: Documents Referring to Discovery of Additional MKULTRA
Material
Appendix C: Documents Referring to Subprojects
Table of Contents
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.308
802ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 28 of 258
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
Testimony of Philip Goldman, Former Employee, Central

Intelligence Agency
Mr. GOLDMAN. I am Philip Goldman.
Senator INOUYE. And you are a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Over 10 years ago.
Senator INOUYE. And you were employed at the time when MKULTRA was in operation?
Mr. GOLDMAN. There were some MKULTRA's in operation at the time I was there.
-51-
Senator INOUYE. And Mr. John Gittinger, are you a former employee of the Central
Intelligence Agency?
Testimony of John Gittinger, Former Employee, Central

Intelligence Agency
Mr. GITTINGER. I am.
Senator INOUYE. Are you still an employee?
Mr. GITTINGER. No.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.309
803ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 29 of 258
Senator INOUYE. Were you a member of the Agency at the time MKULTRA was in
operation?
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Kennedy.
Senator KENNEDY. I want to welcome both of you to the committee. If we could start with
Mr. Goldman. Were you the project engineer for the safe houses in either San Francisco or
New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I know of no safe house in San Francisco.
Senator KENNEDY. How about in New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I knew of one facility that was established there, but I didn't know anything
of its operation.
Senator KENNEDY. Were you a monitor on any testing of drugs on unwitting persons in San
Francisco?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we have a classified document here that was provided by the
Agency that lists your name as a monitor of the program and I would appreciate it if you
would look--
Mr. GOLDMAN. I think the misunderstanding arises because I was project officer.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, would you take a look at that?
[Mr. Goldman inspected the document.]
Mr. GOLDMAN. This document as it states is correct. However, my--
Senator KENNEDY. That document is correct?
Mr. GOLDMAN. As far as I see on the first page, the project. But my--
Senator KENNEDY. Well, could I get it back, please.
That would indicate that you were a monitor of the program.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I was in charge of disbursing the moneys to Morgan Hall.
Senator KENNEDY. To whom was that?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To the individual whose name was listed at the top of that document.
Senator KENNEDY. And you knew that he was running the project in San Francisco?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.310
804ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 30 of 258
Mr. GOLDMAN. I knew he was the person who was in charge out there.
Senator KENNEDY. All right.
Mr. GOLDMAN. But I had no knowledge nor did I seek knowledge of actually what he was
doing, because there would be other things involved.
I did receive--
Senator KENNEDY. What were you doing?
-52-
Mr. GOLDMAN. I was collecting -- I had to be sure that all the receipts that ever were turned
in balanced with the moneys that were paid out to see that everything was run all right. There
was no illegal use of funds as far as we could determine by the receipts and cash.
Senator KENNEDY. So even though the Agency document indicates that you were a monitor
for the program, one of the few monitors of that particular program which you mentioned for
San Francisco and Mill Valley, Calif., you described your responsibility only as a carrier of
money, is that correct?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I would say as a disburser or carrying out -- seeing that the moneys were
handled properly. There was within that -- I don't know what's done or what he did do in
conjunction with other people.
Senator KENNEDY. Were you responsible for the disbursement of all the funds?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I was responsible for turning over the check to him.
Senator KENNEDY. And what did you know of the program itself?
Mr. GOLDMAN. The only thing I knew of the program was what he furnished us in terms of
receipts and that sort of thing. I didn't indulge or concern myself in that.
Senator KENNEDY. You still wrote, and I'll let you examine it -- it's a classified document --
but you wrote a rather substantive review of the program in May of 1963, talking about the
experiments, the factual data that had been collected, covert and realistic field trials, about the
necessity of those particular -- and talked about the effectiveness of the various programs, the
efficiency of various delivery systems. That doesn't sound to me like someone who is only--
Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, if you would refresh my memory, if I could read this I would
certainly agree with whatever is said there, if it was written.
Senator KENNEDY. I am trying to gather what your role was. You've indicated first of all
that you didn't know about -- you knew about a safe house in New York; now we find out that
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.311
805ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 31 of 258
you're the carrier for the resources as well and the agent in San Francisco. We find out now
that the CIA put you as a monitor. You're testifying that you only were the courier, and here
we have just one document, and there are many others that talk about the substance of that
program with your name on it and I am just trying to find out exactly what role you were
playing.
Mr. GOLDMAN. The only thing I can tell you about this and I am drawing completely on
my memory is that this individual who was in charge out there conducted these things and
reported them back to the Agency. I didn't participate in any of them. All I know was that he
furnished me with receipts for things that were done and told of the work that they had done.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, that document covers more than receipts.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, it tells of what -- they had conducted work out there.
Senator KENNEDY. It describes, does it not? Read the paragraph 2.
Mr. GOLDMAN. "A number of covert"--
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you can't read it, it's a classified document, and I don't know why,
quite frankly, but it relates to the substance
-53-
of those programs and your name is signed to the memorandums on it. I am not interested in
you trying to review for us now what is in the document, but I think it would be unfortunate if
we were left with the opinion that all you were was a courier of resources when we see a
document with your name on it, signed, that talks about the substance of the program. And
what we're interested in is the substance of the program. We have the recent documents that
were provided by the Agency, which do indicate that you were at least involved in the
substance, and I'm just trying to find out whether you're willing to tell us about that.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I am perfectly willing to tell you everything that I can remember.
Senator KENNEDY. But you can't remember anything.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I can't remember the substantive parts of these, things, I really can't.
Senator KENNEDY. Of the program that was taking place.
Do you have any greater familiarity with what was happening in New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, no.
Senator KENNEDY. And you have the same function with regards to New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. The same function with regard to New York.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.312
806ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 32 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. Did you ever go to San Francisco?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. Did you meet with the agent in charge?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And why did you meet with him?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To discuss some of the receipts and things that were there to find out if
these were indeed true expenditures and to find out if everything was going along all right for
the work that was being done.
Senator KENNEDY. What work was being done?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, the reports of these things and whatever was being done. I don't know
who he reported to but he did report to somebody.
Senator KENNEDY. You travel out there to find out about the work that's being done, and
what does he tell you, that the work is being done well and--
Mr. GOLDMAN. He told me that the work that they were doing was going along,
progressing satisfactorily, but to be very frank with you--
Senator KENNEDY. But he didn't tell you what the work was?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To be very frank with you, Senator, I cannot remember the things that
happened back in those days. I've been away from the company -- from the Agency for over
10 years, and that is even farther back than that, and that was just about the time when I first
engaged in this, so it was my first--
Senator KENNEDY. Did they disburse a series of $100 checks, to your recollection?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I don't recollect it, but if you have it there, then they did.
Senator KENNEDY. Did you know Dr. Gottlieb?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
-54-
Senator KENNEDY. How did you know Dr. Gottlieb?
Mr. GOLDMAN. He had been head of the division when I was recruited.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.313
807ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 33 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. Did you talk to him about these programs? Did you have anything to do
with him during this period of time?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I didn't have anything to do with him until I would say probably in the
sixties.
Senator KENNEDY. And can you tell us what you had to do with him then?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Just what you see there, on the papers.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is the request for the money and he approves it.
Mr. GOLDMAN. That is the request for money and he approves it, and I am quite sure that I
probably discussed with him whether the work was going along all right, whether his reports
were being turned in, and whether he was satisfied with the way things were going and did he
have any complaints about the way other people were requesting him, but I did not engage
myself in anything he was doing.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, did you get the impression that Gottlieb knew what was going
on?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I didn't ask.
Senator KENNEDY. But you told him that your impression that what was going on even
though you didn't know what was going on, was going on well, I guess? [Laughter.]
Mr. GOLDMAN. I told Gottlieb what you saw in there was that the things appeared to be
going along all right. I was repeating and parroting back the words that were given to me
while I was there.
Senator KENNEDY. What was the money being spent for, do you know?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No; I can't recall that, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you remember if we told you it was red curtains and can-can
pictures--
Senator KENNEDY. Floral pictures and the rest.
Senator KENNEDY. Recorders.
Senator KENNEDY. Recorders and two-way mirrors.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Wait, hold on. You're slipping a word in there now.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.314
808ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 34 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. But you would have authorized those funds, would you not, since you
were the--
Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you say two-way mirrors?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Where?
Senator KENNEDY. In the safe houses.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Where?
Senator KENNEDY. San Francisco.
Mr. GOLDMAN. No.
Senator KENNEDY. How about New York?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. You remember now that you approved expenditures for New York?
-55-
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. What were those expenditures for?
Mr. GOLDMAN. That was a transfer of money over for the use in an apartment in New York
by the Bureau of Narcotics. It was for their use.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you have any knowledge of what was going on in the apartment?
Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir, other than I know that it had been used, according to the
information that I have been given, it was used by the Bureau of Narcotics to make meetings
with individuals who they were interested in with regard to pushing dope -- not pushing dope,
but selling narcotics and that sort of thing.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, I am sure you had many responsibilities and it's a long time ago,
but the Agency does indicate that you were project monitor for that particular program.
Mr. GOLDMAN. That's correct.
Senator KENNEDY. Your own testimony indicates you went out to review the expenditures
of funds to find out whether they were being wisely used, that you came back and talked to the
project director, Mr. Gottlieb, to give him a progress report about what was going on out there.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.315
809ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 35 of 258
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator KENNEDY. All those things are true, and yet you draw a complete blank in terms of
what was the project itself. That's where the record is now.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I did not go out there to review the projects nor did I come back and talk
with Mr. Gottlieb and review what I had observed in terms of any projects that they -- that is,
other parts of the Agency might have in operation there. I simply reported back those things
which were told to me by the individual out there who -- and I carried them back and they --
are contained in the report that you have in front of you, word for word, just as it was given to
me.
Senator KENNEDY. The report that you examined here is a substantive report on the
particular program and project. And I don't think anyone who wasn't familiar with the project -
- this is a personal evaluation -- could write a report on the substance of it without knowing
about it. Now, that's mine. Maybe you can't remember and recollect, and that's--
Mr. GOLDMAN. No; everything I put down in there is things that I was told while I was out
there, and if there was any ancillary information involved in there I can tell you I just don't
remember that. I really don't.
At the time -- that was some years ago. At the time -- a lot of time has passed since then and I
have made quite sure that if I could recollect it at all, I would do it. If you have some papers
and you want me to certify whether yes, this is so or that is so, I can do that, but I can't recall it
mentally.
Senator KENNEDY. You just certified the principal. There are others up here.
I would like to go to Dr. Gittinger.
Mr. GITTINGER. It's Mr. Gittinger.
Senator KENNEDY. How long did you serve with the Agency?
-56-
Senator KENNEDY. Excuse me?
Senator KENNEDY. Twenty-six years.
And at some point you moved into the operational support side, is that correct?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.316
810ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 36 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And did you know Sidney Gottlieb?
Senator KENNEDY. And did he inform you about the research projects involving LSD?
Senator KENNEDY. It is my understanding that you were also aware of some of the drug
testing projects conducted on unwitting subjects on the west coast using the Bureau of
Narcotics people in the operation. Is that true?
Mr. GITTINGER. I was.
Senator INOUYE. Excuse me. Would you speak into the microphone? I cannot hear you.
Mr. GITTINGER. Sorry.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you know which drugs were involved in those tests?
Mr. GITTINGER. LSD. And I can't remember for sure much of the others. What is the
substance of marihuana, cannabis, is that right, that can be delivered by other than smoking?
Senator KENNEDY. Cannabis?
Mr. GITTINGER. There had been some discussion of that; yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And was heroin also used?
Mr. GITTINGER. Heroin used by CIA?
Senator KENNEDY. No. In the west coast operation.
Mr. GITTINGER. Absolutely not.
Senator KENNEDY. Now, to your knowledge, how were the drugs administered to the
unwitting subjects?
Mr. GITTINGER. I have no direct knowledge.
Senator KENNEDY. Why did you go to the safe houses?
Mr. GITTINGER. It's a very complicated story. Just in justification of myself, this came up
just, day before yesterday. I have not really had enough time to get it all straightened in my
mind, so I ramble.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you take your time and tell us in your own words. We've got
some time here.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.317
811ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 37 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. My responsibilities which would involve any of the period of time that
you were talking about really was not directly related to drugs at all. I was a psychologist
charged with the responsibility of trying to develop as much information as I could on various
cultures, overseas cultures, anthropological type data, if you follow what I mean. I was also
engaged in trying to work out ways and means of assessing people and understanding people.
I originally became involved in this through working on Chinese culture, and over a series of
time I was introduced to the problem of brainwashing, which is the thing that really was the
most compelling thing in relationship to this, and became charged with the responsibility of
trying to find out a little bit about interrogation techniques.
-57-
And among other things, we decided or I decided that one of the best sources of interrogation
techniques would be trying to locate and interview and become involved with experienced
police interrogators in the country and experienced people who had real practical knowledge
of interrogation. The reason for this is that we had become pretty well convinced after the
experience of the brainwashing problems coming out of China, that it was the techniques of
the interrogators that were causing the individuals to make confessions and so forth in
relationship to this, rather than any kind of drugging and so forth. So we were very much
interested in interrogation techniques, and this led to me being introduced to the agent in the
west coast, and I began to talk to him in connection with these interrogation techniques.
Senator KENNEDY. OK. Now, that is the agent that ran the tests on the west coast on the
unwitting people. That's where you come in, correct?
Mr. GITTINGER. If I understand -- would you say that again?
Senator KENNEDY. The name Morgan Hall has been -- that is the name that has been used.
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And that is the agent that you met with.
Mr. GITTINGER. That is right.
Senator KENNEDY. And you met at the safe house.
Senator KENNEDY. Whom did you meet with in the safe house?
Mr. GITTINGER. This is the part that is hard for me to say, and I am sorry that I have to. In
connection with some work that we were doing, we needed to have some information on
sexual habits. Morgan Hall provided informants for me, to talk to in connection with the sex
habits that I was interested in trying to find information. During one period of time the safe
house, as far as I was concerned, was used for just these particular type of interviews. And I
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.318
812ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 38 of 258
didn't see the red curtains.
Senator KENNEDY. Those were prostitutes, were they?
Senator KENNEDY. How many different times were you there that you had similar--
Mr. GITTINGER. I couldn't possibly say with any certainty on that. Four or five times.
Senator KENNEDY. Four or five times.
Mr. GITTINGER. Over -- you remember now, the period that I'm talking about when I
would have any involvement in this is from about 1956 to 1961. So it's about a 4- or 5-year
period which is the only time that I know anything about what you are talking about here
today.
Senator KENNEDY. Did Morgan Hall make the arrangements for the prostitutes to meet
with you?
Senator KENNEDY. Did the interviews that you had have anything to do with drugs?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, as I tried to explain earlier when this was being discussed a little bit
beforehand, again I think it is pretty hard for most people now to recognize how little there
was known about drugs at the period of time that we are talking about, because the
-58-
drug age or the drug culture comes later on. Consequently, those of us who had any
responsibility in this area were interested in trying to get as much information as we could on
the subculture, the subculture drug groups, and obviously the Bureau of Narcotics represented
a means of doing this. Consequently, other types of things that were involved in discussions at
that time would have to do with the underground use of drugs. When I am talking about this I
am talking about the folkways in terms of unwitting use of drugs. Did these people that I was
talking to have any information about this and on rare instances they were able to tell me
about their use, and in most cases this would largely turn out to be a Mickey Finn or
something of that sort rather than anything esoteric.
I also was very much interested because we had relatively little information, believe it or not,
at that time, in terms of the various reactions that people were having to drugs. Therefore,
these people were very informative in terms of they knew a great deal of information about
reactions.
Senator KENNEDY. At least you gathered -- or am I correct in assuming that you gathered
the impression that the prostitutes that you had talked to were able to slip the drugs to people
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.319
813ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 39 of 258
as I understand it. Did you form any impression on that?
Mr. GITTINGER. I certainly did not form the impression that, they did this as a rule or--
Senator KENNEDY. But they bad the knowledge.
Mr. GITTINGER. They had the knowledge or some of them had had knowledge of this
being done. But again, as it turned out, it was largely in this area of knockout drops.
Senator KENNEDY. Looking back now did you form any impression about how the Agency
was actually testing the broad spectrum of social classes in these safe houses? With the large
disbursal of cash in small quantities, $100 bills and the kinds of elaborate decorations and
two-way mirrors in the bedrooms and all the rest, is there any question in your own mind what
was going on in the safe houses, or the techniques that were being used to administer these
drugs?
Mr. GITTINGER. I find it very difficult to answer that question, sir. I had absolutely no
direct knowledge there was a large number of this. I had no knowledge that anyone other than
-- than Morgan Hall was in any way involved in the unwitting administration of drugs.
Senator KENNEDY. But Gottlieb would know, would he not?
Mr. GITTINGER. I believe so, yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Could we go into the Human Ecology Foundation and talk about that
and how it was used as an instrument in terms of the support of research?
Senator KENNEDY. Could you describe it to us? Could you describe the Human Ecology
Foundation, how it functioned and how it worked?
Mr. GITTINGER. May I tell something about how it evolved, which I think is important?
Senator KENNEDY. Sure.
Mr. GITTINGER. The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, so-called, was
actually a -- I am confused here now as to whether I should name you names.
-59-
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we're not interested in names or institutions, so we prefer that you
do not. That has to be worked out in arrangements between Admiral Turner and the
individuals and the institutions.
But we're interested in what the Foundation really was and how it functioned and what its
purpose was.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.320
814ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 40 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, it was established to undertake research in the general area of the
behavioral sciences. It definitely had almost no focus or interest in, say, drug-related type of
activities except in a very minor way, because it was largely set up to attempt to gain a certain
amount of information and to fund projects which were psychological, sociological,
anthropological in character. It was established in the sense of a period of time that a lot of us
who are in it wish we could do it over again, but we were interested in trying to get together a
panel of the most representative high-level behavioral scientists we could to oversee and help
in terms of developing the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology type of program.
The Agency in effect provided the money. They did not direct the projects. Now, the fact of
the matter is, there are a lot of innocent people who received the Society for the Investigation
of Human Ecology money which I know for a fact they were never asked to do anything for
the CIA but they did get through this indirectly. They had no knowledge that they were getting
CIA money.
Senator KENNEDY. Over what period of time did this take place?
Mr. GITTINGER. As far as I was concerned , it was the period of time ending in 1961. 1
believe the Human Ecology fund finally phased out in 1965, but I was not involved in this
phasing out.
Senator KENNEDY. Can you give the range of the different sort of individual projects of the
universities in which it was active?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, it would have as many as -- I am very fuzzy on my memory on the
number of projects. It is over 10, 20, 30.
Senator KENNEDY. After it made the grants, what was the relationship of the Agency with
the results of the studies? The Foundation acquired the money to make the grants from the
Agency, and then it made the grants to these various research programs.
Senator KENNEDY. And that included eight universities as well as individual researchers?
Senator KENNEDY. Then what follow-up was there to that, sir?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, in every sense of the word, the organization was run exactly like
any other foundation, and it carried with it the same thing in terms of making certain that the
people that they had given money to used it for the purpose for which it had been granted, that
they had access to any of the reports that they had put out, but there were no strings attached to
anybody. There wasn't any reason they couldn't publish anything that they put out.
Senator KENNEDY. What, sort of budget are we talking about here?
Mr. GITTINGER. I honestly do not remember. I would guess we are talking in the realm of
about $150,000 a year, but don't hold me to that, because I don't know.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.321
815ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 41 of 258
-60-
Senator KENNEDY. What is your view about such funding as a professional person, in terms
of compromising the integrity of a university, sir?
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, obviously, sir, insofar as today there is no question about it. I will
have to say at the time that we were doing this there was quite an entirely different kind of an
attitude, and I do know for a fact that we moved to start towards phasing out the Society for
the Investigation of Human Ecology and the Human Ecology Fund for the very reason that we
were beginning to recognize that it was moving into an area but this would be compromised.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is commendable, both your attitude and the reasons for it, but
during that period of time it still was involved in behavior research programs, as I understand
it.
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. On its own, in connection with this, it participated again, and
these again were not CIA-directed projects, but these were all things which would
theoretically contribute to the general knowledge at the time where the things like the study of
the Hungarian refugees -- obviously, the study of the Hungarian refugees who came to this
country after the Hungarian revolt was a very useful exercise to try to get information about
the personality characteristics of the Communists and so forth.
Senator KENNEDY. Were there other foundations that were doing similar kinds of work?
Mr. GITTINGER. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. You believe--
Mr. GITTINGER. You mean, CIA, other CIA?
Senator KENNEDY. Right.
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, my answer is in the sense that I know of no other CIA foundations,
no. There were, of course, other foundations doing similar kinds of work in the United States.
Senator KENNEDY. Have you heard of the Psychological Assessments Foundation?
Mr. GITTINGER. I certainly have.
Senator KENNEDY. What was that? What function did that have?
Mr. GITTINGER. Now, this was bringing us up to a different era. I believe the functions of
that organization have nothing whatsoever to do with the things that are being talked about
here while I was associated with it.
Senator KENNEDY. Rather than getting into the work, it was another foundation, was it not?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.322
816ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 42 of 258
It was another foundation supported by the Agency?
Mr. GITTINGER. What, the Psychological Assessment?
Mr. GITTINGER. No, sir, it was not.
Senator KENNEDY. It did not get any support at all from the Agency?
Mr. GITTINGER. Oh, yes, sir. It did get support, but it was a business firm.
Senator KENNEDY. It was a business but it got support from the Agency?
Mr. GITTINGER. It got money from it, but it definitely was not in MKULTRA or in any
way associated with this.
-61-
Senator KENNEDY. All right. I want to thank you for your helpful testimony, Mr. Gittinger.
It is not easy to go back into the past. I think you have been very fair in your characterizations,
and I think it is quite appropriately indicated that there are different standards now from what
they were 25 years ago, and I think you have responded very fairly and completely to the
inquiries, and I think with a good deal of feeling about it.
You are a person who is obviously attempting to serve the country's interest, so I want to
thank you very much for your statement and for your helpful timeliness.
Mr. GITTINGER. Thank you, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Case?
Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I had another committee that I had
to complete the hearing with this morning before I got here.
I shall read the testimony with very great interest, and I appreciate your testimony as I have
heard it. I would like to comment just on one point, and that is, it relates to a story in the press
yesterday about part of this program involving the funding of a grant at a foreign university. I
would like to elicit from you a comment as to the additional sensitivity and difficulty that that
practice involves from your standpoint as a scientist, as well as a citizen, if you will.
Mr. GITTINGER. I will say it was after the fact thinking. It was utter stupidity the way
things worked out to have used some of this money outside the United States when it was CIA
money. I can categorically state to my knowledge, and I don't claim a complete knowledge all
the way across of the human ecology functions, but to my knowledge, and this is unfortunate,
those people did not know that they were getting money from CIA, and they were not asked to
contribute anything to CIA as such.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.323
817ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 43 of 258
Senator CASE. It would be interesting to try to examine this by turning the thing around and
thinking what we would think if this happened from a foreign official agency to our own
university. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Goldman, I wonder if you would tell us what your training and educational background is?
Dr. GOLDMAN. I have already given a biography for the record.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I have not seen it. Who has it? Is it classified? We may have it for
the record, but may I ask you to briefly describe your training and background for us now? I
hope it is no secret.
Dr. GOLDMAN. Well, I was told if I was asked this to say that. I was told that by your staff
people, but I have no objection to telling you. I am a resident from Pennsylvania, southwest
Pennsylvania, Lancaster County. I went to Penn State, and I am in nutrition.
Senator SCHWEIKER. In what?
Dr. GOLDMAN. Nutrition.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Were you in charge of a section or segment of the CIA in your past
capacity?
Dr. GOLDMAN. During the time I was with that organization, I was in charge of one small
section of it, one small segment of it; yes.
-62-
Senator SCHWEIKER. What was the function or purpose of that section that you headed?
Dr. GOLDMAN. To provide support for the other parts of the division.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Where in the chain of command would that put you in relation to Dr.
Gottlieb?
Dr. GOLDMAN. Pretty far down the line.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gittinger, I would just like to ask you a few questions. We
appreciate your frankness and candor with the committee, and we realize this is a very difficult
area to go into. I am not quite clear on two matters that were raised earlier. First, were the safe
houses we were talking about here used on occasion by the prostitutes you referred to?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.324
818ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 44 of 258
Mr. GITTINGER. I really have not the slightest idea.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Were the prostitutes used in any way to slip the customers drugs for
observation purposes?
Mr. GITTINGER. Not to my direct knowledge.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Would you have been in a position to know the answer to either of
these questions?
Mr. GITTINGER. May I say, probably not, and may I make an aside to explain a little bit of
this, please, sir?
Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gittinger, a moment ago you mentioned brainwashing

techniques, as one area that you had, I guess, done some work in. How would you characterize
the state of the art of brainwashing today? Who has the most expertise in this field, and who is
or is not doing it in terms of other governments?
During the Korean war there was a lot of serious discussion about brainwashing techniques
being used by the North Koreans, and I am interested in finding out what the state of the art is
today, as you see it.
Mr. GITTINGER. Well, of course, there, has been a great deal of work on this, and there is
still a great deal of controversy. I can tell you that as far as I knew, by 1961, 1962, it was at
least proven to my satisfaction that brainwashing, so called, is some kind of an esoteric device
where drugs or mind- altering kinds of conditions and so forth were used, did not exist even
though "The Manchurian Candidate" as a Movie really set us back a long time, because it
made something impossible look plausible. Do you follow what I mean? But by 1962 and
1963, the general idea that we were able to come up with is that brainwashing was largely a
process of isolating a human being, keeping him out of contact, putting him under long stress
in relationship to interviewing and interrogation, and that they could produce any change that
way without having to resort to any kind of esoteric means.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Are there ways that we can ascertain this from a distance when we
see a captive prisoner either go on television, in a photograph, or at a press conference? In
other words, are there certain signs that you have learned to recognize from your technical
background, to tell when brainwashing has occurred? Or is that very difficult to do?
Mr. GITTINGER. It is difficult to do. I think it is possible now in terms of looking at a

picture of somebody who has been in enemy hands for a long period of time. We can get some
pretty good ideas of what kind of circumstances he has been under, if that is what you mean.
-63-
Senator SCHWEIKER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.325
819ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 45 of 258
Before adjourning the hearings, I would like to have the record show that Dr. Goldman and
Mr. Gittinger have voluntarily cooperated with the committee in staff interviews, that they
appear this morning voluntarily, and they are not under subpoena.
Gentlemen, I realize that this experience may have been an unhappy one and possibly a
painful one. Therefore, we thank you very much for participating this morning. We also
realize that the circumstances of that time differed very much from this day, and possibly the
national attitude, the national political attitude condoned this type of activity. So, we have not
asked you to come here as persons who have committed crimes, but rather in hope that you
can assist us in studying this problem so that it will not occur once again. In that spirit we
thank you for your participation, and we look forward to working with you further in this case.
Thank you very much.
Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to thank the witnesses. These are
difficult matters, and I think all of us are very grateful.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I think the witnesses should know that though it may not always
seem that way, what we are trying to do is to probe the past and look at the policies of the past
to affect the future. I think our emphasis really is on the future, not the past, but it is important
that we learn from the past as we formulate policies and legislation for the future, I hope that
all of the witnesses who did come before us voluntarily this morning, including Admiral
Turner respect the fact that we are questioning the past to learn about the future. I think it
should be looked at in that light.
Senator KENNEDY. I think that is the spirit in which we have had these hearings. It seems to
me that from both these witnesses and others, Gottlieb knows the information and can best
respond, and we are going to make every effort in the Senate Health Committee to get Mr.
Gottlieb to appear, and we obviously look forward to cooperating with Senator Inouye and the
other members of the committee in getting the final chapter written on this, but we want to
thank you very much for your appearance here.
Senator INOUYE. The hearing will stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.]

Material
Table of Contents
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.326
820ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 46 of 258
1977 Senate MKULTRA Hearing: Appendix A--Testing and Use of Chemical and Biolog... Page 1 of 43
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
APPENDIX A
XVII. Testing And Use Of Chemical And Biological Agents By The
Under its mandate [1] the Select Committee has studied the testing and use of chemical and
biological agents by intelligence agencies. Detailed descriptions of the programs conducted
by intelligence agencies involving chemical and biological agents will be included in a
separately published appendix to the Senate Select Committee's report. This section of the
report will discuss the rationale for the programs, their monitoring and control, and what the
Committee's investigation has revealed about the relationships among the intelligence
agencies and about their relations with other government agencies and private institutions
and individuals. [2]
Fears that countries hostile to the United States would use chemical and biological agents
against Americans or America's allies led to the development of a defensive program
designed to discover techniques for American intelligence agencies to detect and counteract
chemical and biological agents. The defensive orientation soon became secondary as the
possible use of these agents to obtain information from, or gain control over, enemy agents
became apparent.
Research and development programs to find materials which could be used to alter human
behavior were initiated in the late 1940s and early 1950s. These experimental programs
originally included testing of drugs involving witting human subjects, and culminated in tests
using unwitting, nonvolunteer human subjects. These tests were designed to determine the
potential effects of chemical or biological agents when used operationally against individuals
unaware that they had received a drug.
The testing programs were considered highly sensitive by the intelligence agencies
administering them. Few people, even within the agencies, knew of the programs and there is
no evidence that either the executive branch or Congress were ever informed of them. The
highly compartmented nature of these programs may be explained in part by an observation
made by the CIA Inspector General that, "the knowledge that the Agency is engaging in
unethical and illicit activi-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.327
821ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 47 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/AppendixA.htm 1/22/2009
[1] Senate Resolution 21 directs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities to investigate a number
of issues:
"(a) Whether agencies within the intelligence community conducted illegal domestic activities (Section 2 (1)
and (2));
"(b) The extent to which agencies within the intelligence community cooperate (Section 2 (4) and (8));
"(c) The adequacy of executive branch and congressional oversight of intelligence activities (Section 2 (7) and
(11));
"(d) The adequacy of existing laws to safeguard the rights of American citizens (Section 2 (13))."
[2] The details of these programs may never be known. The programs were highly compartmented. Few records
were kept. What little documentation existed for the CIA's principal program was destroyed early in 1973.
(65)
-66-
ties would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be
detrimental to the accomplishment of its missions." [3]
The research and development program, and particularly the covert testing programs,
resulted in massive abridgments of the rights of American citizens, sometimes with tragic
consequences The deaths of two Americans [3a] can be attributed to these programs; other
participants in the testing programs may still suffer from the residual effects. While some
controlled testing of these substances might be defended, the nature of the tests, their scale,
and the fact that they were continued for years after the danger of surreptitious
administration of LSD to unwitting individuals was known, demonstrate a fundamental
disregard for the value of human life.
The Select Committee's investigation of the testing and use of chemical and biological agents
also raise serious questions about the adequacy of command and control procedures within
the Central Intelligence Agency and military intelligence, and about the relationships among
the intelligence agencies, other governmental agencies, and private institutions and
individuals. The CIA's normal administrative controls were waived for programs involving
chemical and biological agents to protect their security. According to the head of the Audit
Branchof the CIA, these waivers produced "gross administrative failures." They prevented
the CIA's internal review mechanisms (the Office of General Counsel, the Inspector General,
and the Audit Staff) from adequately supervising the programs. In general, the waivers had
the paradoxical effect of providing less restrictive administrative controls and less effective
internal review for controversial and highly sensitive projects than those governing normal
Agency activities.
The security of the programs was protected not only by waivers of normal administrative
controls, but also by a high degree of compartmentation within the CIA. This
compartmentation excluded the CIA's Medical Staff from the principal research and testing
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.328
822ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 48 of 258
program employing chemical and biological agents.
It also may have led to agency policymakers receiving differing and inconsistent responses
when they posed questions to the CIA component involved.
Jurisdictional uncertainty within the CIA was matched by jurisdictional conflict among the
various intelligence agencies. A spirit of cooperation and reciprocal exchanges of
information which initially characterized the programs disappeared. Military testers withheld
information from the CIA, ignoring suggestions for coordination from their superiors. The
CIA similarly failed to provide information to the military on the CIA's testing program. This
failure to cooperate was conspicuously manifested in an attempt by the Army to conceal
[3] CIA Inspector General's Survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217.
[3a] On January 8, 1953, Mr. Harold Blauer died of circulatory collapse and heart failure following an
intravenous injection of a synthetic mescaline derivative while a subject of tests conducted by New York State
Psychiatric Institute under a contract let by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. The Committee's investigation into
drug testing by U.S. intelligence agencies focused on the testing of LSD, however, the committee did receive a
copy of the U.S. Army Inspector General's Report, issued on October 1975, on the events and circumstances of
Mr. Blauer's death. His death was directly attributable to the administration of the synthetic mescaline
derivative.
-67-
their overseas testing program, which included surreptitious administration of LSD, from the
CIA. Learning of the Army's program, the Agency surreptitiously attempted to gain details
of it.
The decision to institute one of the Army's LSD field testing projects had been based, at least
in part, on the finding that no long-term residual effects had ever resulted from the drug's
administration. The CIA's failure to inform the Army of a death which resulted from the
surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting Americans may well have resulted in the
institution of an unnecessary and potentially lethal program.
The development, testing, and use of chemical and biological agents by intelligence agencies
raises serious questions about the relationship between the intelligence community and
foreign governments, other agencies of the Federal Government, and other institutions and
individuals. The questions raised range from the legitimacy of American complicity in
actions abroad which violate American and foreign laws to the possible compromise of the
integrity of public and private institutions used as cover by intelligence agencies.
A. THE PROGRAMS INVESTIGATED
1. Project CHATTER
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.329
823ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 49 of 258
Project CHATTER was a Navy program that began in the fall of 1947. Responding to
reports of "amazing results" achieved by the Soviets in using "truth drugs," the program
focused on the identification and testing of such drugs for use in interrogations and in the
recruitment of agents. The research included laboratory experiments on animals and human
subjects involving Anabasis aphylla, scopolamine, and mescaline in order to determine their
speech-inducing qualities. Overseas experiments were conducted as part of the project.
The project expanded substantially during the Korean War, and ended shortly after the war,
in 1953.
2. Project BLUEBIRD/ARTICHOKE
The earliest of the CIA's major programs involving the use of chemical and biological
agents, Project BLUEBIRD, was approved by the Director in 1950. Its objectives were:
(a) discovering means of conditioning personnel to prevent unauthorized extraction of

information from them by known means, (b) investigating the possibility of control of an
individual by application of special interrogation techniques, (c) memory enhancement, and (d)
establishing defensive means for preventing hostile control of Agency personnel. [4]
As a result of interrogations conducted overseas during the project, another goal was added -
- the evaluation of offensive uses of unconventional interrogation techniques, including
hypnosis and drugs. In August 1951, the project was renamed ARTICHOKE. Project
ARTICHOKE included in-house experiments on interrogation techniques, conducted "under
medical and security controls which would ensure
[4] CIA memorandum to the Select Committee, "Behavioral Drugs and Testing," 2/11/75.
-68-
that no damage was done to individuals who volunteer for the experiments. [5] Overseas
interrogations utilizing a combination of sodium pentothal and hypnosis after physical and
psychiatric examinations of the subjects were also part of ARTICHOKE.
The Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI), which studied scientific advances by hostile
powers, initially led BLUEBIRD/ARTICHOKE efforts. In 1952, overall responsibility for
ARTICHOKE was transferred from OSI to the Inspection and Security Office (I&SO),
predecessor to the present Office of Security. The CIA's Technical Services and Medical
Staffs were to be called upon as needed; OSI would retain liaison function with other
government agencies. [6] The change in leadership from an intelligence unit to an operating
unit apparently reflected a change in emphasis; from the study of actions by hostile powers
to the use, both for offensive and defensive purposes, of special interrogation techniques --
primarily hypnosis and truth serums.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.330
824ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 50 of 258
Representatives from each Agency unit involved in ARTICHOKE met almost monthly to
discuss their progress. These discussions included the planning of overseas interrogations [8]
as well as further experimentation in the U.S.
Information about project ARTICHOKE after the fall of 1953 is scarce. The CIA maintains
that the project ended in 1956, but evidence suggests that Office of Security and Office of
Medical Services use of "special interrogation" techniques continued for several years
thereafter.
3. MKNAOMI
MKNAOMI was another major CIA program in this area. In 1967, the CIA summarized the
purposes of MKNAOMI:
(a) To provide for a covert support base to meet clandestine operational requirements.
(b) To stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials for the specific use of TSD
[Technical Services Division].
(c) To maintain in operational readiness special and unique items for the dissemination of
biological and chemical materials.
(d) To provide for the required surveillance, testing, upgrading, and evaluation of
materials and items in order to assure absence of defects and complete predictability of
results to be expected under operational conditions. [9]
Under an agreement reached with the Army in 1952, the Special Operations Division (SOD)
at Fort Detrick was to assist CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents
and delivery
[5] Memorandum from Robert Taylor, O/DD/P to the Assistant Deputy (Inspection and Security) and Chief of
the Medical Staff, 3/22/52.
[6] Memorandum from H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director, Scientific Intelligence, to the Deputy
Director/Plans (DDP) "Project ARTICHOKE," 8/29/52.
[8] "Progress Report, Project ARTICHOKE." 1/12/53.
[9] Memorandum from Chief, TSD/Biological Branch to Chief, TSD "MKNAOMI: Funding. Objectives, and
Accomplishments." 10/18/67, p. 1. For a fuller description of MKNAOMI and the relationship between CIA
and SOD, see p. 360.
-69-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.331
825ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 51 of 258
systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, and facilities of the Army to
develop biological weapons suited for CIA use.
SOD developed darts coated with biological agents and pills containing several different
biological agents which could remain potent for weeks or months. SOD developed a special
gun for firing darts coated with a chemical which could allow CIA agents to incapacitate a
guard dog, enter an installation secretly, and return the dog to consciousness when leaving.
SOD scientists were unable to develop a similar incapacitant for humans. SOD also
physically transferred to CIA personnel biological agents in "bulk" form, and delivery
devices, including some containing biological agents.
In addition to the CIA's interest in biological weapons for use against humans, it also asked
SOD to study use of biological agents against crops and animals. In its 1967 memorandum,
the CIA stated:
Three methods and systems for carrying out a covert attack against crops and causing severe
crop loss have been developed and evaluated under field conditions. This was accomplished
in anticipation of a requirement which was later developed but was subsequently scrubbed
just prior to putting into action. [9a]
MKNAOMI was terminated in 1970. On November 25,1969, President Nixon renounced the
use of any form of biological weapons that kill or incapacitate and ordered the disposal of
existing stocks of bacteriological weapons. On February 14, 1970, the President clarified the
extent of his earlier order and indicated that toxins -- chemicals that are not living organisms
but are produced by living organisms -- were considered biological weapons subject to his
previous directive and were to be destroyed. Although instructed to relinquish control of
material held for the CIA by SOD, a CIA scientist acquired approximately 11 grams of
shellfish toxin from SOD personnel at Fort Detrick which were stored in a little-used CIA
laboratory where it went undetected for five years. [10]
4. MKULTRA
MKULTRA was the principal CIA program involving the research and development of
chemical and biological agents. It was "concerned with the research and development of
chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine
operations to control human behavior." [11]
In January 1973, MKULTRA records were destroyed by Technical Services Division

personnel acting on the verbal orders of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, Chief of TSD. Dr. Gottlieb has
testified, and former Director Helms has confirmed, that in ordering the records destroyed,
Dr. Gottlieb was carrying out the verbal order of then DCI Helms.
MKULTRA began with a proposal from the Assistant Deputy Director for Plans, Richard
Helms, to the DCI, outlining a special
[9a] Ibid. p. 2.
[10] Senate Select Committee, 9/16/75, Hearings, Vol. 1.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.332
826ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 52 of 258
[11] Memorandum from the CIA Inspector General to the Director, 7/26/63.
-70-
funding mechanism for highly sensitive CIA research and development projects that studied
the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior. The projects
involved:
Research to develop a capability in the covert use of biological and chemical materials. This
area involves the production of various physiological conditions which could support present
or future clandestine operations. Aside from the offensive potential, the development of a
comprehensive capability in this field of covert chemical and biological warfare gives us a
thorough knowledge of the enemy's theoretical potential, thus enabling us to defend
ourselves against a foe who might not be as restrained in the use of these techniques as we
are. [12]
MKULTRA was approved by the DCI on April 13, 1953 along the lines proposed by ADDP
Helms.
Part of the rationale for the establishment of this special funding mechanism was its extreme
sensitivity. The Inspector General's survey of MKULTRA in 1963 noted the following
reasons for this sensitivity:
a. Research in the manipulation of human behavior is considered by many authorities in

medicine and related fields to be professionally unethical, therefore the reputation of
professional participants in the MKULTRA program are on occasion in jeopardy.
b. Some MKULTRA activities raise questions of legality implicit in the, original charter.
c. A final phase of the testing of MKULTRA products places the rights and interests of U.S.
citizens in jeopardy.
d. Public disclosure of some aspects of MKULTRA activity could induce serious adverse
reaction in U.S. public opinion. as well as stimulate offensive and defensive action in this
field on the part of foreign intelligence services. [13]
Over the ten-year life of the program, many "additional avenues to the control of human
behavior" were designated as appropriate for investigation under the MKULTRA charter.
These include "radiation, electroshock, various fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology,
and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary devices and
materials." [14]
The research and development of materials to be used for altering human behavior consisted
of three phases: first, the search for materials suitable for study; second, laboratory testing on
voluntary human subjects in various types of institutions; third, the application of
MKULTRA materials in normal life settings.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.333
827ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 53 of 258
The search for suitable materials was conducted through standing arrangements with
specialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and
private research organi-
[12] Memorandum from ADDP Helms to DCI Dulles, 4/3/53, Tab A, pp. 1-2. [13] I.G. Report on MKULTRA,
1963, pp. 1-2. [14] Ibid, p. 4.
-71-
zations. The annual grants of funds to these specialists were made under ostensible research
foundation auspices, thereby concealing the CIA's interest from the specialist's institution.
The next phase of the MKULTRA program involved physicians, toxicologists, and other
specialists in mental, narcotics, and general hospitals, and in prisons. Utilizing the products
and findings of the basic research phase, they conducted intensive tests on human subjects.
One of the first studies was conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health. This study
was intended to test various drugs, including hallucinogenics, at the NIMH Addiction
Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. The "Lexington Rehabilitation Center," as it was
then called, was a prison for drug addicts serving sentences for drug violations.
The test subjects were volunteer prisoners who, after taking a brief physical examination and
signing a general consent form, were administered hallucinogenic drugs. As a reward for
participation in the program, the addicts were provided with the drug of their addiction.
LSD was one of the materials tested in the MKULTRA program. The final phase of LSD
testing involved surreptitious administration to unwitting nonvolunteer subjects in normal
life settings by undercover officers of the Bureau of Narcotics acting for the CIA.
The rationale for such testing was "that testing of materials under accepted scientific
procedures fails to disclose the full pattern of reactions and attributions that may occur in
operational situations." [15]
According to the CIA, the advantage of the relationship with the Bureau was that
test subjects could be sought and cultivated within the setting of narcotics control. Some subjects
have been informers or members of suspect criminal elements from whom the [Bureau of
Narcotics] has obtained results of operational value through the tests. On the other hand, the
effectiveness of the substances on individuals at all social levels, high and low, native American
and foreign, is of great significance and testing has been performed on a variety of individuals
within these categories. [Emphasis added.] [16]
A special procedure, designated MKDELTA, was established to govern the use of

MKULTRA materials abroad. Such materials were used on a number of occasions. Because
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.334
828ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 54 of 258
MKULTRA records were destroyed, it is impossible to reconstruct the operational use of

MKULTRA materials by the CIA overseas; it has been determined that the use of these
materials abroad began in 1953, and possibly as early as 1950.
Drugs were used primarily as an aid to interrogations, but MKULTRA/MKDELTA materials

were also used for harassment, discrediting, or disabling purposes. According to an Inspector
General Survey of the Technical Services Division of the CIA in 1957 -- an inspection which
did not discover the MKULTRA project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to
unwitting, nonvolunteer
[15] Ibid, P. 21.
[16] Ibid., pp. 11-12.
-72-
subjects -- the CIA had developed six drugs for operational use and they had been used in six
different operations on a total of thirty-three subjects. [17] By 1963 the number of operations
and subjects had increased substantially.
In the spring of 1963, during a wide-ranging Inspector General survey of the Technical
Services Division, a member of the Inspector General's staff, John Vance, learned about
MKULTRA and about the project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to
unwitting, nonvoluntary human subjects. As a result of the discovery and the Inspector
General's subsequent report, this testing was halted and much tighter administrative controls
were imposed on the program. According to the CIA, the project was decreased significantly
each budget year until its complete termination in the late 1960s.
5. The Testing of LSD by the Army
There were three major phases in the Army's testing of LSD. In the first, LSD was
administered to more than 1,000 American soldiers who volunteered to be subjects in
chemical warfare experiments. In the second phase, Material Testing Program EA 1729, 95
volunteers received LSD in clinical experiments designed to evaluate potential intelligence
uses of the drug. In the third phase, Projects THIRD CHANCE and DERBY HAT, 16
unwitting nonvolunteer subjects were interrogated after receiving LSD as part of operational
field tests.
B. CIA DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS
1. The Rationale for the Testing Programs
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.335
829ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 55 of 258
1977 Senate MKULTRA Hearing: Appendix A--Testing and Use of Chemical and Biol... Page 10 of 43
The late 1910s and early 1950s were marked by concern over the threat posed by the
activities of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and other Communist bloc
countries. United States concern over the use of chemical and biological agents by these
powers was acute. The belief that hostile powers had used chemical and biological agents in
interrogations, brainwashing, and in attacks designed to harass, disable, or kill Allied
personnel created considerable pressure for a "defensive" program to investigate chemical
and biological agents so that the intelligence community could understand the mechanisms
by which these substances worked and how their effects could be defeated. [18]
Of particular concern was the drug LSD. The CIA had received reports that the Soviet Union
was engaged in intensive efforts to produce LSD; and that the Soviet Union had attempted to
purchase the world's supply of the chemical. As one CIA officer who was deeply involved in
work with this drug described the climate of the times: "[It] is awfully hard in this day and
age to reproduce how frightening all of this was to us at the time, particularly after the drug
scene has become as widespread and as knowledgeable in this country as it did. But we were
literally terrified, because this was the one material that we
[17] Ibid, 1957, p. 201.
[18] Thus an officer in the Office of Security of the CIA stressed the "urgency of the discovery of techniques
and method that would permit our personnel, in the event of their capture by the enemy, to resist or defeat
enemy interrogation." (Minutes of the ARTICHOKE conference of 10/22/53.)
-73-
had ever been able to locate that really had potential fantastic possibilities if used
wrongly." [19]
But the defensive orientation soon became secondary. Chemical and biological agents were
to be studied in order "to perfect techniques... for the abstraction of information from
individuals whether willing or not" and in order to "develop means for the control of the
activities and mental capacities of individuals whether willing or not." [20] One Agency
official noted that drugs would be useful in order to "gain control of bodies whether they
were willing or not" in the process of removing personnel from Europe in the event of a
Soviet attack. [21] In other programs, the CIA began to develop, produce, stockpile, and
maintain in operational readiness materials which could be used to harass, disable, or kill
specific targets. [22]
Reports of research and development in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China,
and the Communist Bloc countries provided the basis for the transmutation of American
programs from a defensive to an offensive orientation. As the Chief of the Medical Staff of
the Central Intelligence Agency wrote in 1952:
There is ample evidence in the reports of innumerable interrogations that the Communists were
utilizing drugs, physical duress, electric shock, and possibly hypnosis against their enemies.
With such evidence it is difficult not to keep from becoming rabid about our apparent laxity. We
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.336
830ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 56 of 258
are forced by this mounting evidence to assume a more aggressive role in the development of
these techniques, but must be cautious to maintain strict inviolable control because of the havoc
that could be wrought by such techniques in unscrupulous hands. [23]
In order to meet the perceived threat to the national security, substantial programs for the
testing and use of chemical and biological agents -- including projects involving the
surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting nonvolunteer subjects "at all social levels,
high and low, native American and foreign" -- were conceived, and implemented. These
programs resulted in substantial violations of the rights of individuals within the United
States.
[19] Testimony of CIA officer, 11/21/75, p. 33.
[20] Memorandum from the Director of Security to ARTICHOKE representatives, Subject: "ARTICHOKE
Restatement of Program."
[21] ARTICHOKE memorandum, 7/30/53.
[22] The Inspector General's Report of 1957 on the Technical Services Division noted that "Six specific
products have been developed and are available for operational use. Three of them are discrediting and
disabling materials which can be administered unwittingly and permit the exercise of a measure of control over
the actions of the subject."
A memorandum for the Chief, TSD, Biological Branch to the Chief, TSD, 10/18/67, described two of the
objectives of the CIA's Project MKNAOMI as: "to stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials for the
specific use of TSD and "to maintain in operational readiness special and unique items for the dissemination of
biological and chemical materials."
[23] Memorandum from the Chief of the Medical Staff, 1/25/52.
-74-
Although the CIA recognized these effects of LSD to unwitting individuals within the United
States, the project continued. As the Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Helms, wrote the
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence during discussions which led to tile cessation of
unwitting testing:
While I share your uneasiness and distaste for any program which tends to intrude upon an
individual's private and legal prerogatives, I believe it is necessary that the Agency maintain
a central role in this activity, keep current on enemy capabilities the manipulation of human
behavior, and maintain an offensive capability. [25]
There were no attempts to secure approval for the most controversial aspects of these
programs from the executive branch or Congress. The nature and extent of the programs
were closely held secrets; even DCI McCone was not briefed on all the details of the
program involving the surreptitious administration of LSD until 1963. It was deemed
imperative that these programs be concealed from the American people. As the CIA's
Inspector General wrote in 1957:
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.337
831ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 57 of 258
Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but
also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the
Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in
political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its
mission. [26]
2. The Death of Dr. Frank Olson
The most tragic result of the testing of LSD by the CIA was the death of Dr. Frank Olson, a
civilian employee of the Army, who died on November 27, 1953. His death followed his
participation in a CIA experiment with LSD. As part of this experiment, Olson unwittingly
received approximately 70 micrograms of LSD in a glass of Cointreau he drank on
November 19, 1953. The drug had been placed in the bottle by a CIA officer, Dr. Robert
Lashbrook, as part of an experiment he and Dr. Sidney Gottlieb performed at a meeting of
Army and CIA scientists.
Shortly after this experiment, Olson exhibited symptoms of paranoia and schizophrenia.
Accompanied by Dr. Lashbrook, Olson sought psychiatric assistance in New York City from
a physician, Dr. Harold Abramson, whose research on LSD had been funded indirectly by
the CIA. While in New York for treatment, Olson fell to his death from a tenth story window
in the Statler Hotel.
[24] Even during the discussions which led to the termination of the unwitting testing, the DDP turned down
the option of halting such tests within the. U.S. and continuing them abroad despite the fact that the Technical
Services Division had conducted numerous operations abroad making use of LSD. The DDP made this decision
on the basis of security noting that the past efforts, overseas had resulted in "making an inordinate number of
foreign nationals witting of our role in the very sensitive activity." (Memorandum for the Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence from the Deputy Director for Plans, 12/17/63, p. 2.)
[25] Ibid., pp. 2-3.
[26] I.G. survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217.
-75-
a. Background. -- Olson, an expert in aerobiology who was assigned to the Special

Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Army Biological Center at Camp Detrick, Maryland.
This Division had three primary functions:
(1) assessing the vulnerability of American installations to biological attack;
(2) developing techniques for offensive use of biological weapons; and
(3) biological research for the CIA. [27]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.338
832ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 58 of 258
Professionally, Olson was well respected by his colleagues in both the Army and the CIA.
Colonel Vincent Ruwet, Olson's immediate superior at the time of his death, was in almost
daily contact with Olson. According to Colonel Ruwet: "As a professional man... his
ability... was outstanding." [28] Colonel Ruwet stated that "during the period prior to the
experiment... I noticed nothing which would lead me to believe that he was of unsound
mind." [29] Dr. Lashbrook, who had monthly contacts with Olson from early 1952 until the
time of his death, stated publicly that before Olson received LSD, "as far as I know, he was
perfectly normal." [30] This assessment is in direct contradiction to certain statements
evaluating Olson's emotional stability made in CIA internal memorandum written after
Olson's death.
b. The Experiment. -- On November 18, 1953, a group of ten scientists from the CIA and
Camp Detrick attended a semi-annual review and analysis conference at a cabin located at
Deep Creek Lake, Maryland. Three of the participants were from the CIA's Technical
Services Staff. The Detrick representatives were all from the Special Operations Division.
According to one CIA official, the Special Operations Division participants "agreed that an
unwitting experiment would be desirable." [31] This account directly contradicts Vincent
Ruwet's recollection. Ruwet recalls no such discussion, and has asserted that he would
remember any such discussion because the SOD participants would have strenuously
objected to testing on unwitting subjects. [32]
In May, 1953, Richard Helms, Assistant DDP, held a staff meeting which the Chief of
Technical Services Staff attended. At this meeting Helms "indicated that the drug [LSD] was
dynamite and that he should be advised at all times when it was intended to use it." [33] In
addition, the then DDP, Frank Wisner, sent a memorandum to TSS stating the requirement
that the DDP personally approve the use of LSD. Gottlieb went ahead with the experiment,
[34] securing the ap-
[27] Staff summary of Vincent Ruwet Interview, 8/13/75, p. 3.
[28] Memorandum of Col. Vincent Ruwet, To Whom It May Concern, no date, p. 2.
[29] Ruwet Memorandum, p. 3.
[30] Joseph B. Treaster, New York Times, 7/19/75, p. 1.
[31] Memorandum for the Record from Lyman Kirkpatrick, 12/1/53, p. 1.
[32] Ruwet (staff summary), 8/1.3/75, p. 6.
[33] Inspector General Diary, 12/2/53.
[34] Ibid. Dr. Gottleib has testified that he does not remember either the meeting with Helms nor the Wisner
memorandum. (Gottlieb, 10/18/75, p. 16.)
-76-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.339
833ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 59 of 258
proval of his immediate supervisor. Neither the Chief of TSS nor the DDP specifically
authorized the experiment in which Dr. Olson participated. [35]
According to Gottlieb, [36] " a "very small dose" of LSD was placed in a bottle of Cointreau
which was served after dinner on Thursday, November 19. The drug was placed in the
liqueur by Robert Lashbrook. All but two of tie SOD participants received LSD. One did not
drink; the other had a heart condition. [37] About twenty minutes after they finished their
Cointreau, Gottlieb informed the other participants that they had received LSD.
Dr. Gottlieb stated that "up to the time of the experiment," he observed nothing unusual in
Olson's behavior. [37a] Once the experiment was underway, Gottlieb recalled that "the drug
had a definite effect on the group to the point that they were boisterous and laughing and
they could not continue the meeting or engage in sensible conversation." The meeting
continued until about 1: 00 a.m., when the participants retired for the evening. Gottlieb
recalled that Olson, among others, complained of "wakefulness" during the night. [38]
According to Gottlieb on Friday morning "aside from some evidence of fatigue, I observed
nothing unusual in [Olson's] actions, conversation, or general behavior." [39] Ruwet recalls
that Olson "appeared to be agitated" at breakfast, but that he "did not consider this to be
abnormal under the circumstances." [40]
c. The Treatment. -- The following Monday, November 23, Olson was waiting for Ruwet
when he came in to work at 7:30 a.m. For the next two days Olson's friends and family
attempted to reassure him and help him "snap out" of what appeared to be a serious
depression. On Tuesday, Olson again came to Ruwet and, after an hour long con-
[35] Dr. Gottlieb testified that "given the information we knew up to this time, and based on a lot of our own
self-administration, we thought it was a fairly benign substance in terms of potential harm." This is in conflict
not only with Mr. Helms' statement but also with material which had been supplied to the Technical Services
Staff. In one long memorandum on current research with LSD which was supplied to TSD, Henry Beecher
described the dangers involved with such research in a prophetic manner. "The second reason to doubt
Professor Rothland came when I raised the question as to any accidents which had arisen from the use of LSD-
25. He said in a very positive way, 'none.' As it turned out this answer could be called overly positive, for later
on in the evening I was discussing the matter with Dr. W. A. Stohl, Jr., a psychiatrist in Bleulera's Clinic in
Zurich where I had gone at Rothland's insistence. Stohl, when asked the same question, replied, 'yes,' and added
spontaneously, 'there is a case Professor Rothland knows about. In Geneva a woman physician who had been
subject to depression to some extent took LSD-25 in an experiment and became severely and suddenly
depressed and committed suicide three weeks later. While the connection is not definite, common knowledge of
this could hardly have allowed the positive statement Rothland permitted himself. This case is a warning to us
to avoid engaging subjects who are depressed, or who have been subject to depression.'" Dr. Gottlieb testified
that he had no recollection of either the report or that particular section of it. (Sidney Gottlieb testimony,
10/19/75, p. 78.)
[36] Memorandum of Sheffield Edwards for the record, 11/28/53, p. 2.
[37] Lashbrook (staff summary), 7/19/75, p. 3.
[37a] Gottlieb Memorandum, 12/7/53. p. 2.
[38] Edwards memorandum, 11/28/53, p. 3.
[39] Gottlieb memorandum. 12/7/53, p. 3.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.340
834ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 60 of 258
[40] Ruwet memorandum, p. 3.
-77-
versation, it was decided that medical assistance for Dr. Olson was desirable. [41]
Ruwet then called Lashbrook and informed him that "Dr. Olson was in serious trouble and
needed immediate professional attention." [42] Lashbrook agreed to make appropriate
arrangements and told Ruwet to bring Olson to Washington, D.C. Ruwet and Olson
proceeded to Washington to meet with Lashbrook, and the three left for New York at about
2:30 p.m. to meet with Dr. Harold Abramson.
At that time Dr. Abramson was an allergist and immunologist practicing medicine in New
York City. He held no degree in psychiatry, but was associated with research projects
supported indirectly by the CIA. Gottlieb and Dr. Lashbrook both followed his work closely
in the early 1950s. [43] Since Olson needed medical help, they turned to Dr. Abramson as
the doctor closest to Washington who was experienced with LSD and cleared by the CIA.
Ruwet, Lashbrook, and Olson remained in New York for two days of consultations with
Abramson. On Thursday, November 26, 1953, the three flew back to Washington so that
Olson could spend Thanksgiving with his family. En route from the airport Olson told Ruwet
that he was afraid to face his family. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that Olson
and Lashbrook would return to New York, and that Ruwet would go to Frederick to explain
these events to Mrs. Olson. [44]
Lashbrook and Olson flew back to New York the same day, again for consultations with
Abramson. They spent Thursday night in a Long Island hotel and the next morning returned
to the city with Abramson. In further discussions with Abramson, it was agreed that Olson
should be placed under regular psychiatric care at an institution closer to his home. [45]
d. The Death. -- Because they could not obtain air transportation for a return trip on Friday
night, Lashbrook and Olson made reservations for Saturday morning and checked into the
Statler Hotel. Between the time they checked in and 10:00 p.m.; they watched television,
visited the cocktail lounge, where each had two martinis, and dinner. According to
Lashbrook, Olson "was cheerful and appeared to enjoy the entertainment." He "appeared no
longer particularly depressed, and almost the Dr. Olson I knew prior to the experiment." [46]
After dinner Lashbrook and Olson watched television for about an hour, and at 11:00, Olson
suggested that they go to bed, saying that "he felt more relaxed and contented than he had
since [they] came to New York." [47] Olson then left a call with the hotel operator to wake
them in the morning. At approximately 2:30 a.m. Saturday, November 28. Lashbrook was
awakened by a loud "crash of glass." In his report on the incident, he stated only that Olson
"had crashed through the closed window blind and the closed window and he fell to his death
from the window of our room on the 10th floor." [48]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.341
835ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 61 of 258
[41] Ibid., p. 4.
[42] Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 1.
[43] Staff summary of Dr. Harold Abramson interview, 7/29/75, p. 2.
[44] Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, P. 3.
[45] Abramson memorandum, 12/4/53.
[46] Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 3.
[47] Ibid., p. 4.
[48] Ibid.
-78-
Immediately after finding that Olson had leapt to his death, Lashbrook telephoned Gottlieb at
his home and informed him of the incident. [49] Gottlieb called Ruwet and informed him of
Olson's death at approximately 2:45 a.m. [50] Lashbrook then called the hotel desk and
reported the incident to the operator there. Lashbrook called Abramson and informed him of
the occurrence. Abramson told Lashbrook he "wanted to be kept out of the thing
completely," but later changed his mind and agreed to assist Lashbrook. [51]
Shortly thereafter, uniformed police officers and some hotel employees came to Lashbrook's
room. Lashbrook told the police he didn't know why Olson had committed suicide, but he
did know that Olson "suffered from ulcers." [52]
e. The Aftermath. -- Following Dr. Olson's death, the CIA made a substantial effort to ensure
that his family received death benefits, but did not notify the Olsons of the circumstances
surrounding his demise. The Agency also made considerable efforts to prevent the death
being connected with the CIA, and supplied complete cover for Lashbrook so that his
association with the CIA would remain a secret.
After Dr. Olson's death the CIA conducted an internal investigation of the incident. As part
of his responsibilities in this investigation, the General Counsel wrote the Inspector General,
stating:
I'm not happy with what seems to be a very casual attitude on the part of TSS representatives
to the way this experiment was conducted and the remarks that this is just one of the risks
running with scientific experimentation. I do not eliminate the need for taking risks, but I do
believe, especially when human health or life is at stake, that at least the prudent, reasonable
measures which can be taken to minimize the risk must be taken and failure to do so was
culpable negligence. The actions of the various individuals concerned after effects of the
experiment on Dr. Olson became manifest also revealed the failure to observe normal and
reasonable precautions. [53]
As a result of the investigation DCI Allen Dulles sent a personal letter to the Chief of
Technical Operations of the Technical Services Staff who had approved the experiment
criticizing him for "poor judgment... in authorizing the use of this drug on such an unwitting
basis and without proximate medical safeguards." [54] Dulles also sent a letter to Dr.
Gottlieb, Chief of the Chemical Division of the Technical Services Staff, criticizing him for
recommending the "unwitting application of the drug" in that the proposal "did not give
sufficient emphasis for medical collaboration and for the proper consideration of the rights of
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.342
836ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 62 of 258
the individual to whom it was being administered." [55]
[49] CIA Field Office Report, 12/3/53, p. 3.

[50] Ruwet Memorandum, p. 11.
[51] CIA Field Office Report, 12/3/53, p. 3.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Memorandum from the General Counsel to the Inspector General. 1/4/54.
[54] Memorandum from DCI to Chief, Technical Operations, TSS, 2/12/54.
[55] Memorandum from DCI to Sidney Gottlieb, 2/12/54.
-79-
The letters were hand carried to the individuals to be read and returned. Although the letters
were critical, a note from the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence to Mr. Helms
instructed him to inform the individuals that: "These are not reprimands and no personnel
file notation are being made." [56]
Thus, although the Rockefeller Commission has characterized them as such, these notes
were explicitly not reprimands. Nor did participation in the events which led to Dr. Olson's
death have any apparent effect on the advancement within the CIA of the individuals
involved.
3. The Surreptitious Administration of LSD to Unwitting NonVolunteer Human Subjects by

the CIA After the Death of Dr. Olson
The death of Dr. Olson could be viewed, as some argued at the time, as a tragic accident, one
of the risks inherent in the testing of new substances. It might be argued that LSD was
thought to be benign. After the death of Dr. Olson the dangers of the surreptitious
administration of LSD were clear, yet the CIA continued or initiated [57] a project involving
the surreptitious administration of LSD to nonvolunteer human subjects. This program
exposed numerous individuals in the United States to the risk of death or serious injury
without their informed consent, without medical supervision, and without necessary follow-
up to determine any long-term effects.
Prior to the Olson experiment, the Director of Central Intelligence had approved
MKULTRA, a research program designed to develop a "capability in the covert use of
biological and chemical agent materials." In the proposal describing MKULTRA Mr. Helms,
then ADDP, wrote the Director that:
we intend to investigate the development of a chemical material which causes a reversible non-
toxic aberrant mental state, the specific nature of which can be reasonably well predicted for
each individual. This material 'could potentially aid in discrediting individuals, eliciting
information, and implanting suggestions and other forms of mental control. [58]
On February 12, 1954, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency wrote TSS officials
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.343
837ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 63 of 258
criticizing them for "poor judgment" in administering LSD on "an unwitting basis and
without proximate medical safeguards" to Dr. Olson and for the lack of "proper
consideration of the rights of the individual to whom it was being administered." [59] On the
same day, the Inspector General reviewed a report on Subproject Number 3 of MKULTRA,
in which the same TSS officers who had just received letters from the Director were quoted
as stating that one of the purposes of Subproject Number 3 was to
[56] Note from DDCI to Richard Helms, 2/13/54.

[57] The 1963 IG Report, which described the project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD, placed
the project beginning In 1955. Other CIA documents reveal that it was in existence as early as February 1954.
The CIA has told the Committee that the project began in 1953 and that the experiment which led to Dr.
Olson's death was part of the project.
[58] Memorandum from ADDP items to DOI Dulles, 4/3/53, tab A, p. 2.
[59] Memorandum from DCI to Sidney Gottlieb, 2/12/54; and memorandum from DCI to Chief of operations,
TSS, 2/12/54.
-80-
"observe the behavior of unwitting persons being questioned after having been given a
drug." [60] There is no evidence that Subproject Number 3 was terminated even though the
officers were unequivocally aware of the dangers of the surreptitious administration of LSD
and the necessity of obtaining informed consent and providing medical safeguards.
Subproject Number 3, in fact, used methods which showed even less concern than did the
OLSON experiment for the safety and security of the participants. Yet the evidence indicates
the project continued until 1963. [61]
In the project, the individual conducting the test might make initial contact with a
prospective subject selected at random in a bar. He would then invite the person to a
"safehouse" where the test drug was administered to the subject through drink or in food.
CIA personnel might debrief the individual conducting the test, or observe the test by using a
one-way mirror and tape recorder in an adjoining room.
Prior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects. There was also,
obviously, no medical prescreening. In addition, the tests were conducted by individuals who
were not qualified scientific observers. There were no medical personnel on hand either to
administer the drugs or to observe their effects, and no follow-up was conducted on the test
subjects.
As the Inspector General noted in 1963:
A significant limitation on the effectiveness of such testing is the infeasibility of performing

scientific observation of results. The [individuals conducting the test] are not qualified scientific
observers. Their subjects are seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. The testing
may be useful in perfecting delivery techniques, and in identifying surface characteristics of
onset, reaction, attribution, and side-effect. [62]
This was particularly troublesome as in a
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.344
838ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 64 of 258
number of instances,... the test subject has become ill for hours or days, including hospitalization
in at least one case, and the agent could only follow up by guarded inquiry after the test subject's
return to normal life. Possible sickness and attendant economic loss are inherent contingent
effects of the testing. [61]
Paradoxically, greater care seems to have been taken for the safety of foreign nationals
against whom LSD was used abroad. In several cases medical examinations were performed
prior to the use of LSD. [64]
[60] Memorandum to Inspector General from Chief, Inspection and Review, on Subproject #3 of MKULTRA,
2/10/54.
[61] IG Report on MKULTRA, 1903.
[62] Ibid., p. 12.
[63] Ibid. According to the IG's survey in 1963, physicians associated with MKULTRA could be made
available in an emergency.
[64] The Technical Services Division which was responsible for the operational use of LSD abroad took the
position that "no physical examination of the subject is required prior to administration of [LSD] by TSS
trained personnel. A physician need not be present. There is no danger medically in the use of this material as
handled by TSS trained personnel." The Office of Medical Services had taken the position that LSD was
"medically dangerous." Both the Office of Security and the Office of Medical Services argued that LSD
"should not be administered unless preceded by a medical examination... and should be administered only by or
in the presence of a physician who had studied it and its effect." (Memorandum from James Angleton, Chief,
Counterintelligence Staff to Chief of Operations, 12/12/57, pp. 1-2.
-81-
Moreover, the administration abroad was marked by constant observation made possible
because the material was being used against prisoners of foreign intelligence or security
organizations. Finally, during certain of the LSD interrogations abroad, local physicians
were on call, though these physicians had had no experience with LSD and would not be told
that hallucinogens had been administered. [65]
The CIA's project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting human
subjects in the United States was finally halted in 1963, as a result of its discovery during the
course of an Inspector General survey of the Technical Services Division. When the
Inspector General learned of the project, he spoke to the Deputy Director for Plans, who
agreed that the Director should be briefed. The DDP made it clear that the DCI and his
Deputy were generally familiar with MKULTRA. He indicated, however, that he was not
sure it was necessary to brief the DDCI at that point.
On May 24,1963, the DDP advised the Inspector General that he had briefed the Director on
the MKULTRA program and in particular had covered the question of the surreptitious
administration of LSD to unwitting human subjects. According to the Inspector General, the
DDP said that "the Director indicated no disagreement and therefore the testing will
continue." [66]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.345
839ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 65 of 258
One copy of an "Eyes Only" draft report on MKULTRA was prepared by the Inspector
General who recommended the termination of the surreptitious administration project. The
project was suspended following the Inspector General's report.
On December 17, 1963, Deputy Director for Plans Helms wrote a memo to the DDCI, who
with the Inspector General and the Executive Director-Comptroller had opposed the covert
testing. He noted two aspects of the problem: (1) "for over a decade the Clandestine Services
has had the mission of maintaining a capability for influencing human behavior;" and (2)
"testing arrangements in furtherance of this mission should be as operationally realistic and
yet as controllable as possible." Helms argued that the individuals must be "unwitting" as
this was "the only realistic method of maintaining the capability, considering the intended
operational use of materials to influence human behavior as the operational targets will
certainly be unwitting. Should the subjects of the testing not be unwitting, the program
would only be "pro forma" resulting in a "false sense of accomplishment and readiness." [67]
Helms continued:
[65] Physicians might be called with the hope that they would make a diagnosis of mental breakdown which
would be useful in discrediting the individual who was the subject of the CIA interest.
[66] Memorandum for the Record prepared by the Inspector General, 5/15/63, p. 1.
[67] Ibid., p. 2.
-82-
If one grants the validity of the mission of maintaining this unusual capability and the
necessity for unwitting testing, there is only then the question of how best to do it.
Obviously, the testing should be conducted in such a manner as to permit the opportunity to
observe the results of the administration on the target. It also goes without saying that
whatever testing arrangement we adopt must afford maximum safeguards for the protection
of the Agency's role in this activity, as well as minimizing the possibility of physical or
emotional damage to the individual tested. [68]
In another memo to the Director of Central Intelligence in June, 1964, Helms again raised
the issue of unwitting testing. At that time General Carter, then acting DCI, approved several
changes in the MKULTRA program proposed by Mr. Helms as a result of negotiations
between the Inspector General and the DDP. In a handwritten note, however, Director Carter
added that "unwitting testing will be subject to a separate decision." [69]
No specific decision was made then or soon after. The testing had been halted and, according
to Walter Elder, Executive Assistant to DCI McCone, the DCI was not inclined to take the
positive step of authorizing a resumption of the testing. At least through the summer, the
DDP did not press the issue. On November 9, 1964, the DDP raised the issue again in a
memo to the DCI, calling the Director's attention to what he described as "several other
indications during the past year of an apparent Soviet aggressiveness in the field of covertly
administered chemicals which are, to say the least, inexplicable and disturbing." [70]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.346
840ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 66 of 258
Helms noted that because of the suspension of covert testing, the Agency's "positive
operational capability to use drugs is diminishing, owing to a lack of realistic testing. With
increasing knowledge of the state of the art, we are less capable of staying up with Soviet
advances in this field. This in turn results in a waning capability on our part to restrain others
in the intelligence community (such as the Department of Defense) from pursuing operations
in this area." [71]
Helms attributed the cessation of the unwitting testing to the high risk of embarrassment to
the Agency as well as the "moral problem." He noted that no better covert situation had been
devised than that which had been used, and that "we have no answer to the moral issue." [72]
Helms asked for either resumption of the testing project or its definitive cancellation. He
argued that the status quo of a research and development program without a realistic testing
program was causing the Agency to live "with the illusion of a capability which is becoming
minimal and furthermore is expensive." [73] Once again no formal action was taken in
response to the Helms' request.
[68] Memorandum from DDP Helms to DDCI Carter, 12/17/63.

[69] Memorandum from DDP Helms to DCI, 6/9/64, p. 3.
[70] Ibid., 11/9/64, p. 1.
[71] Ibid., pp. 1-2.
[72] Ibid., p. 2.
[73] Ibid.
-83-
From its beginning in the early 1950's until its termination in 1963, the program of
surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting nonvolunteer human subjects demonstrates
a failure of the CIA's leadership to pay adequate attention to the rights of individuals and to
provide effective guidance to CIA employees. Though it was known that the testing was
dangerous, the lives of subjects were placed in jeopardy and their rights were ignored during
the ten years of testing which followed Dr. Olson's death. Although it was clear that the laws
of the United States were being violated, the testing continued. While the individuals
involved in the Olson experiment were admonished by the Director, at the same time they
were also told that they were not being reprimanded and that their "bad judgment" would not
be made part of their personnel records. When the covert testing project was terminated in
1963, none of the individuals involved were subject to any disciplinary action.
4. Monitoring and Control of the Testing and Use of Chemical and Biological Agents by the
CIA
The Select Committee found numerous failures in the monitoring and control of the testing
and use of chemical and biological agents within the CIA. [74] An analysis of the failures
can be divided into four sections: (a) the waiver of normal regulations or requirements; (b)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.347
841ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 67 of 258
the problems in authorization procedures; (c) the failure of internal review mechanisms such
as the Office of General Counsel, the Inspector General, and the Audit Staff; and (d) the
effect of compartmentation and competition within the CIA.
a. The Waiver of Administrative Controls. -- The internal controls within any agency rest on:
(1) clear and coherent regulations; (2) clear lines of authority; and (3) clear rewards for those
who conduct themselves in accord with agency regulations and understandable and
immediate sanctions against those who do not. In the case of the testing and use of chemical
and biological agents, normal CIA administrative controls were waived. The destruction of
the documents on the largest CIA program in this area constituted a prominent example of
the waiver of normal Agency procedures by the Director.
These documents were destroyed in early 1973 at the order of then DCI Richard Helms.
According to Helms, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, then Director of TSD:
... came to me and said that he was retiring and that I was retiring and he thought it would be a
good idea if these files were destroyed. And I also believe part of the reason for our thinking this
was advisable was there had been relationships with outsiders in government agencies and other
organizations and that these would be sensitive in this kind of a thing but that since the program
was over and finished and done with, we thought we would just get rid of the files as
[74] Section 2(9) of S. Res. 21 instructs the Committee to examine: the "extent to which United States
intelligence agencies are governed by Executive Orders, rules, or regulations either published or secret."
-84-
well, so that anybody who assisted us in the past would not be subject to follow-up or questions,
embarrassment, if you will. [75]
The destruction was based on a waiver of an internal CIA regulation, CSI 70-10, which
regulated the "retirement of inactive records." As Thomas Karamessines, then Deputy
Director of Plans, wrote in regulation CSI-70-10: "Retirement is not a matter of convenience
or of storage but of conscious judgment in the application of the rules modified by
knowledge of individual component needs. The heart of this judgment is to ensure that the
complete story can be reconstructed in later years and by people who may be unfamiliar with
the events." [76]
The destruction of the MKULTRA documents made it impossible for the Select Committee
to determine the full range and extent of the largest CIA research program involving
chemical and biological agents. The destruction also prevented the CIA from locating and
providing medical assistance to the individuals who were subjects in the program. Finally, it
prevented the Committee from determining the full extent of the operations which made use
of materials developed in the MKULTRA program. [77]
From the inception of MKULTRA normal Agency procedures were waived. In 1953, Mr.
Helms, then Assistant Deputy Director for Plans, proposed the establishment of MKULTRA.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.348
842ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 68 of 258
Under the proposal six percent of the research and development budget of TSD would be
expended "without the establishment of formal contractual relations" because contracts
would reveal government interest. Helms also voted that qualified individuals in the field
"are most reluctant to enter into signed agreements of any sort which connect them with this
activity since such a connection would jeopardize their professional reputa-
[75] Richard Helms testimony, 9/11/75, p. 5.
Many Agency documents recording confidential relationships with individuals and organizations are retained
without public disclosure. Moreover, in the case of MKULTRA the CIA had spent millions of dollars
developing both materials and delivery systems which could be used by the Clandestine Services; the
reconstruction of the research and development program would be difficult if not impossible, without the
documents, and at least one assistant to Dr. Gottlieb protested against the document destruction on those
grounds.
[76] Clandestine Services Institution (CSI) 70-10. When asked by the Select Committee about the regularity of
the procedure by which he authorized Dr. Gottlieb to destroy the MKULTRA records, Helms responded:
"Well, that's hard to say whether it would be part of the regular procedure or not, because the record destruction
program is conducted according to a certain pattern. There's a regular record destruction pattern in the Agency
monitored by certain people and done a certain way. So that anything outside of that, I suppose, would have
been unusual. In other words, there were documents being destroyed because somebody had raised this specific
issue rather than because they were encompassed in the regular records destruction program. So I think the
answer to your question is probably yes." (Helms testimony, 9/11/75, p. 6.)
[77] Even prior to the destruction of documents, the MKULTRA records were far from complete. As the
Inspector General noted in 1963:
"Files are notably incomplete, poorly organized, and lacking in evaluative statements that might give
perspective to management policies over time. A substantial portion of the MKULTRA record appears to rest in
the memories of the principal officers and is therefore almost certain to be lost with their departures." (IG
Report on MKULTRA, p. 23.)
-85-
tions". [78] Other Agency procedures, i.e., the forwarding of document, in support of
invoices and the provision for regular audit procedures, were also to be waived. On April 13,
1953, then DCI Allen Dulles approved MKULTRA, noting that security considerations
precluded handling the project through usual contractual agreements.
Ten years later investigations of MKULTRA by both the Inspector General and the Audit
Staff noted substantial deficiencies which resulted from the waivers. Because TSD had not
reserved the right to audit the books of contractors in MKULTRA, the CIA had been unable
to verify the use of Agency grants by a contractor. Another firm had failed to establish
controls and safeguards which would assure "proper accountability" in use of government
funds with the result that "funds have been used for purposes not contemplated by grants or
allowable under usual contract relationship." [79] The entire MKULTRA arrangement was
condemned for having administrative lines which were unclear, overly permissive controls,
and irresponsible supervision.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.349
843ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 69 of 258
The head of the Audit Branch noted that inspections and audits: led us to see MKULTRA as
frequently having provided a device to escape normal administrative controls for research
that is not especially sensitive, as having allowed practices that produce gross administrative
failures, as having permitted the establishment of special relationships with unreliable
organizations on an unacceptable basis, and as having produced, on at least one occasion, a.
cavalier treatment of a bona fide contracting organization.
While admitting that there may be a need for special mechanisms for handling sensitive
projects, the Chief of the Audit Branch wrote that "both the terms of reference and the
ground rules for handling such special projects should be spelled out in advance so that
diversion from normal channels does not mean abandonment of controls.
Special procedures may be necessary to ensure the security of highly sensitive operations. To
prevent the erosion of normal internal control mechanisms, such waivers should not be
extended to less sensitive operations. Moreover, only those regulations which would
endanger security should be waived; to waive regulations generally would result in highly
sensitive and controversial projects having looser rather than stricter administrative controls.
MKNAOMI, the Fort Detrick CIA project for research and development of chemical and
biological agents, provides another example where efforts to protect the security of agency
activities overwhelmed administrative controls. No written records of the transfer of agents
such as anthrax or shellfish toxin were kept, "because of the sensitivity of the area and the
desire to keep any possible use of materials like this recordless." [81] The
[78] Memorandum from ADDP Helms to DCI Dulles, 4/3/53, Tab. A, p. 2.
[79] Memorandum from IG to Chief, TSD, 11/8/63, as quoted in memorandum from Chief, Audit Branch.
[80] The memorandum suggested that administrative exclusions, because of the importance of such decisions,
should require the personal approval of the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence on an individual case basis.
Present CIA policy is that only the DCI can authorize certain exemptions from regulations.
[81] Sidney Gottlieb testimony, 10/18/75, Hearings, Vol. 1, p. 51.
-86-
result was that the Agency had no way of determining what materials were on hand, and
could not be certain whether delivery systems such as dart guns, or deadly substances such
as cobra venom had been issued to the field.
b. Authorization. -- The destruction of the documents regarding MKULTRA made it difficult

to determine at what level specific projects in the program were authorized. This problem is
not solely a result of the document destruction, however. Even at the height of MKULTRA
the IG noted that, at least with respect to the surreptitious administration of LSD, the
"present practice is to maintain no records of the planning and approval of test
programs." [82]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.350
844ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 70 of 258
While it is clear that Allen Dulles authorized MKULTRA, the record is unclear as to who
authorized specific projects such as that involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to
unwitting nonvolunteer human subjects. Even given the sensitive and controversial nature of
the project, there is no evidence that when John McCone replaced Allen Dulles as the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency he was briefed on the details of this project and
asked whether it should be continued . [83] Even during the 1963 discussions on the
propriety of unwitting testing, the DDP questioned whether it was "necessary to brief
General Carter", the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence and the Director's "alter ago,"
because CIA officers felt it necessary to keep details of the project restricted to an absolute
minimum number of people. [84]
In May of 1963, DDP Helms told the Inspector General that the covert testing program was
authorized because he had gone to the Director, briefed him on it and "the Director indicated
no disagreement and therefore the testing will continue." [85] Such authorization even for
noncontroversial matters is clearly less desirable than explicit authorization; in areas such as
the surreptitious administration of drugs, it is particularly undesirable. Yet according to
testimony
[82] IG Report on MKULTRA, 1963, p. 14.
[83] According to an assistant to Dr. Gottlieb, there were annual briefings of the DCI and the DDP on
MKULTRA by the Chief of TSD or his deputy. However, a Nay 15, 1963 Memorandum for the Record from
the Inspector General noted that Mr. McCone had not been briefed in detail about the program. Mr. McCone's
Executive Officer, Walter Elder, testified that it was "perfectly apparent to me" that neither Mr. McCone nor
General Carter, then the DDCI, was aware of the surreptitious administration project "or if they had been
briefed they had not understood it." (Elder, 12/18/75, p. 13.) Mr. McCone testified that lie "did not know"
whether he talked to anyone about the project but that no one had told him about it in a way that "would have
turned on all the lights." (John McCone testimony, 2/3/76, p. 10.)
[84] According to Elder's testimony, "no Deputy Director, to my knowledge, has ever been briefed or was it
ever thought necessary to brief them to the extent to which you would brief the Director."
[85] IG Memorandum for the Record. 5/15/63.
On the question of authorization of the covert testing program, Elder testified as follows:
"But my reasonable judgment is that this was considered to be in the area of continuing approval, having once
been approved by the Director."
The theory of authorization carrying over from one administration to the next seems particularly inappropriate
for less visible, highly sensitive operations which, unless brought to his attention by subordinates, would not
come to the attention of the Director.
-87-
before the Committee, authorization through lack of agreement is even more prevalent in
sensitive situations. [86]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.351
845ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 71 of 258
The unauthorized retention of shellfish toxin by Dr. Nathan Gordon and his subordinates, in
violation of a Presidential Directive, may have resulted from the failure of the Director to
issue written instructions to Agency officials. The retention was not authorized by senior
officials in the Agency. The Director, Mr. Helms, had instructed Mr. Karamessines, the
Deputy Director of Plans, and Dr. Gottlieb, the Chief of Technical Services Division, to
relinquish control to the Army of any chemical or biological agents being retained for the
CIA at Fort Detrick. Dr. Gottlieb passed this instruction on to Dr. Gordon. While orders may
be disregarded in any organization, one of the reasons that Dr. Gordon used to defend the
retention was the fact that he had not received written instructions forbidding it. [87]
In some situations the existence of written instructions did not prevent unauthorized actions.
According to an investigation by the CIA's Inspector General TSD officers had been
informed orally that Mr. Helms was to be "advised at all times" when LSD was to be used. In
addition TSD had received a memo advising the staff that LSD was not to be used without
the permission of the DDP, Frank Wisner. The experiment involving Dr. Olson went ahead
without notification of either Mr. Wisner or Mr. Helms. The absence of clear and immediate
punishment for that act must undercut the force of other internal instructions and regulations.
One last issue must be raised about authorization procedures within the Agency. Chemical
agents were used abroad until 1959 for discrediting or disabling operations, or for the
purpose of interrogations with the approval of the Chief of Operations of the DDP. Later the
approval of the Deputy Director for Plans was required for such operations. Although the
medical staff sought to be part of the approval process for these operations, they were
excluded because, as the Inspector General wrote in 1957:
Operational determinations are the responsibility of the DDP and it is he who should advise
the DCI in these respects just as it is he who is responsible for the results. It is completely
unrealistic to consider assigning to the Chief Medical Staff, (what, in effect, would be
authority over clandestine operations.) [88]
Given the expertise and training of physicians, participation of the Medical Staff might well
have been useful.
Questions about authorization also exist in regard to those, agencies which assisted the CIA.
For instance, the project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting non-
volunteer human subjects was conducted in coordination with the Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs. There is some question as to the Commissioner of Narcotics' knowledge
about the project.
[86] Mr. Elder was asked whether the process of bringing forward a description of actions by the Agency in
getting approval through the absence of disagreement was a common one. He responded, "It was not
uncommon.... The more sensitive the project the more likely it would lean toward being a common practice,
based on the need to keep the written record to a minimum."
[87] Nathan Gordan testimony, 9/16/75, Hearings, Vol. 1.
[88] 1957 IG Report.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.352
846ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 72 of 258
-88-
In 1963, the Inspector General noted that the head of the BNDD had been briefed about the
project, but the IG's report did not indicate the level of detail provided to him. Dr. Gottlieb
testified that "I remember meeting Mr. Anslinger and had the general feeling that he was
aware." [89] Another CIA officer did not recall any discussion of testing on unwitting
subjects when he and Dr. Gottlieb met with Commissioner Anslinger.
In a memorandum for the record in 1967 Dr. Gottlieb stated that Harry Giordano, who
replaced Mr. Anslinger, told Dr. Gottlieb that when he became Commissioner he was "only
generally briefed on the arrangements, gave it his general blessing, and said he didn't want to
know the details." The same memorandum states, however, that there were several
comments which indicated to Dr. Gottlieb that Mr. Giordano was aware of the substance of
the project. It is possible that the Commissioner provided a general authorization for the
arrangement without understanding what it entailed or considering its propriety. A reluctance
to seek detailed information from the CIA, and the CIA's hesitancy to volunteer it, has been
found in a number of instances during the Select Committee's investigations. This problem is
not confined to the executive branch but has also marked congressional relationships with
the Agency.
c. Internal Review. -- The waiver of regulations and the absence of documentation make it
difficult to determine now who authorized which activities. More importantly, they made
internal Agency review mechanisms much less effective. [90] Controversial and highly
sensitive projects which should have been subject to the most rigorous inspection lacked
effective internal review.
Given the role of the General Counsel and his reaction to the surreptitious administration of
LSD to Dr. Olson, it would have seemed likely that he would be asked about the legality or
propriety of any subsequent projects involving such administration. This was not done. He
did not learn about this testing until the 1970's. Nor was the General Counsel's opinion
sought on other MKULTRA projects, though these had been characterized by the Inspector
General in the 1957 Report on TSD as "unethical and illicit." [91]
There is no mention in the report of the 1957 Inspector General's survey of TSD of the
project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD. That project was apparently not
brought to the attention of the survey team. The Inspector who discovered it during the IG's
1963 survey of TSD recalls coming upon evidence of it inadvertently,
[89] Gottlieb, 10/18/75, p. 28.
[90] The IG's report on MKULTRA in 1963 stated:
"The original charter documents specified that TSD maintain exacting control of MKULTRA activities. in so
doing, however, TSD has pursued a philosophy of minimum documentation in keeping with the high sensitivity
of some of the projects. Some files were found to present a reasonably complete record, including most
sensitive matters, while others with parallel objectives contained little or no data at all. The lack of consistent
records precluded use of routine inspection procedures and raised a variety of questions concerning
management and fiscal controls."
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.353
847ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 73 of 258
[91] CIA, Inspector General's report on TSD, 1957, p. 217.
-89-
rather than its having been called to his attention as an especially sensitive project. [92]
Thus both the General Counsel and the Inspector General, the principal internal mechanisms
for the control of possibly improper actions, were excluded from regular reviews of the
project. When the project was discovered the Executive Director Comptroller voiced strong
opposition to it; it is possible that the project would have been terminated in 1957 if it had
been called to his attention when he then served as Inspector General.
The Audit Staff, which also serves an internal review function through the examination of
Agency expenditures, also encountered substantial difficulty with MKULTRA. When
MKULTRA was first proposed the Audit Staff was to be excluded from any function. This
was soon changed. However, the waiver of normal "contractual procedures" in MKULTRA
increased the likelihood of "irregularities" as well as the difficulty in detecting them. The
head of the Audit Branch characterized the MKULTRA procedures as "having allowed
practices that produced gross administrative failures," including a lack of controls within
outside contractors which would "assure proper accountability in use of government funds."
It also diminished the CIA's capacity to verify the accountings provided by outside firms.
d. Compartmentation and Jurisdictional Conflict Within the Agency. -- As has been noted,
the testing and use of chemical and biological agents was treated as a highly sensitive
activity within the CIA. This resulted in a high degree of compartmentation. At the same
time substantial jurisdictional conflict existed within the Agency between the Technical
Services Division, and the Office of Medical Services and the Office of Security.
This compartmentation and jurisdictional conflict may well have led to duplication of effort
within the CIA and to Agency policymakers being deprived of useful information.
During the early 1950's first the BLUEBIRD Committee and then the ARTICHOKE
Committee were instituted to bring together representatives of the Agency components
which had a legitimate interest in the area of the alteration of human behavior. By 1957 both
these committees had fallen into disuse. No information went to the Technical Services
Division (a component supposedly represented on the ARTICHOKE Committee) about
ARTICHOKE operations being conducted by the Office of Security and the Office of
Medical Services. The Technical Services Division which was providing support to the
Clandestine Services in the use of chemical and biological agents, but provided little or no
information to either the Office of Security or the Office of Medical Services. As one TSD
officer involved in these programs testified: "Although we were acquainted, we certainly
didn't share experiences." [93]
[92] Even after the Inspector came upon it the IG did not perform a complete investigation of it. It was
discovered at the end of an extensive survey of TSD and the Inspector was in the process of being transferred to
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.354
848ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 74 of 258
another post within the Agency.
[93] Testimony of CIA officer, 11/21/75, p. 14.
-90-
QKHILLTOP, another group designed to coordinate research in this area also had little
success. The group met infrequently -- only twice a year -- and little specific information
was exchanged. [94]
Concern over security obviously played some role in the failure to share information, [95]
but this appears not to be the only reason. A TSD officer stated that the Office, of Medical
Services simply wasn't "particularly interested in what we were doing" and never sought
such information. [96] On the other hand, a representative of the Office of Medical Services
consistently sought to have medical personnel participate in the use of chemical and
biological agents suggested that TSD did not inform the Office of Medical Services in order
to prevent their involvement.
Jurisdictional conflict was constant in this area. The Office of Security, which had been
assigned responsibility for direction of ARTICHOKE, consistently sought to bring TSD
operations involving psychochemicals under the ARTICHOKE umbrella. The Office of
Medical Services sought to have OMS physicians advise and participate in the operational
use of drugs. As the Inspector General described it in 1957, "the basic issue is concerned
with the extent of authority that should be exercised by the Chief, Medical Staff, over the
activities of TSD which encroach upon or enter into the medical field," and which are
conducted by TSD "without seeking the prior approval of the Chief, Medical Staff, and often
without informing him of their nature and extent." [91]
As was noted previously, because the projects and programs of TSD stemmed directly from
operational needs controlled by the DDP, the IG recommended no further supervision of
these activities by the Medical Staff:
It is completely unrealistic to consider assigning to the Chief, Medical Staff, what, in effect,
would be authority over clandestine operations. Furthermore, some of the activities of
Chemical Division are not only unorthodox but unethical and sometimes illegal. The DDP is
in a better position to evaluate the justification for such operations than the Chief, Medical
Staff. [98] [Emphasis added.]
Because the advice of the Director of Security was needed for "evaluating the risks involved"
in the programs and because the knowledge that the CIA was "engaging in unethical and
illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles," the IG
recommended that the Director of Security be fully advised of TSD's activities in these areas.
Even after the Inspector General's Report of 1957, the compartmentation and jurisdictional
conflict continued. They may have had a sub-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.355
849ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 75 of 258
[94] The one set of minutes from a QKHILLTOP meeting indicated that individuals in the Office of Medical
Services stressed the need for more contact.
[95] When asked why information on the surreptitious administration of LSD was not presented to the
ARTICHOKE committee, Dr. Gottlieb responded: "I imagine the only reason would have been a concern for
broadening the awareness of its existence."
[96] CIA Officer, 11/21/75, p. 14
[97] IG Survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217.
[98] Ibid.
-91-
stantial negative impact on policymaking in the Agency. As the Deputy Chief of the
Counterintelligence Staff noted in 1958, due to the different positions taken by TSS, the
Office of Security, and the Office of Medical Services, on the use of chemical or biological
agents, it was possible that the individual who authorized the use of a chemical or biological
agent could be presented with "incomplete facts upon which to make a decision relevant to
its use." Even a committee set up by the DDP in 1958 to attempt to rationalize Agency
policy did not have access to records of testing and use. This was due, in part, to excessive
compartmentation, and jurisdictional conflict.
C. Covert Testing On Human Subjects By Military Intelligence Groups:

Material Testing Program EA 1729, Project Third Change, and Project
Derby Hat
EA 1729 is the designator used in the Army drug testing program for lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD). Interest in LSD was originally aroused at the Army's Chemical Warfare
Laboratories by open literature on the unusual effects of the compound. [99] The positive
intelligence and counterintelligence potential envisioned for compounds like LSD, and
suspected Soviet interest in such materials, [100] supported the development of an American
military capability and resulted in experiments conducted jointly by the U.S. Army
Intelligence Board and the Chemical Warfare Laboratories.
These experiments, designed to evaluate potential intelligence uses of LSD, were known
collectively as "Material Testing Program EA 1729." Two projects of particular interest
conducted as part of these experiments, "THIRD CHANCE" and "DERBY HAT", involved
the administration of LSD to unwitting subjects in Europe and the Far East.
In many respects, the Army's testing programs duplicated research which had already been
conducted by the CIA. They certainly involved the risks inherent in the early phases of drug
testing. In the Army's tests, as with those of the CIA, individual rights were also
subordinated to national security considerations; informed consent and followup
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.356
850ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 76 of 258
examinations of subjects were neglected in efforts to maintain the secrecy of the tests.
Finally, the command and control problems which were apparent in the CIA's programs are
paralleled by a lack of clear authorization and supervision in the Army's programs.
[99] USAINTC staff study, "Material Testing Program, EA 1729," 10/15/59, p. 4.
[100] This same USAINTC study cited "A 1952 (several years prior to initial U.S. interest in LSD-25) report
that the Soviets purchased a large quantity of LSD-25 from the Sandoz Company in 1951, reputed to be
sufficient for 50 million doses." (Ibid., p. 16.)
Generally accepted Soviet methods and counterintelligence concerns were also strong motivating factors in the
initiation of this research:
"A primary justification for field experimentation in intelligence with EA 1729 is the counter-intelligence or
defense implication. We know that the enemy philosophy condones any kind of coercion or violence for
intelligence purposes. There is proof that his intelligence service has used drugs in the past. There is strong
evidence of keen interest in EA 1729 by him. If for no other purpose than to know what to expect from enemy
intelligence use of the material and to, thus, be prepared to counter it, field experimentation is justified. (Ibid, p.
34)
-92-
1. Scope of Testing
Between 1955 and 1958 research was initiated by the Army Chemical Corps to evaluate the
potential for LSD as a chemical warfare incapacitating agent. In the course of this research,
LSD was administered to more than 1,000 American volunteers who then participated in a
series of tests designed to ascertain the effects of the drug on their ability to function as
soldiers. With the exception of one set of tests at Fort Bragg, these and subsequent laboratory
experiments to evaluate chemical warfare potential were conducted at the Army Chemical
Warfare Laboratories, Edgewood, Maryland.
In 1958 a new series of laboratory tests were initiated at Edgewood. These experiments were
conducted as the initial phase of Material Testing Program EA 1729 to evaluate the
intelligence potential of LSD, and included LSD tests on 95 volunteers. [101] As part of
these tests, three structured experiments were conducted:
1. LSD was administered surreptitiously at a simulated social reception to volunteer subjects

who were unaware of the purpose or nature of the tests in which they were participating;
2. LSD was administered to volunteers who were subsequently polygraphed; and
3. LSD was administered to volunteers who were then confined to "isolation chambers".
These structured experiments were designed to evaluate the validity of the traditional
security training all subjects had undergone in the face of unconventional, drug enhanced,
interrogations.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.357
851ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 77 of 258
At the conclusion of the laboratory test phase of Material Testing Program EA 1729 in 1960,
the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorized operational field testing
of LSD. The first field tests were conducted in Europe by an Army Special Purpose Team
(SPT) during the period from May to August of 1961. These tests were known as Project
THIRD CHANCE and involved eleven separate interrogations of ten subjects. None of the
subjects were volunteers and none were aware that they were to receive LSD. All but one
subject, a U.S. soldier implicated in the theft of classified documents, were alleged to be
foreign intelligence sources or agents. While interrogations of these individuals were only
moderately successful, at least one subject (the U.S. soldier) exhibited symptoms of severe
paranoia while under the influence of the drug.
The second series of field tests, Project DERBY HAT, were conducted by an Army SPT in
the Far East during the period from August to November of 1962. Seven subjects were
interrogated under DERBY HAT, all of whom were foreign nationals either suspected of
dealing in narcotics or implicated in foreign intelligence operations. The purpose of this
second set of experiments was to collect additional data on the utility of LSD in field
interrogations, and to evaluate any different effects the drug might have on "Orientals."
[101] Inspector General of the Army Report. "Use of Volunteers in Chemical Agent Research," 3/10/76, p. 138.
-93-
2. Inadequate Coordination Among Intelligence Agencies
On October 15, 1959, the U.S. Army Intelligence Center prepared a lengthy staff study on
Material Testing Program EA 1729. The stated purpose of the staff study was: "to determine
the desirability of EA 1729 on non-US subjects in selected actual operations under controlled
conditions. [102] It was on the basis of this study that operational field tests were later
conducted.
After noting that the Chemical Warfare Laboratories began experiments with LSD on
humans in 1955 and had administered the drug to over 1,000 volunteers, the "background"
section of the study concluded:
There has not been a single case of residual ill effect. Study of the prolific scientific literature
on LSD-25 and personal communication between U.S. Army Chemical Corps personnel and
other researchers in this field have failed to disclose an authenticated instance of irreversible
change being produced in normal humans by the drug. [103]
This conclusion was reached despite an awareness that there were inherent medical dangers
in such experimentation. In the body of this same study it is noted that:
The view has been expressed that EA 1729 is a potentially dangerous drug, whose
pharmaceutical actions are not fully understood and there has been cited the possibility of the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.358
852ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 78 of 258
continuance of a chemically induced psychosis in chronic form, particularly if a latent

schizophrenic were a subject, with consequent claim or representation against the U.S.
Government. [104]
An attempt was made to minimize potential medical hazards by careful selection of subjects
prior to field tests. Rejecting evidence that the drug might be hazardous, the study continued:
The claim of possible permanent damage caused by EA 1729 is an unproven hypothesis

based on the characteristic effect of the material. While the added stress of a real situation
may increase the probability of permanent adverse effect, the resulting risk is deemed to be
slight by the medical research personnel of the Chemical Warfare Laboratories. To prevent
even such a slight risk, the proposed plan for field experimentation calls for overt, if
possible, or contrived-through-ruse, if necessary, physical and mental examination of any
real situation subject prior to employment of the subject. [105]
This conclusion was drawn six years after one death had occurred which could be attributed,
at least in part, to the effects of the very drug the Army was proposing to field test. The
USAINTC staff, however, was apparently unaware of the circumstances surrounding Dr.
Olson's death. This lack of knowledge is indicative of the
[102] USAINTC staff study, "Material Testing Program EA 1729," 10/15/59, p. 4.
[103] Ibid, p. 4.
[104] Ibid, p. 25.
[105] Ibid.
-94-
general lack of interagency communication on drug related research. As the October 1959
study noted, "there has been no coordination with other intelligence agencies up to the
present." [106]
On December 7, 1959, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ACSI, apparently
a General Willems) was briefed on the proposed operational use of LSD by USAINTC
Project Officer Jacobson, in preparation for Project THIRD CHANCE. General Willems
expressed concern that the project had not been coordinated with the FBI and the CIA. He is
quoted as saying "that if this project is going to be worth anything, it [LSD] should be used
on higher types of non-U.S. subjects" in other words "staffers." He indicated this could be
accomplished if the CIA were brought in. The summary of the briefing prepared by Major
Mehovsky continues: "Of particular note is that ACSI did not direct coordination with CIA
and the FBI but only mentioned it for consideration by the planners." [107]
After the briefing, four colonels, two lieutenant colonels and Major Mehovsky met to discuss
interagency cooperation with CIA and FBI. The group consensus was to postpone efforts
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.359
853ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 79 of 258
toward coordination:
Lt. Col. Jacobson commented that before we coordinate with CIA we should have more
factual findings from field experimentation with counterintelligence cases that will
strengthen our position and proposal for cooperation. This approach red to by the conferees.
[108]
Had such coordination been achieved, the safety of these experiments might have been
viewed differently and the tests themselves might have been seen as unnecessary.
3. Subordination of Individual Rights to National Security Considerations
Just as many of these experiments may have been unnecessary, the nature of the operational
tests (polygraph-assisted interrogations of drugged suspects) reflects a basic disregard for the
fundamental human rights of the subjects. The interrogation of an American soldier as part
of the THIRD CHANCE 1961 tests is an example of this disregard.
The "trip report" for Project THIRD CHANCE, dated September 6, 1961, recounts the
circumstances surrounding and the results of the tests as follows:
[The subject] was a U.S. soldier who had confessed to theft of classified documents.
Conventional methods had failed to ascertain whether espionage intent was involved. A
significant, new admission by subject that he told a fellow soldier of the theft while he still
had the documents in his possession was obtained during the EA 1729 interrogation along
with other variations of Subject's previous account. The interrogation results were deemed by
the local operational authority satisfactory evidence of Subject's claim of innocence in regard
to espionage intent. [109]
[106] Ibid, p. 6
[107] Mehovsky Fact Sheet, 12/9/60, p. 1.
[108] Ibid, p. 2.
[109] SPT Trip Report, Operation THIRD CHANCE, 9/6/61, p. 5.
-95-
The subject apparently reacted very strongly to the drug, and the interrogation, while
productive, was difficult. The trip report concluded:
(1) This case demonstrated the ability to interrogate a subject profitably throughout a highly
sustained and almost incapacitating reaction to EA 1729.
(2) The apparent value of bringing a subject into the EA 1729 situation in a highly stressed
state was indicated.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.360
854ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 80 of 258
(3) The usefulness of employing as a duress factor the device of inviting the subject's
attention to his EA 1729 influenced state and threatening to extend this state indefinitely
even to a permanent condition of insanity, or to bring it to an end at the discretion of the
interrogators was shown to be effective.
(4) The need for preplanned precautions against extreme paranoiac reaction to EA 1729 was
indicated.
(5) It was brought to attention by this case that where subject has undergone extended
intensive interrogation prior to the EA 1729 episode and has persisted in a version repeatedly
during conventional interrogation, adherence to the same version while under EA 1729
influence, however extreme the reaction, may not necessarily be evidence of truth but merely
the ability to adhere to a well rehearsed story. [110]
This strong reaction to the drug and the accompanying discomfort this individual suffered
were exploited by the use of traditional interrogation techniques. While there is no evidence
that physical violence or torture were employed in connection with this interrogation,
physical and psychological techniques were used in the THIRD CHANCE experiments to
exploit the subjects' altered mental state, and to maximize the stress situation. Jacobson
described these methods in his trip report:
Stressing techniques employed included silent treatment before or after EA 1729

administration, sustained conventional interrogation prior to EA 1729 interrogation,
deprivation of food, drink, sleep or bodily evacuation, sustained isolation prior to EA 1729
administration, hot-cold switches in approach, duress "pitches", verbal degradation and
bodily discomfort, or dramatized threats to subject's life or mental health. [111]
Another gross violation of an individual's fundamental rights occurred in September 1962 as

part of the Army's DERBY HAT tests in the Far East. A suspected Asian espionage agent
was given 6 micrograms of LSD per kilogram of bodyweight. The administration of the drug
was completed at 1035 that morning:
At 1120, sweating became evident, his pulse became thready. He was placed in a supine
position. He began groaning with expiration and became semicomatose. [112]
[110] Ibid, pp. 17-18.

[111] Ibid, p. 13.
[112] "DERBY HAT" Medical and Pharmacological Report: Case #1, 9/20/62, 1). p. D10-2.
-96-
For the next 28 minutes, the subject remained semicomatose.
At 1148, responses to painful stimuli were slightly improved.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.361
855ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 81 of 258
At 1155, he was helped to a sitting position.
At 1200, he became shocky again and was returned to supine position.
At 1212, he was more alert and able to sit up with help.
At 1220, Subject was assisted to the interrogation table.
At 1230, he began moaning he wanted to die and usually ignored questions. Rarely he stated
"he didn't know."
At 1250, his phasic alertness persisted. He frequently refocused his eyes with eyelid
assistance. He frequently threw his head back with eyes closed.
At 1330, he was slightly more alert. He was forced-walked for 5 minutes. He physically
would cooperate until he became shocky again (sweating, thready pulse, pale). [113]
For the next three hours the subject remained in about the same condition. Continued
attempts at interrogation yielded no relevant answers. Six hours after receiving the drug, the
subject began giving relevant answers to questions. Eight and one-half hours after the initial
dosage, the subject was polygraphed. The interrogation continued for seventeen and one-half
hours after the drug was administered.
There was some psychological and medical screening of the individuals tested within the
United States, in Europe, and in Asia. The proposal for the field experimentation in fact
called for such examinations. The fact of prescreening did not eliminate tile risk of injury;
the availability of medical staff did, however, limit injury and may well have prevented the
death of one or more of the subjects. As the medical corps member of the team which
surreptitiously administered the LSD noted, "one subject... did collapse after the
interrogation and the presence of the medical officer was not only of value to the subject but
to the interrogation team who were thus assured that an unnecessary untoward result would
not occur." [115]
In the October 15, 1959, USAINTC staff study, moral and legal ramifications of covert
administration of LSD in field conditions were considered.
It was always a tenet of Army Intelligence that the basic American principle of the dignity
and welfare of the individual will not be violated. A more meticulous regard for the
prohibition against violence or duress is taken in practice when the suspect is a US citizen or
ally as against an actual or potential enemy, in peace as against war, and in respect to the
nature of the crime.... In intelligence, the stakes involved and the interests of national
security may permit a more tolerant interpretation of moral-ethical values, but not legal
limits, through necessity. Any claim
[113] Ibid., p. D10-3.
[115] SPT Trip Report, Operation THIRD CHANCE, 7/25/61, p. 1.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.362
856ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 82 of 258
-97-
against the US Government for alleged injury due to EA 1729 must be legally shown to have
been due to the material. Proper security and appropriate operational techniques can protect
the fact of employment of EA 1729. [116]
On the basis of this evaluation, the study concluded that in view of "the stakes involved and
the interests of national security," the proposed plan for field testing should be approved.
The surreptitious administration of drugs to unwitting subjects by the Army raises serious
constitutional and legal issues. The consideration given these issues by the Army was wholly
insufficient. The character of the Army's volunteer testing program and the possibility that
drugs were simply substituted for other forms of violence or duress in field interrogations
raises serious doubts as to whether national security imperatives were properly interpreted.
The "consent" forms which each American volunteer signed prior to the administration of
LSD are a case in point. These forms contained no mention of the medical and psychological
risks inherent in such testing, nor do they mention the nature of the psychotropic drug to be
administered:
The general nature of the experiments in which I have volunteered have been explained to
me from the standpoint of possible hazards to my health. It is my understanding that the
experiments are so designed, based on the results of animals and previous human
experimentation, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. I
understand further that experiments will be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
and medical suffering and injury, and that I will be at liberty to request that the experiments
be terminated at any time if in my opinion I have reached the physical or mental state where
continuation of the experiments becomes undesirable.
I recognize that in the pursuit of certain experiments transitory discomfort may occur. I
recognize, also, that under these circumstances, I must rely upon the skill and wisdom of the
physician supervising the experiment to institute whatever medical or surgical measures are
indicated. [Emphasis added.] [118]
The exclusion of any specific discussion of the nature of LSD in these forms raises serious
doubts as to their validity. An "understanding... that the anticipated results will justify the
performance of the experiment" without full knowledge of the nature of the experiment is an
incomplete "understanding." Similarly, the nature of the experiment limited the ability of
both the subject to request its request its termination and the experimenter to implement such
a request. Finally, the euphemistic characterization of "transitory discomfort" and the
agreement to "rely on the skill and wisdom of the physician" combine to conceal inherent
risks in the experimentation and may be viewed as dissolving the experimenter of personal
responsibility for damaging aftereffects. In summary, a "volunteer" program in which
subjects are not fully informed of potential hazards to their persons is "volunteer" in name
only.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.363
857ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 83 of 258
[116] USAINTC staff study, Material Testing Program EA 1729," 10/15/59, p. 26.
[118] Sample volunteer consent form.
-98-
This problem was compounded by the security statements signed by each volunteer before
he participated in the testing. As part of this statement, potential subjects agreed that they
would:
... not divulge or make available any information related to U.S. Army Intelligence Center
interest or participation in the Department of the Army Medical Research Volunteer Program
to any individual, nation, organization, business, association, or other group or entity, not
officially authorized to receive such information.
I understand that any action contrary to the provisions of this statement will render me liable
to punishment under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [119]
Under these provisions, a volunteer experiencing aftereffects of the test might have been
unable to seek immediate medical assistance.
This disregard for the well-being of subjects drug testing is inexcusable. Further, the absence
of any comprehensive long-term medical assistance for the subjects of these experiments is
not only unscientific; it is also unprofessional.
4. Lack of Normal Authorization and Supervision
It is apparent from documents supplied to the Committee that the Army's testing programs
often operated under informal and nonroutine authorization. Potentially dangerous
operations such as these testing programs are the very projects which ought to be subject to
the closest internal scrutiny at the highest levels of the military command structure. There are
numerous examples of inadequate review, partial consideration, and incomplete approval in
the administration of these programs.
When the first Army program to use LSD on American soldiers in "field stations" was
authorized in May 1955, the Arm violated its own procedures in obtaining approval. Under
Army Chief of Staff Memorandum 385, such proposals were to be personally approved by
the Secretary of the Army. Although the plan was submitted to him on April 26, 1956, the
Secretary issued no written authorization for the project, and there is no evidence that he
either reviewed or approved the plan. Less than a month later, the Army Chief of Staff issued
a memorandum authorizing the tests. [120]
Subsequent testing of LSD under Material Testing Program EA 1729 operated generally
under this authorization. When the plans for this testing were originally discussed in early
1958 by officials of the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Holabird and representatives of the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.364
858ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 84 of 258
Chemical Warfare Center at Edgewood Arsenal, an informal proposal was formulated. This
proposal was submitted to the Medical Research Directorate at Edgewood by the President
of the Army Intelligence Board on June 3, 1958. There is no evidence that the plan was
approved at any level higher than the President of the Intelligence Board or the Commanding
General of Edgewood. The approval at Edgewood appears to have been issued by the
Commander's Adjutant. The Medical Research Laboratories did not submit the plan to the
Surgeon General for approval (a standard procedure) because
[119] Sample Volunteer Security Statement.
[120] Inspector General of the Army Report, "Use of Volunteers in Chemical Agent Research," 3/10/76, p. 109.
-99-
the new program was ostensibly covered by the authorizations granted in May 1956. [121]
The two projects involving the operational use of LSD (THIRD CHANCE and DERBY
HAT) were apparently approved by the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence
(General Willems) on December 7, 1960. [122] This verbal approval came in the course of a
briefing on previous drug programs and on the planned field experimentation. There is no
record of written approval being issued by the ACSI to authorize these specific projects until
January 1961, and there is no record of any specific knowledge or approval by the Secretary
of the Army.
On February 4, 1963, Major General C. F. Leonard, Army ACSI, forwarded a copy of the
THIRD CHANCE Trip Report to Army Chief of Staff, General Earl Wheeler. [123] Wheeler
had apparently requested a copy on February 2. The report was routed through a General
Hamlett. While this report included background on the origins of the LSD tests, it appears
that General Wheeler may only have read the conclusion and recommendations. [124] The
office memorandum accompanying the Trip Report bears Wheeler's initials. [125]
5. Termination of Testing
On April 10, 1963, a briefing was held in the ACSIs office on the results of Projects THIRD
CHANCE and DERBY HAT. Both SPT's concluded that more field testing was required
before LSD could be utilized as an integral aid to counterintelligence interrogations. During
the presentation of the DERBY HAT results, General Leonard (Deputy ACSI) directed that
no further field testing be undertaken. [126] After this meeting the ACSI sent a letter to the
Commanding General of the Army Combat Developments Command (CDC) requesting that
he review THIRD CHANCE and DERBY HAT and "make a net evaluation concerning the
adoption of EA 1729 for future use as an effective and profitable aid in counterintelligence
interrogations." [127] On the same day the ACSI requested that the CDC Commander revise
regulation FM 30-17 to read in part:
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.365
859ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 85 of 258
... in no instance will drugs be used as an aid to interrogations in counterintelligence or

security operations without prior permission of the Department of the Army. Requests to use
drugs as an investigative aid will be forwarded through intelligence channels to the ACSI,
DA, for approval....
Medical research has established that information obtained through the use of these drugs is
unreliable and invalid....
It is considered that DA [Army] approval must be a prerequisite for use of such drugs
because of the moral, legal, medical and political problems inherent in their use for
intelligence purposes. [128]
[121] Ibid, pp. 135, 137, 138.

[122] Mehovsky Fact Sheet, 12/9/60.
[123] Memorandum from Leonard to Wheeler, 2/4/63.
[124] SGS memorandum to Wheeler through Hamlett, 2/5/63.
[125] Ibid.
[126] Maj. F. Barnett, memorandum for the record, 8/12/63.
[127] Yamaki memorandum for the record, 7/16/63.
[128] Ibid.
-100-
The subsequent adoption of this regulation marked the effective termination of field testing
of LSD by the Army.
The official termination date of these testing Programs is rather unclear, but a later ACSI
memo indicates that it may have occurred in September of 1963. On the 19th of that month a
meeting was held between Dr. Van Sims (Edgewood Arsenal), Major Clovis (Chemical
Research Laboratory), and ACSI representatives (General Deholm and Colonel Schmidt).
"As a result of this conference a determination was made to suspend the program and any
further activity pending a more profitable and suitable use." [129]
D. Cooperation And Competition Among The Intelligence Community

Agencies And Between These Agencies And Other Individuals And
Institutions
1. Relationships Among Agencies Within the Intelligence Community
Relationships among intelligence community agencies in this area varied considerably over
time, ranging from full cooperation to intense and wasteful competition. The early period
was marked by a high degree of cooperation among the agencies of the intelligence
community. Although the military dominated research involving chemical and biological
agents, the information developed was shared with the FBI and the CIA. But the spirit of
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.366
860ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 86 of 258
cooperation did not continue. The failure by the military to share information apparently
breached the spirit, if not the letter, of commands from above.
As noted above, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence was briefed on the
proposed operational testing of LSD under Project THIRD CHANCE, and expressed
concern that the project had not been coordinated with FBI and CIA. Despite this request, no
coordination was achieved between the Army and either of these agencies. Had such
cooperation been forthcoming, this project may have been evaluated in a different light.
The competition between the agencies in this area reached bizarre levels. A military officer
told a CIA representative in confidence about the military's field testing of LSD in Europe
under Project THIRD CHANCE, and the CIA promptly attempted to learn surreptitiously the
nature and extent of the program. At roughly the same time Mr. Helms argued to the DDCI
that the unwitting testing program should be continued, as it contributed to the CIA's
capability in the area and thus allowed the CIA "to restrain others in the intelligence
community (such as the Department of Defense) from pursuing operations. [130]
The MKNAOMI program was also marked by a failure to share information. The Army
Special Forces (the principal customer of the Special Operations Division at Fort Dietrick)
and the CIA rather than attempting to coordinate their efforts promulgated different
requirements which varied only slightly. This apparently resulted in some duplication of
effort. In order to insure the security of CIA operations, the Agency would request materials
from SOD for operational use without fully or accurately describing the operational
requirements. This resulted in limitations on SOD's ability to assist the CIA.
[129] Undated ASCI memorandum, p. 2.
[130] Memorandum from the DDP to the DCI, 11/9/64, p. 2.
-101-
2. Relationship Between the Intelligence Community Agencies and Foreign Liaison Services
The subjects of the CIA's operational testing of chemical and biological agents abroad were
generally being held for interrogation by foreign intelligence or security organizations.
Although information about the use of drugs was generally withheld from these
organizations, cooperation with them necessarily jeopardized the security of CIA interest in
these materials. Cooperation also placed the American Government in a position of
complicity in actions which violated the rights of the subjects, and which may have violated
the laws of the country in which the experiments took place.
Cooperation between the intelligence agencies and organizations in foreign countries was not
limited to relationships with the intelligence or internal security organizations. Some
MKULTRA research was conducted abroad. While this is, in itself, not a questionable
practice, it is important that such research abroad not be undertaken to evade American laws.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.367
861ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 87 of 258
That this was a possibility is suggested by an ARTICHOKE memorandum in which it is

noted that working with the scientists of a foreign country "might be very advantageous"
since that government "permitted certain activities which were not permitted by the United
States government (i.e., experiments on anthrax, etc.)." [131]
3. The Relationships Between the Intelligence Community Agencies and Other Agencies of
the U.S. Government
Certain U.S. government agencies actively assisted the efforts of intelligence agencies in this
area. One form of assistance was to provide "cover" for research contracts let by intelligence
agencies, in order to disguise intelligence community interest in chemical and biological
agents.
Other forms of assistance raise more serious questions. Although the CIA's project involving
the surreptitious administration of LSD was conducted by Bureau of Narcotics personnel,
there was no open connection between the Bureau personnel and the Agency. The Bureau
was serving as a "cut-out" in order to make it difficult to trace Agency participation. The cut-
out arrangement, however, reduced the CIA's ability to control the program. The Agency
could not control the process by which subjects were selected and cultivated, and could not
regulate follow-up after the testing. Moreover, as the CIA's Inspector General noted: "the
handling of test subjects in the last analysis rests with the [Bureau of Narcotics] agent
working alone. Suppression of knowledge of critical results from the top CIA management is
an inherent risk in these operations." [132] The arrangement also made it impossible for the
Agency to be certain that the decision to end the surreptitious administration of LSD would
be honored by the Bureau personnel.
The arrangement with the Bureau of Narcotics was described as "informal." [133] The
informality of the arrangement compounded the problem is aggravated by the fact that the 40
Committee has had vir-
[131] ARTICHOKE Memorandum, 6/13/52.

[132] IG Report on MKULTRA, 1963, p.14.
[133] Ibid This was taken by one Agency official to mean that there would be no written contract and no formal
mechanism for payment. (Eider, 12/18/75, p. 31.)
-102-
apparent unwillingness on the part of the Bureau's leadership to ask for details, and the CIA's
hesitation in volunteering information. These problems raise serious questions of command
and control within the Bureau.
4. Relationships Between the Intelligence Community Agencies and Other Institutions and
Individuals, Public and Private
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.368
862ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 88 of 258
The Inspector General's 1963 Survey of MKULTRA noted that "the research and
development" phase was conducted through standing arrangements with "specialists in
universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private
research organizations" in a manner which concealed "from the institution the interests of the
CIA." Only a few "key individuals" in each institution were "made witting of Agency
sponsorship." The research and development phase was succeeded by a phase involving
physicians, toxicologists, and other specialists in mental, narcotics, and general hospitals and
prisons, who are provided the products and findings of the basic research projects and
proceed with intensive testing on human subjects." [134]
According to the Inspector General, the MKULTRA testing programs were "conducted
under accepted scientific procedures... where health permits, test subjects are voluntary
participants in the programs." [135] This was clearly not true in the project involving the
surreptitious administration of LSD, which was marked by a complete lack of screening,
medical supervision, opportunity to observe, or medical or psychological follow-up.
The intelligence agencies allowed individual researchers to design their project. Experiments
sponsored by these researchers (which included one where narcotics addicts were sent to
Lexington, Kentucky, who were rewarded with the drug of their addiction in return for
participation in experiments with LSD) call into question the decision by the agencies not to
fix guidelines for the experiments.
The MKULTRA research and development program raises other questions, as well. It is not
clear whether individuals in prisons, mental, narcotics and general hospitals can provide
"informed consent" to participation in experiments such as these. There is doubt as to
whether institutions should be unwitting of the ultimate sponsor of research being done in
their facilities. The nature of the arrangements also made it impossible for the individuals
who were not aware of the sponsor of the research to exercise any choice about their
participation based on the sponsoring organization.
Although greater precautions are now being taken in research conducted on behalf of the
intelligence community agencies, the dilemma of classification remains. The agencies
obviously wished to conceal their interest in certain forms of in order to avoid stimulating
interest in the same areas by hostile governments. In some cases today contractors or
researchers wish to conceal their connection with these agencies. Yet the fact of
classification prevents open discussion and debate upon which scholarly work depends.
[134] Ibid p. 9.
[135] Ibid p. 10.

Material
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.369
863ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 89 of 258
1977 Senate MKULTRA Hearing: Appendix B--Documents Referring To Discovery Of ... Page 1 of 5
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
APPENDIX B
Documents Referring To Discovery
Of Additional MKULTRA Material
[document begins] [View JPEG Document Scan of This Page]
22 June 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH: Deputy Director for Science and Technology
SUBJECT: Request for Guidance on Handling Recently Located MKULTRA Material
1. (U/AIUO) This memorandum is to advise you that additional MKULTRA documents

have been discovered and to obtain your approval for follow-on actions required. Paragraph
7 contains a recommended course of action.
2. (U/AIUO) As a result of John Marks FOIA request (F-76-374), all of the MKULTRA
material in OTS possession was reviewed for possible release to him. Following that
review, the OTS material in the Retired Records Center was searched. It was during that
latter search that the subproject files were located among the retired records of the OTS
Budget and Fiscal Section. These files were not discovered earlier as the earlier searches
were limited to the examination of the active and retired records of those branches
considered most likely to have generated or have had access to MKULTRA documents.
Those branches included: Chemistry, Biological, Behavioral Activities, and Contracts
Management. Because Dr. Gottlieb retrieved and destroyed all the MKULTRA documents
he was able to locate, it is not surprising that the earlier search for MKULTRA documents,
directed at areas where they were most likely to be found, was unsuccessful. The purpose of
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.370
864ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 90 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/AppendixB.htm 1/22/2009
establishing the MKULTRA mechanism was to limit knowledge of the sensitive work being
performed to those with an absolute need to know. If those precepts had been followed, the
recently found B&F files should have contained only financial and administrative
documents. (In retrospect, I realize that
-104- [View JPEG Document Scan of This Page]
a serious error was made in not having B&F files and other seemingly innocuous files
searched earlier.) As it happened most of the individual subproject folders contain project
proposals and memoranda for the record, which in varying degrees, give a reasonably
complete picture of the avenues of research funded through MKULTRA. For your
information, the original memorandum setting up MKULTRA, signed by Mr. Dulles, is also
among these documents. A copy of the memorandum is attached.
3. (U/AIUO) At this writing, it does not appear that there is anything in these newly
located files that would indicate the MKULTRA activities were more extensive or more
controversial than indicated by the Senate Select (Church) Committee Report. If anything,
the reverse is true, i.e., most of the nearly 200 subprojects are innocuous. Thus, the
overview of MKULTRA is essentially unchanged. With two exceptions, the project find
fills in some of the missing details.
4. (U/AIUO) One of these exceptions is Subproject Number 45 which concerns an

activity that should have been reported earlier. That project deals with the search for a
knockout drug which was concomitant with, and a by-product of, cancer research at a major
university. It is believed that an objective reading of that project would demonstrate the
search for knockout materials and anesthetics were compatible activities. However, the
research proposal stated that "chemical agents... will be subjected to clinical screening... on
advanced cancer patients".
5. (C) Subproject Number 55 contains full details of CIA's contribution of $375,000 to

the [deletion] Building Fund. The Agency was then involved in drug research programs,
many of which were being conducted by [deletion] whose facilities were inadequate. In
order to facilitate the ongoing research programs, it was decided to expedite the building
program by contributing to it through a mechanism that was also being used to fund some
of the research projects.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.371
865ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 91 of 258
The contribution could be controversial in that it was made through a mechanism making it
appear to be a private donation. Private donations qualified for, and [deletion] received, an
equal amount of Federal matching funds. A letter from the Office of General Counsel dated
21 February 1954 attesting to the legality of this funding is in the file.
6. (U/AIUO) The Legislative Counsel has been made aware of the existence of these
additional MKULTRA documents which are still under review and sanitation. The MARKS
case is in litigation and we are committed to advise Mr. Marks of the existence of these files
shortly, and to deliver the releasable material to his attorneys by 31 July. A letter from the
Information and Privacy Staff to Mr. Marks' attorneys informing them of the existence of
this material is in the coordination process and is scheduled to be mailed on 24 June.
7. (U/AIUO) There are now two actions that should be taken:
a. Release appropriately sanitized material to Mr. Marks' attorneys as required by

FOIA litigation.
b. Inform the Senate Select Committee of the existence of the recently located records
prior to informing Mr. Marks' attorneys.
It is recommended that you approve of both of these actions.
8. (U/AIUO) If additional details on the contents of this material are desired, the OIS
officers most familiar with it are prepared to brief you at your convenience.
[signature]
David S. Brandwein
Director
Office of Technical Service
[document ends]
[document begins]
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.372
866ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 92 of 258
Select Committee on Intelligence

United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
During the course of 1975 when the Senate Committee, chaired by Senator Church, was
investigating intelligence activities, the CIA was asked to produce documentation on a
program of experimentation with the effect of drugs. Under this project conducted from
1953 to 1964 and known as "MK-ULTRA," tests were conducted on American citizens in
some cases without their knowledge. The CIA, after searching for such documentation,
reported that most of the documents on this matter have been destroyed. I find it my duty to
report to you now that our continuing search for drug related, as well as other documents,
has uncovered certain papers which bear on this matter. Let me hasten to add that I am
persuaded that there was no previous attempt to conceal this material in the original 1975
exploration. The material recently discovered was in the retired archives filed under
financial accounts and only uncovered by using extraordinary and extensive search efforts.
In this connection, incidentally, I have personally commended the employee whose
diligence produced this find.
Because the new material now on hand is primarily of a financial nature, it does not
present a complete picture of the field of drug experimentation activity but it does provide
more detail than was previously available to us. For example, the following types of
activities were undertaken:
a. Possible additional cases of drugs being tested on American citizens, without their
knowledge.
b. Research was undertaken on surreptitious methods of administering drugs.
c. Some of the persons chosen for experimentation were drug addicts or alcoholics.
d. Research into the development of a knockout or "K" drug was performed in

conjunction with being done to develop pain killers for advanced cancer patients, and tests
on such patients were carried out.
e. There is a possibility of an improper payment to a private institution.
The drug related activities described in this newly located material began almost 25 years
ago. I assure you they were discontinued over 10 years ago and do not take place today.
In keeping with the President's commitment to disclose any errors of the Intelligence
Community which are uncovered, I would like to volunteer to testify before your
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.373
867ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 93 of 258
Committee on the full details of this unfortunate series of events. I am in the process of
reading the fairly voluminous material involved and do want to be certain that I have a
complete picture when I talk with the Committee. I will be in touch with you next week to
discuss when hearings might be scheduled at the earliest opportunity.
I regret having to bring this issue to your attention, but I know that it is essential to your
oversight procedures that you be kept fully informed in a timely manner.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
STANSFIELD TURNER
[document ends]

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.374
868ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 94 of 258
1977 Senate MKULTRA Hearing: Appendix C--Documents Referring to Subprojects Page 1 of 59
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
APPENDIX C
Documents Referring To Subprojects
DRAFT
1 May 1953
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Project MKULTRA, Subproject 2
1. Subproject 2 is being set up to provide a secure and

efficient means to exploit [deletion] in regard to the MKULTRA
program.
2. [deletion] is a practicing psychiatrist in [deletion] and a

faculty member of the [deletion] His past positions have included
Chief Neuropsychiatrist at [deletion] Chief of the Psychiatric
Section at [deletion] and OSS experience during World War II.
He has been of value in the general MKULTRA field as an
overall advisor and consultant, he has been of value in containing
individuals in the [deletion] area and in setting up projects there,
and he has done work himself which has contributed to the
MKULTRA field. His professional activities and known
connections with the [deletion]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.375
869ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 95 of 258
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/AppendixC.htm 1/22/2009
3. Subproject 2 would include:
a. Miscellaneous research and testing services in the

general field of MKULTRA.
b. Services as a contact and cut-out for projects in the

MKULTRA field, primarily those located in the [deletion] area.
c. Monitoring of selected projects in the MKULTRA field,

when located in the central [deletion] area.
d. Services as a general consultant and advisor in the

MKULTRA field.
4. The total cost of this project is not to exceed $4,650.00 for

a period of one year.
5. [deletion] is cleared through TOP SECRET on a contact

basis.
[signature deleted]
Chemical Division/TSS
[Multiple deletions at bottom of page]
APPROVED:
[multiple deletions]
APPROVED:
[Sidney Gottlieb signature]
Chief, Chemical Division/TSS
PROGRAM APPROVED
AND RECOMMENDED:
[signature deleted]
For Research Chairman
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.376
870ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 96 of 258
Date: May 5, 1953
Attachment:
Proposal
APPROVED FOR
OBLIGATION OF FUNDS:
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: May 5, 1953
Original Only.
[multiple deletions at bottom of page]
[document ends]
[document begins]
[deletion at top of page]
PROPOSAL
Objective: To study the possible synergistic action of drugs

which may be appropriate for use in abolishing consciousness.
Proposal: Allocation of $1000 for animal experiments, to be

drawn on as needed. That experiments be conducted informally
at [deletion] without a specific grant, and with appropriate cover.
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.377
871ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 97 of 258
[document begins]
[deletion]
PROPOSAL
Objective: To study methods for the administration of drugs

without the knowledge of the patient. Preparation of a manual.
Method: A survey of methods which have been used by

criminals for surreptitious administration of drugs. Analysts of
the psychodynamics of situations of this nature.
Proposal: That $1000 be allocated for this purpose, funds to be

requested as needed.
[document ends]
[document begins]
DRAFT/[deletion]
11 August 1955
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Project MKULTRA, Subproject [deletion] 2
1. Subproject 2[deletion]is being initiated to provide secure

and efficient means of exploiting [deletion] with regard to the
MKULTRA program.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.378
872ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 98 of 258
2. [deletion] is a practicing psychiatrist in [deletion] and a

faculty member of [deletion] He has been of value in the general
MKULTRA project, serving as an advisor and consultant,
contacting individuals in the [deletion] area, and carrying out his
own research program.
3. Subproject 2 [deletion] would include the following:
(a) Miscellaneous research and testing services in the general

field of MKULTRA.
(b) Services as a contact and cutout for projects in the

MKULTRA field, primarily those located in the [deletion]
(c) Monitoring of selected projects in the MKULTRA field,

when located in the central [deletion]
(d) Services as a general consultant and advisor in the

MKULTRA field.
(e) He would act as medical advisor and consultant to

[deletion] and his [deletion] establishment.
4. [deletion] will be reimbursed for his services and expenses

upon receipt of an invoice at irregular intervals. When travel
expenses are incurred through use of a common carrier, they will
be documented and reimbursed in the usual manner; that is,
consistent with standard Government allowances.
[document ends]
[document begins]
DRAFT [deletion]
2 October 1953
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.379
873ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 99 of 258
1. Subproject 15 is a continuation of Subproject 3, which

involved the establishment and maintenance of facilities for the
realistic testing of certain research and development items of
interest to CD/TSS and APD/TSS. The facilities were set up
under Subproject 3, and Subproject 16 is intended to provide for
the continued maintenance of the facilities.
2. Subproject 3 was originally intended to provide funds for

the maintenance of the facilities for one year; but it turns out that
the costs of alterations, equipment, and initial supplies were
under-estimated in Subproject 3; hence the necessity to establish
Subproject 16 at this time.
3. Subproject 16 will be conducted by [deletion] a [deletion]

Certain support activities will be provided by CD/TSS and
APD/TSS.
4. The estimated cost for a period of one year is $7,740.00.
[deletion]
SIDNEY GOTTLIEB
Chief
Chemical Division, TSS
PROGRAM APPROVED
AND RECOMMENDED:
[signature deleted]
Research Chairman
Date: -------------
APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION

OF FUNDS:
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: 13 Oct 1953
TOP SECRET
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.380
874ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 100 of 258
[document begins]
[deletion]
May 26, 1953
Dear [deletion]
After our telephone conversation this morning I went to [one

line deleted] and opened an account -- regular checking -- in the
amount of $100.00 using the name [deletion]
It occurred to me that for sake of safety -- if, for example,

anything should happen to me -- it would simplify matters if I
made this a joint account between [deletion] and [deletion] Then,
in case of my absence, illness or death you could recover the
joint funds without any legal difficulties or monkey business.
The bank was a little sticky about opening an account in the

absences of "references" from another bank, and also found it
hard to understand how [deletion] got by all these years without
a bank account. However, I offered to provide an excellent
reference in a government official, a [deletion] who is [deletion]
at [deletion] and that seemed to placate the money-lenders.
Thereafter, I communicated with [deletion] and he immediately
wrote a reference for [deletion] on official stationary. [deletion]
also kindly said he was well acquainted with [deletion] and was
pleased to offer for him a similar recommendation.
If you think this is a good idea, I suggest you sign the Joint
Account Agreement and the three signature cards enclosed and
return them to me.
And now that the account is opened I suggest you have funds
deposited via Cashier's check -- or any other way that seems
easiest -- directly to [deleted] account.
I ordered checks printed with [deleted] name thereon and

have also ordered stationary bearing [deleted] name. I considered
this might facilitate payment of bills, etc., by mail.
What with suspicious banks, landlords, utility companies,

etc., you will understand that creating the Jekyll-Hyde
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.381
875ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 101 of 258
personality in the form of [deleted] is taking a little "doing".
See you Monday, the 8th
Rgds,
[deleted]
[document ends]
[document begins]
1. The scope of this project is intended to encompass all those

activities now engaged in by the [deleted] in its own facilities
under the direction of CD/TSS. At the present time the various
projects at this facility ([deleted] and [deleted]) are being
concluded and it is deemed desirable from the standpoint of
security and efficiency to replace these projects with a single
project more general in its approach.
2. The attached proposal from Dr. [deleted] indicates the

extent of the investigations that his facilities will allow him to
carry out on the materials developed in the three projects referred
to in paragraph 1, as well as certain other materials of interest to
Cd/TSS. Dr. [deleted] also serves as a general consultant to this
division and provides cover and cut-out facilities to the Agency.
3. The total cost of this project for a period of one year will
not exceed $42,700.00.
4. Dr. [deleted] has been granted a Top Secret Clearance by

the Agency and is fully capable of projecting the security of the
Government's interest in such matters as this.
[signature deleted]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.382
876ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 102 of 258
APPROVED:
[signature deleted]
Chief, Chemical Division, TSS
PROGRAM APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED:

[signature deleted]
Exec. [illegible] Res. Ed.
Date: Jan 28 1954
APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS:

[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: 28 Jan 1954
Attachment: Proposal
[document ends]
[document begins]
The present investigation is concerned with chemical agents

which are effective in modifying the behavior and function of the
central nervous system.
1 - It is proposed to study a variety of known drugs in this

pharmacological class that are in present day use and to
synthesize new chemical agents or to modify existing ones as
occasion may demand.
2 - The various chemical agents investigated or synthesized will

be tested on animals to determine their acute and chronic
toxicity. Their pharmacological effects will be studied by a
variety of assay technics, such as blood pressure determinations,
bronchial dilation recordings, endocrine effects, etc. Complete
animal facilities will be maintained for this purpose and
pathologic study will be carried out on the affected organs when
the animals are sacrificed.
3 - Preliminary clinical investigation will be carried out on the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.383
877ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 103 of 258
more promising chemical agents, and appropriate laboratory

procedures will be performed, such as blood counts, uninalysis,
etc. to determine the effectiveness and the side reactions of the
drugs under investigation.
4 - Adequate reports will be submitted of the findings at

quarterly intervals.
5 - Proposed budget:
Personnel
Synthetic organic chemist..................$7,500.00

Research medical associate.................$6,500.00
Pharmacological assistant..................$5,500.00
Chemical assistant.........................$4,000.00
Histology technician.......................$2,400.00
Clinical technician........................$3,600.00
Chemical consultant........................$1,200.00
Total salaries for personnel..............$30,700.00
Other Expenditures
Animals, animal maintenance & facilities...$4,000.00

Chemical & laboratory supplies, expendable $4,000.00
Miscellaneous permanent equipment..........$2,000.00
Travel, medical meetings, etc..............$2,000.00
Total other expenditures..................$12,000.00
TOTAL.....................................$42,700.00
[document ends]
[document begins]
DRAFT [deleted]
8 October 1954
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.384
878ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 104 of 258
SUBJECT: Increase in the Scope of Subproject 23, Project

MKULTRA
1. Due to a considerable increase in the scope of the work

undertaken by [deleted] at the direction of TSS/CD under
Subproject 23, Project MKULTRA, the $42,700.00 sum
originally obligated for this work is insufficient to cover the
year's costs. It is therefore proposed to add $15,000.00 to that
already obligated under this Subproject.
2. The total cost of this Subproject for the period 28 January

1954 to 28 January 1955 will thus amount to $57,700.00.
3. The increase in scope responsible for this proposal consists

of the development and partial financing of two new sources of
biologically active compounds of interest in the program
TSS/CD is carrying out.
[signature deleted]

[deleted]
Research Director
Date: October 11, 1954
APPROVED:
Chief, Chemical Division, TSS
Original Only.
[handwritten notes at bottom of page:]
1) [deleted]
2) [deleted]
The additional compounds are derivatives of tryptomine not
available from any other sources.
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.385
879ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 105 of 258
[document begins]
25 August 1955
SUBJECT: Authorization for Payment of Certain Expenses

Under Project MKULTRA, Subproject 23
1. In order to carry on the work of the above Subproject, it

was necessary to test the effects of certain chemical substances
when administered to test the effects of certain chemical
substances when administered to human beings. Certain of the
anticipated effects involved mental functions which precluded
the use of mental defectives for this particular study.
2. In view of these circumstances the project engineer, with

verbal approval from his chief, authorized the contractor to pay
the hospitals expenses of certain persons suffering from
incurable cancer for the privilege of studying the effects of these
chemicals during their terminal illnesses. The total funds
expended in this fashion amounted to $658.05 and full value was
received.
3. It is requested that the Chief, TSS indicate his knowledge

and approval of this particular expenditure for audit purposes.
[signature deleted]
TSS/Chemical Division
APPROVED:
[signature deleted]
[deleted] Chief, TSS
APPROVED:
Chief, TSS/Chemical Division
August 31, 1955
Distribution:
Orig. - TSS/CD
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.386
880ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 106 of 258
[document ends]
[document begins]
21 December 1954
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
1. While the Director's statutory authority to expend funds for

confidential purposes is not limited by law, we believe that a gift
of Government funds as such would exceed the intent of the
Congress in granting that power. However, where a gift is made
for the express purpose of producing something of value to this
Agency which cannot otherwise be obtained and there is
reasonable expectation that the value may be received, the gift
may in effect be an expenditure for proper official purposes.
2. In Subproject 35, it is stated that the donation in question

would achieve certain ends desired by TSS. There seems to be no
question that those ends would be advantageous, so the main
questions appear to be whether they could not be attained by
more direct, normal methods, and, if not, whether the return is
necessary and reasonable in relation to the donation.
3. We are in no position to review the requirements of TSS or

to appraise the advantages that would result from this project.
We do not comment, therefore, on the value received if the
project results in the benefits foreseen . We feel we should
comment on factors affecting the probability of achieving those
ends. In a legal sense, there is little or no control. Once the funds
are donated, the individual, his foundation, or the hospital could
conceivably refuse to work for us or allow us the use of the
facilities.
4. Practically, the control seems to be established as well as

circumstances permit. Certainly, as long as the individual is alive
and in his present position, we have every reason to expect his
complete cooperation in the future as in the past, unless through
some act or fault of our own he is alienated. Even in the event of
his death or incapacity, there appears to be a reasonable
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.387
881ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 107 of 258
chance of continuing the project. If these probabilities appear

sufficient to obtain an adequate return for the expenditure, there
can be no legal objection to this aspect of the project.
5. It should be noted that there are two circumstances which

require consideration in a final determination. As stated in
Section V, our contribution, by appearing to be from a private
source, would increase the matching Government contribution by
a similar amount which would not be the case if it were known
that this was in fact a Government contribution also. Secondly, it
is the stated policy of the hospital to charge the Government and
commercial organizations 80 per cent overhead on research
contracts, whereas nonprofit foundations pay only direct costs
but no overhead. Because of the ostensible source, our projects
will not be charged overhead. This could be construed as morally
wrongful to the hospital, as normally we would pay the 80 per
cent overhead charge for projects performed directly for us, but I
believe this can be offset, at least to the amount of our donation,
and perhaps by the further amount by which the other
Government contributions are increased by our donation. In any
case, if the project is a proper one and must be performed in this
manner, security dictates these circumstances and they, therefore,
do not present a legal obstacle as such.
6. We raised the question whether funds for the hospital

construction could not be obtained from other normal charitable
sources. It appeared that there was a strong possibility that the
individual concerned could raise adequate funds from private
resources, but it was the position of TSS that if this were the case
we would not obtain the commitment from the individual and the
degree of control which this project is designed to achieve.
[Lawrence R. Houston signature]

LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.388
882ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 108 of 258
[document begins]
[deletion]
8 April 1955
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, DD/P/TSS
SUBJECT: Amendment to Subproject 35 of Project MKULTRA
We have noted your memorandum of 6 April 1955 to the

Director requesting an increase of $250,000 for the TSS R&D
budget for this Project. This request does not affect in any way
the comments in my memorandum of 21 December 1954.
[deletion]
General Counsel
[document ends]
[document begins]
DRAFT
[deletion]
5 May 1955
A portion of the Research and Development Program of

TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the
following materials and methods:
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.389
883ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 109 of 258
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and

impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be
discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and

perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating

effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of

alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of

recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used
for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis

easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to

withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation
and so-called "brain-washing".
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce

amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over

extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as

paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
-2-
11. Substances which will produce "pure" euphoria with no

subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way

that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon
another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a

type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.390
884ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 110 of 258
maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general

working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable
amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the

eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent
effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered

in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe
to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use
by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by

the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it
impossible for a man to perform any physical activity
whatsoever.
The development of materials of this type follows the

standard practice of such ethical drug houses as [deletion] It is a
relatively routine procedure to develop a drug to the point of
human testing. Ordinarily, the drug houses depend upon the
services of private physicians for the final clinical testing. The
physicians are willing to assume the responsibility of such tests
in order to advance the science of medicine. It is difficult and
sometimes impossible for TSS/CD to offer such an inducement
with respect to its products. In practice, it has been possible to
use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this
work. However, that part which involves human testing at
effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be
handled by the ordinary contractor.
-3-
The proposed facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity

for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the
many advantages outlined in the project proposal. The security
problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the
responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the
physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow TSS/CD
personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all
tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and
embody adequate safeguards.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.391
885ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 111 of 258
[document ends]
[document begins]
10 May 1955
SUBPROJECT 35 OF PROJECT MKULTRA
1. Subproject 35 as approved by the DCI on 15 January 1955

contemplated a financial contribution of $125,000 to the
[deletion] to participate in the construction of a new research
wing to cost $3,000,000 exclusive of furnishings and equipment.
Agency funds will be transmitted through the [deletion] as cut-
out which will result in one-sixth of the space in the new
research wing being made available for Agency-sponsored
research involving covert biological and chemical techniques of
warfare.
2. At that time (15 January 1955) [deletion] with CIA

encouragement indicated a willingness to contribute $500,000 to
the construction fund. The building fund was to have been raised
as follows:
$1,000,000 - Contributed by [deletion]

250,000 - Donation from [deletion] of which $125,000 to be
supplied by CIA
1,250,000 - Matching funds under Public Law 221 equal to
the amount of the two above contributions
500,000 - [deletion]
_________________
$3,000,000 - TOTAL
4. The Agency's contribution would thus total $375,000. This

investment, together with the equal sum resulting from matched
funds, is fully justified in the opinion of TSS for reasons which
will be explained by [deletion] Chief, TSS, and Dr. Sidney
Gottlieb, Chief, TSS/Chemical Division. The scope of subproject
35 has not changed since the Director originally approved a
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.392
886ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 112 of 258
request by TSS for permission to spend $125,000 of available
[handwritten note:]
Resume of project circulated to members of [illegible] at meeting

on 11 May '55
[deletion] funds for this purpose through the controls and

procedures established for MKULTRA. At the time subproject
35 was set up within the scope of the TSS R&D program,
security considerations and cover arrangements were carefully
reviewed, and the Office of General Counsel assisted in legal
determinations. With the exception of funding arrangements, no
changes to the program have since been made.
5. Funds to cover the previously approved sum of $125,000 are

available within the TSS [deletion] budget for FY 55 and have
been set aside. The TSS budget, however, lacks funds with
which to cover the supplemental sum of $250,000, and it is
requested that the TSS [deletion] budget be increased by this
amount. Supplementary funds available for subproject 35 can
definitely be obligated by the end of FY 55.
-2-
[document ends]
[document begins]
AMENDMENT TO SUBPROJECT 35, PROJECT MKULTRA
For the Purpose of Establishing a Cover Organization for Highly

Sensitive Projects in the Field of Biological, Chemical and
Radiological Warfare
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.393
887ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 113 of 258
I. Background on Subproject 35.
In January 1955 approval was given by the DCI to Subproject 35

of Project MKULTRA. The documents which lead this approval
(including comments of the OGC) are attached herewith as Tabs
2, A and 3.
Project MKULTRA is the framework of procedures and controls

under which research projects in certain highly sensitive fields
are carried out by TSS. A description of the background of
Project MKULTRA may be found on page 1 of Tab A.
Subproject 35 establishes cover under which the Chemical

Division of DD/P/TSS would conduct certain sensitive projects
in the fields of biological and chemical warfare and consists of a
proposed arrangement whereby the Agency covertly contributes
funds to assist the [deletion] in the construction of a new research
wing. Contribution of these funds is to be made through the
[deletion] as cut-out so that the [deletion] would remain
unwitting of Agency participation in the building program.
Projects would later be carried out by the Chemical Division
using the facilities of the new research wing, and Agency
employees would be able to participate in the work without the
University or the Hospital authorities being aware of Agency
interest. Subproject 35 contemplated the contribution of Agency
funds to assist in the construction of facilities. Future research
work would be carried out through the [deletion] as cut-out and
would be separately funded under existing procedures and
controls.
[deletion] and the background of [deletion] are described on page

2 of Tab A. On the same page there will be found a further
description of the [deletion]
II. Building Fund
The University will require $3,000,000 for the six-story addition

to the hospital exclusive of the cost of land, heating and power
supply which are being provided by the University. Under Public
Law 221, Subappropriation
663, dated 26 August 1954, funds are available to match funds

raised for this purpose by the University.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.394
888ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 114 of 258
When Subproject 35 was first prepared, it was hoped and

expected that the funds required would be provided as follows:
The University has allocated $1,000,000 to this project and will
assume upkeep and staffing obligations. [deletion] agreed that if
the Agency would provide [deletion] with a grant of $125,000,
the Fund would match this amount and make a total donation of
$250,000 to the University Building Fund. At that time,
discussions with [one line deleted] indicated that [deletion]
would contribute $500,000 to the building project on the basis
that radiological research would be conducted in the new wing
and that the construction of the new facilities was of interest to
that Agency. In summary, the financial situation was to have
been as follows:
$1,000,000 - [deletion]
250,000 - Donation from [deletion] (of which $125,000 was
supplied by CIA)
1,250,000 - Matched Funds under Public Law 221
_________________
$3,000,000 - TOTAL
It was recognized that the Federal contributions of $1,250,000

under Public Law 221 would be seemingly inflated by reason of
the inclusion of the CIA contribution in that of [deletion] It was
felt that the value to the Agency was such that this inflation of
the Federal contribution was more than justified by the
importance of the over-all project and that furthermore, the
inclusion of the CIA contribution in that of [deletion] was the
best means of maintaining security.
III. [deletion]
The original informal commitment on the part of [deletion] was

first obtained through verbal discussions with [deletion] which
were followed up by an exchange of correspondence between the
DCI and [deletion] Unfortunately at that time [deletion] was fully
occupied with the controversy concerning the [deletion] and
continued contact with [deletion] subordinates resulted in a
decision that [deletion] could not or would not contribute to the
Building Fund, but would be willing to support an annual
research program amounting to $50,000 to $75,000. It is not
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.395
889ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 115 of 258
known whether this change in policy was suggested to [deletion]

or whether it originated with him. Be that as it may, when the
change in policy became apparent, it was evident that additional
funds would be required to complete the hospital construction.
IV. Suggested Funding.
It is now suggested that the $3,000,000 required for the hospital

wing be provided as follows:
$1,000,000 - [deletion]
500,000 - Donation from [deletion] (including $375,000
supplied by CIA)
1,500,000 - Matched Funds from Public Law 221
_________
$3,000,000 - TOTAL
The donation from [deletion] would thus consist of the original

$125,000 to be supplied by CIA plus the sum of $125,000 to be
provided by the Fund and a supplemental CIA contributions of
$250,000. Originally Subproject 35 requested permission to
make a contribution of $125,000 to the building fund and
approval was given. This approval is enclosed herewith as Tab 2.
The purpose of this amendment to Subproject 35 is to request
permission to contribute an additional $250,000 to the building
construction fund through [deletion] It should be noted that the
total Government contribution to the hospital fund still remains
unchanged at $1,875,000. The increase in the size of the
contribution by the Fund is not out of keeping with other
operations of [deletion] and will not arouse undue comment
because of its magnitude. The originally approved contribution
has not as yet been transmitted to [deletion] and neither the
original contributions nor the supplement would be paid to
[deletion] until funds adequate to complete the project are made
available. This condition was specified by the DCI in approving
the original contribution.
V. Source of CIA Funds.
Funds to cover the initially approved sum of $125,000 are

available and have been segregated for this purpose within the
TSS FY 1955 Budget for Research and Development.
Insufficient funds remain in the TSS budget to cover the
supplementary sum of $250,000, and it is therefore requested
that the TSS budget be increased by this amount and that the
increase be made available to Subproject 35 of Project
MKULTRA.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.396
890ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 116 of 258
-3-
VI. Comments by the Office of General Counsel.
Tab 3 is a memorandum from the General Counsel to the DCI

dated 21 December 1954, commenting on Subproject 35, and
stating in part that there are no fundamental legal objections if
the probable benefits are considered a fair return for this
expenditure. The amendment to the Subproject contemplates
only an increase in funds and in no way changes any other aspect
of the project. The project has been referred back to the OGC
even though no change in its structure is contemplated, and Tab
4 contains his comments.
VII. Justification.
The advantages and benefits accruing to the Agency outlined in

Tab A are felt by TSS to provide adequate and complete
justification for the expenditure of the additional sum herein
requested which brings the total CIA contribution to $375,000.
The most important of these advantages and benefits may be
summarized as follows: (Fuller explanations may be found in
Tab A).
a. One-sixth of the total space in the new hospital wing will

be available to the Chemical Division of TSS, thereby providing
laboratory and office space, technical assistants, equipment and
experimental animals.
b. Agency sponsorship of sensitive research projects will be

completely deniable.
c. Full professional cover will be provided for up to three

biochemical employees of the Chemical Division.
d. Human patients and volunteers for experimental use will be

available under controlled clinical conditions within the full
supervision of [deletion]
Subproject 35 was originally conceived in October and

November of 1954, and the ensuing six months have indicated
that increasing emphasis and importance are being placed on the
Chemical Division's work in this field. The facilities of the
hospital and the ability to conduct controlled experiments under
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.397
891ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 117 of 258
safe clinical conditions using materials with which any Agency

connection must be completely deniable will augment and
complement other programs recently taken over by TSS, such as
[deletion]
-4-
[deletion]
It was originally thought that at least 18 months would elapse

after the building funds had been raised before the facilities
would be finished and could be occupied by TSS. This lengthy
delay has now been overcome. When [one line deleted] has
raised the $500,000 which his Fund will ostensibly contribute, he
will then be allowed to use existing space in the present hospital
in order that he may build up the organization which will later
occupy the new wing. This means that TSS will be able to begin
to take advantage of this cover situation within a matter of
months instead of waiting for a year and a half.
VIII. Security.
Security matters and details are being co-ordinated with the TSS
Liaison and Security Officer. Security of transmittal of the funds
and cover arrangements are described in Tab A and remain
unchanged.
IX. Agreement with [deletion]
The agreement with [deletion] is described in Tab A, and the

extent of his co-operation and the control over his actions
remains unchanged.
X. Resultant Financial Saving.
The total contribution of $375,000 by CIA will result in an

additional $375,000 in matching funds provided under Public
Law 221. It is felt that the expenditure of these total funds is
justified by the importance of the programs which will be
pursued at the new facility. Even though the CIA contribution is
increased under this amended project, the total of Federal funds
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.398
892ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 118 of 258
remains unchanged. The use of this facility will allow work to

proceed under conditions of cover and security which would be
impossible to obtain elsewhere without an expenditure of
equivalent or greater funds. In addition, by funding individual
projects for this facility through the [deletion] no charge will be
incurred for overhead expense. If research projects [deletion] are
openly sponsored by the U.S. Government, it is customary to pay
an overhead rate equivalent to 80% of salaries. However, if a
non-profit fund, such as [deletion] sponsors research, the funds
granted for the work are customarily used only to pay for
salaries, equipment and supplies, but not overhead. The Agency
thus buys considerably more research through [deletion] than
would be the case if no cut-out were used.
-5-
[document ends]
[document begins]
MEMORANDUM FOR: [illegible]
Herewith the file on MKULTRA, Sub-project 35, with our

comments on the legal aspects. While there is no legal control
and there are certain incidental considerations, there is no
fundamental legal objection if the probable benefits are
considered a fair return for this expenditure.
[deletion]
General Counsel
22 December 1954
(DATE)
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.399
893ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 119 of 258
[document begins]
[deletion]
Tab A
SUBPROJECT 35 - PROJECT MKULTRA
For the purpose of establishing a cover organization for highly

sensitive projects in the field of covert Biological, Chemical and
Radiological Warfare
____________________________________
I. Background of Project MKULTRA.
In 1953 the DCI approved Project MKULTRA which established

procedures and controls under which research projects in certain
highly sensitive fields could be carried out by TSS without the
necessity of signing the usual contracts. The approved
procedures apply [deletion] over-all Research and Development
budget, and no additional funds are required. Controls
established in the Project Review Committee approval of the
Research and Development program (other than the signing of a
contract) remain unchanged, and special provisions for audit are
included. All files are retained by TSS.
These procedures and controls were approved since it is highly

undesirable from a policy and security point of view that
contracts be signed indicating Agency or Government interest in
this field of endeavor. In a great many instances the work must
be conducted by individuals who are not and should not be aware
of Agency interest. In other cases the individuals involved are
unwilling to have their names on a contract which remains out of
their control in our files. Experience has shown that qualified,
competent individuals in the field of physiological, psychiatric
and other biological sciences are very reluctant to enter into
signed agreements of any sort which would connect them with
this activity since such connection might seriously jeopardize
their professional reputations.
When Project MKULTRA was approved, it was not

contemplated that it would be used for the establishment of
cover. Over forty individual research and development projects
have been established under this framework and have been
carried out extremely successfully, both from technical and
administrative points of view. The experience gained in handling
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.400
894ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 120 of 258
these projects has emphasized that establishment of better cover

both for the projects and for associated Agency scientists is of
utmost importance. Subproject 35 would establish such cover.
II. Background of the [deletion]
The [deletion] was incorporated in [deletion]. It has a Board of

Directors of six members, one of whom is [deletion] who acts as
Executive Director of the Fund. [deletion] it has solicited funds
from various individuals to finance a program of basic research
in the chemotherapy of cancer, asthma, hypertension,
psychosomatic disorders and other chronic diseases. Since 1951
[deletion] has co-operated with the Chemical Division of TSS
and acted smoothly and efficiently, both as a cut-out for dealing
with contractors in the fields of covert chemical and biological
warfare, and as a prime contractor for certain areas of biological
research. Projects presently being handled for the Agency by the
Fund are administered under the controls and procedures
previously approved for MKULTRA.
III. Background of [deletion]
[deletion] is internationally known as a [deletion] in the field of

[deletion] research and is [one line deleted] In the past he has
been associated in a research capacity with both the [deletion]
During the war [deletion] served as a [deletion] in the Bureau of
Medicine and Surgery in the Navy. Since then he has maintained
a consulting relationship to the Navy medical research program,
[deletion] is TOP SECRET cleared and witting of Agency
sponsorship of the programs carried out by the Fund as are two
other members of the Fund's Board of Directors.
IV. [deletion] Fund.
[one line deleted] has been actively engaged in a campaign to

raise funds for the purpose of erecting a new clinical research
wing on the existing [deletion] The research wing will consist of
a building six stories high, 320 feet long and 50 feet wide. Two-
thirds of the space will be research laboratories and offices while
100 research beds will occupy the remainder. [deletion]
participation in the fund-raising campaign outlined below will
result in his having control of one-sixth of the total space in
addition to the base-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.401
895ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 121 of 258
-2-
[deletion]
ment and general out-patient facilities. In this effort, [deletion]

has secured the enthusiastic support of the medical faculty and
the officers of the University who have carried the preliminary
arrangements forward to the maximum extent of their resources.
V. Financial Situation.
The University will require about $3,000,000 for the [deletion]

story addition. This sum is exclusive of the cost of land and the
heating and power supply, which are already available at the site.
At the present time under Public Law 221, funds are available to
match funds raised by the University. The University has
allocated $1,000,000 to this project and will assume upkeep and
staffing obligations. [deletion] has agreed that if CIA will
provide [deletion] a grant of $125,000, [deletion] will match this
amount and make a total donation of $250,000 to the University
Building Fund. This Agency's contribution will be made under
the condition that it will be refunded if construction does not take
place.
TSS has discussed this situation with [one line deleted] and has
encouraged [deletion] to donate $500,000 to the building project
on the basis that [deletion] will be conducted in the new wing.
[deletion] though aware of our interest in the building, is
unwitting of our specific fields of research and individual
projects. In summary, the financial situation would be as follows:
$1,000,000 - [deletion]
250,000 - Donation from [deletion] ($125,000 supplied by
CIA)
1,250,000 - Matched funds from Public Law 221
__________
$3,000,000 - TOTAL
Although it is recognized that the Federal contribution of

$1,250,000 under P. L. 221 is seemingly inflated by reason of the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.402
896ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 122 of 258
inclusion of the CIA contribution in that of [deletion] actually the

value to the CIA is $250,000 and not just $125,000, the amount
of CIA's contribution; furthermore the inclusion of the CIA
contribution in that of [deletion] is the best method of
maintaining security.
-3-
[deletion]
VI. Difficulties Faced by TSS.
It has been generally recognized for some time that the external
research activities of the Chemical Division of TSS in the field of
covert biological, chemical and radiological warfare are sorely in
need of proper cover. Although Project MKULTRA provides
excellent administrative and financial cover for projects, it does
not afford cover for scientific or technical personnel.
MKULTRA has been used for dealing through [deletion] as a
cut-out and for working directly with individuals or private
companies. The use of [deletion] in the future will be
increasingly limited due to
(a) The increasing number of people who, albeit properly

cleared, are aware of the Agency connection with [deletion]
(b) The feeling by [deletion] that the Agency employees

contacting him (Drs. Gottlieb, [deletion], etc.) have no cover of
any sort and consequently expose him to unnecessary and highly
undesirable personal risk; and
(c) The widespread intra-Agency awareness of the nature of

the relationship between the Fund and the Agency.
Another serious problem faced by TSS/CD as a result of lack of

suitable cover is the difficulty in planning careers for technical
and scientific personnel in the biological field. A long-range
career concept of activities in this field inevitably includes proper
cover for the individual concerned. The availability of research
facilities at [deletion] will offer an excellent opportunity to solve
many of the above problems, and [deletion] is willing and able to
make any reasonable arrangements to suit our needs. Up to three
Chemical Division employees can be integrated into [deletion]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.403
897ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 123 of 258
program for work in the new hospital wing on the Agency's

research projects. Although career planning was not a
consideration when planning the procedures and controls
established by Project MKULTRA, nevertheless this particular
subproject, in addition to its primary objective, will be of very
great secondary help
-4-
[deletion]
in simplifying and eliminating many of the very awkward and

dangerous conditions facing certain Chemical Division
employees.
VII. Advantages and Benefits Accruing to TSS.
The contemplated arrangements will result in many advantages

and benefits, including the following:
(a) One-sixth of the total space in the new research wing is to

be available to [deletion] and in turn, will be available to the
Chemical Division of TSS. This will provide laboratory and
office space, technical assistants, equipment and experimental
animals for use of Chemical Division personnel in connection
with specific future projects.
(b) The cost of Chemical Division projects which are to be

carried out under this cover will be covered by funds made
available through Project MKULTRA, and projects will be
subject to the procedures and controls established for
MKULTRA. The funds will be passed through [deletion] as has
been done in the past. [deletion] in turn will either pay expenses
directly or transfer the money to the University for this purpose.
Each project will be individually funded based on its particular
budget, and there will be no other continuing or recurring
charges for items such as space, facilities, etc.
(c) The Agency's sponsorship of sensitive research projects

would be completely deniable since no connections would exist
between the University and the Agency.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.404
898ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 124 of 258
(d) Excellent professional cover would be provided for up to

three bio-chemical employees of the Chemical Division of TSS.
This would allow open attendance of scientific meetings, the
advancement of personal standing in the scientific world. and as
such, would constitute a major efficiency and
-5-
morale booster.
(e) Human patients and volunteers for experiment use will be

available under excellent clinical conditions with the full
supervision of [one line deleted]
(f) There would be available the equivalent of a hospital

safehouse.
(g) It is expected that the output of useful results of the

Chemical Division in the bio-chemical field will be greatly
improved through the more efficient use of technical personnel
who would be able to spend more of their time on actual
laboratory work.
(h) [one and a half lines deleted]
(i) Excellent facilities would be provided for recruiting new

scientific personnel since members of the Chemical Division
working under this cover will be in daily contact with members
of the Graduate School of the University.
(j) The regular University library and reprint service will be

available as a source of technical information.
VIII. Funding.
It is proposed that $125,000 be granted to [deletion]. If approval

is granted, TSS will arrange for payment to be made under the
procedures and controls of MKULTRA. These funds would
come out of the presently approved TSS Research and
Development budget for FY 1955 and no new funds are
involved. The funds would be transferred as a grant to [deletion]
In turn [deletion] will match these funds with an equal amount
and donate a total of $250,000 to the University as outlined in
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.405
899ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 125 of 258
paragraph V. The sum of $125,000 would be entirely in the

nature of a grant and would in due
-6-
course be merged with the entire $3,000,000 raised for the

construction of the wing. The Agency would retain no residual
interest in the building or title to any equipment or facilities
purchased with this money.
This single grant will constitute the Agency's entire participation

in the new hospital wing, and there will be no recurring
obligations in the form of annual support of the hospital or
additional grants. Transmission of Agency funds to [deletion]
will be made through previously established cover channels set
up by the [deletion] for similar transmittals in the past. The
donation on [deletion]s books will be shown as having been
received from [deletion].
In the future when TSS sponsors sensitive research projects

which are to be carried out in [deletion] each project will be
individually financed through [deletion] as it has been in the past
in accordance with previously established procedures and
controls using allotted portions of the annual Research and
Development budget. The University will be totally unwitting of
Agency sponsorship, and the projects to every outward
appearance will be sponsored by [deletion].
In the event of [deletion] death, [deletion] will continue in being

and any activities under this project will be continued through
[deletion] and will be unaffected by his death.
IX. Memorandum of Agreement.
A memorandum of agreement will be signed with [deletion]

outlining to the greater extent possible the arrangements under
which the hospital space under his control will be made available
to Chemical Division personnel and the manner in which cover
will be provided and other benefits obtained. No contract will be
signed since [deletion] would be unable to reflect any of the
Agency's contractual terms in his arrangements with the
University when [deletion] makes the donation in question. The
memorandum of agreement will be retained in TSS.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.406
900ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 126 of 258
X. Security.
All security matters and details are being co-ordinated with the
TSS/Liaison and Security Office.
-7-
[deletion]
XI. Resultant Financial Saving.
The $125,000 to be contributed by CIA plus the $125,000 in

matching funds provided under P. L. 221 to the Building Fund
will be more than offset in a few years by the savings which will
result from use of this non-profit fund. If a research project at
[deletion] or other educational non-profit institution is sponsored
by the U.S. Government, it is customary for the Government to
pay for salaries, equipment, supplies, etc. and for overhead as
well. In the case of [deletion] the overhead amounts to 80% of
salaries. However, if a non-profit foundation such as [deletion]
sponsors research at a non-profit institution, the funds granted for
the work are customarily used to pay for salaries, equipment and
supplies but not for overhead. The Government dollar thus buys
considerably more research through [deletion] than would be the
case if no cut-out were used.
XII. Legal Matters.
This matter has been discussed with [deletion] of the Office of

General Counsel, and he is fully aware of all details surrounding
this grant.
-8-
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.407
901ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 127 of 258
[document begins]
9 April 1958
SUBJECT: Trip Report, Visit to [deletion]

7 April 1958
1. The purpose of this trip was to make arrangements for

closing out the [deletion] project. [deletion] had been given
ample previous notice that such was likely to be the intent of the
visit, and he prepared himself accordingly.
2. It was explained to [deletion] that it would not be possible

to carry over funds beyond the end of the current fiscal year.
Therefore all work would have to be completed and all payments
made prior to 30 June. This deadline approved acceptable to him,
and it was agreed that I would make my final visit there to
receive reports and attend to final details on 16 June. [deletion]
did not have a current financial report, but he estimated that
funds currently on hand would be about sufficient for remaining
expenditures. He agreed to send the Society within the next 10
days a more exact statement of current balance and estimated
remaining expenditures. I tried to impress on him strongly that
transfer of additional funds and/or return of unexpended funds
must be completed well before the end of the fiscal year.
3. Of the 30 cases called for in the original design 18 have

been completed (but only 4 have been transcribed from the
tapes). In addition there are 8 cases in progress (of which two are
already in interview and 6 are worked up to the point of having
the lists of questions prepared). It was agreed that to meet the
deadline we would have to limit the design to these 26 cases.
4. It is apparent that [deletion] is so involved in the

administrative problems of the project that he is not paying any
attention to the results. Since to date only 4 cases have been
transcribed there is no way of telling what is coming out of it. I
assume there were no dramatic reactions, because the
interviewers would have let him know about them had they
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.408
902ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 128 of 258
emerged. It is possible, however, that our own analysis of the

data may dredge up something of value, although I am dubious
on this point.
5. [deletion] gave me his usual long involved talk on the

difficulties he had encountered which account for the delays. He
also talked at some
length about his "experiments" with hypnosis, some aspects of

which are mildly hair-raising. Finally he made quite a pitch for
continuing some such project as this next year, "with realistic,
specific deadlines." I told him we would discuss possibilities
after the present project was completed and we had a chance to
closely examine the take.
[deletion]
Distribution:
1 [deletion]
[document ends]
[document begins]
[deletion]
July 18, 1958
[deletion]
Dear Mr. [deletion]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.409
903ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 129 of 258
The experiment designed to test the effectiveness of certain

medication in causing individuals to release guarded information
has been completed in accordance with the original experimental
design, with the exception that 25 instead of 30 cases were used.
This matter was discussed in more detail in my letter of July 15.
Abstracts on all 25 cases, transcriptions of the interviews,
Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Tests given at the hospital and
previously given at this clinic, post-experimental rankings and
evaluation sheets, and a schedule covering the drug
administration have all been submitted to you under separate
cover.
Enclosed is a financial statement which represents the final

accounting of the funds allocated by you for use in this project.
If, for your purpose, you require a more detailed summary of
what specific professional services were performed or more
detail with reference to travel expenses or any other item, kindly
let me know.
You will note, in this connection, that Dr. [deletion] was

compensated in an amount exceeding that paid to Dr. [deletion]
This was occasioned by the fact that Dr. [deletion] spent much
time checking the files and records at the [deletion] and
[deletion] Prison selecting cases that might be suitable for our
purpose. It was from the cases selected by him that the subjects
used in the experiment were finally chosen.
I have been instructed to write a check to the Society for the

balance in the account as of today. I would like to
Mr. [deletion] Page Two July 18, 1958
delay this matter for a few days. Several checks have been
written during recent days, and I would like to be sure they
cleared the bank in [deletion] before closing out the account. You
will receive a check in the amount of $1356.26 early next week.
If there is any additional information required, I will be happy

to cooperate.
[signature deleted]
Executive Director
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.410
904ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 130 of 258
[deletion]
Enc.
[document ends]
[document begins]
RESEARCH PLAN
LOCATION
The research Project will be carried out at the [deletion]

located at [deletion] which is located [deletion]. The hospital has
one thousand, one hundred and thirty-five (1,135) beds. At the
present time there are one hundred forty-two (142) non-
psychotics classified as criminal-sexual psychopaths. There are
four full-time psychiatrists and varying numbers of medical
interns; two psychologists; four social workers; nurses and
attendants. The superintendent of the Hospital is [deletion], a
witting member of the research team. The institution comes
under the direction of the Executive Secretary of the State
Department of Mental Health and any research project is
normally approved by the Co-ordinator of Research of the State
Department of Mental Health. [deletion] will secure this
approval. [deletion] will make space available and it is possible
for the research team to sleep at the Hospital while carrying out
their investigation.
SUBJECTS
The subjects will be selected from the one hundred and forty-
two (142) criminal-sexual psychopaths on whom there is an
adequate previous investigation including police reports,
physical, psychiatric and psychologic organizations and social
histories. The age range of the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.411
905ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 131 of 258
subjects varies from twenty to seventy years and there is a wide

variation of intelligence levels and social backgrounds.
INVESTIGATIONS
The following men are suggested for the research team:
[one line deleted], a psychologist who has had extensive

experience in examining criminals; has written extensively on
psychopathic sexual deviations; is an authority on polygraph and
interrogation methods.
[one line deleted] for some thirty years, a psychiatrist who has
spent his life in the treatment of the criminal insane and
rethinking the only institution [deletion] for the care and
treatment for the criminal-sexual psychopath.
[deletion] a psychiatrist who has a large private practice. At the

present time he is exclusively devoting his time to
psychoanalysis. He has had extensive experience examining
criminals. As a Navy psychiatrist he has had extensive
experience in [one line deleted] in the field of eastern cultures,
Oriental psychiatry, brainwashing, etc. He has also done drug
interrogation with criminals and has engaged in narcoanalysis
and hypnoanalysis.
-2-
[deletion] a psychiatrist who is on the staff of [one line deleted]

and maintains a private practice in the field of psychiatry.
[deletion] has had wide experience in dealing with criminals
going back some twenty-five years, including drug interrogation.
[deletion] a physician for the past twenty-five years, has been

[one line deleted] has had extensive experience dealing with all
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.412
906ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 132 of 258
sorts of criminals and has engaged in drug interrogation. Besides

his city position, he also maintains a private practice in the field
of general medicine.
[deletion] has suggested one of the psychiatrists from his staff

who is interested and has used drugs in the treatment of patients
and has also used hypnosis with mental patients. The research
assistants have not been selected as yet but might well include
psychologists or medics now attached to [deletion]. The secretary
will be [deletion] present secretary who will do all the necessary
stenographic work in addition to her present duties.
EXPERIMENTAL BASICS:
Three teams of two senior professional men each will be

selected. One team working with the selected group of patients
will use straight interrogation, hypnosis and hypnosis and LSD
and hypnosis and a
-3-
tetrahydrocannabinol acetate derivative. Another team working

on another group of subjects will use straight interrogation, LSD
with interrogation and a tetrahydrocannabinol acetate derivative
and interrogation. Later the third team with another group of
subjects will use straight interrogation and a combination of LSD
and a tetrahydrocannabinol acetate derivative.
A meeting of all the members of the research project will be

briefed on the drugs to be used and all of the pharmacological
and medical knowledge gained so far in the use of these drugs.
In selecting groups of subjects for experimentation, the

following objectives will be sought:
1) Subjects will be selected who have denied allegations of

various kinds that can be chocked or strongly assumed on the
basis of previously established records.
2) As far as possible, the actual research man administering

drugs will note aware of the drug he is administering and
placebos will be interspersed with drug administration.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.413
907ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 133 of 258
3) Precautions will be taken to neutralize age, intelligence,

physical condition, social background and any other controllable
factor in selecting groups. Administration of drugs will be done
both openly and surreptitiously.
4) Sound recordings will be made of the interrogation and

written reports will be obtained in other cases.
-4-
5) Due care will be exercised in equating methods of

interrogation as far as this can be done. The results of
interrogation with drugs and other techniques will be checked
against existing records and qualitative and quantitative reports
will be kept and reports will be submitted on the basis of interim
progress and complete projects.
-5-
[document ends]
[document begins]
DRAFT/[deletion]
30 January 1961
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.414
908ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 134 of 258
1. Subproject 42 is to be continued for the same purpose as

when originally established: to support [deletion] covert and
realistic field trials of certain research and development items of
interest to TSD, and to maintain the physical facilities required
for these trials.
2. In the past year a number of covert and realistic field trials

have been successfully carried out. The results of these
experiments have provided factual data essential to establishing
protocols for a number of contemplated operations. A
continuation of covert and realistic field trials are necessitated by
the production of new materials in TSD programs, particularly in
areas requiring detailed knowledge of the effectiveness and
efficiency of delivery systems. Additional trials are also
necessitated by the need for better controlled "field-type"
experiments.
3. The estimated cost of the project is $5,000,000 for a period

of six months. Charges should be made against Allotment 1125-
1390-3902.
4. Accounting for funds and equipment under this subproject

has been established on a detailed basis with the auditor and will
continue as in the past.
5. [deletion] is approved for TOP SECRET by the Agency

and operates under cover for purposes of this subproject.
[signature deleted]
TSD/Research Branch

[signature deleted]
Date:
Distribution:
Original only.
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.415
909ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 135 of 258
[document begins]
24 January 1955
Subproject 42 is being established to provide for the

continued support of the [deletion] facilities, and as such, is a
continuation of Subproject 16. Under Subproject 42, it is
intended that the [deletion] facilities be moved from [deletion] to
[deletion] These facilities, in the new location, will continue to
provide a means for the realistic testing of certain R and D items
of interest to CD/TSS and APD/TSS.
2. Subproject 42 will be conducted by Mr. [deletion] a

seaman. Certain support activation will be provided by CD/TSS
and AFD/TSS.
3. The estimated cost for a period of one year is $8,300.00,

starting 1 March 1955.
[signature: Robert Lashbrook for]
SIDNEY GOTTLIEB
Chief
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: 27 Jan 1955
APPROVED FOR ADDITIONAL OBLIGATION OF FUNDS:

($2,089.34)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.416
910ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 136 of 258
[signature deleted]
[deletion] Research Director
Date: June 27 1956
Original Only.
[document ends]
[document begins]
21 March 1955
[deletion]

activities now engaged in by the [deletion], in its own facilities
under the direction of TSS, Chemical Division. These activities
will take the form of three lines of biochemical investigation;
namely, the curare-like effect of certain thiols, the preparation of
hydrogenated quinolines and indole alkaloids, and the continued
study of diphenolic compounds. In addition to the above
investigations, the present biological testing and assaying
techniques will be elaborated and broadened to include
cardiovascular and anticarcinogenic effects of compounds
resulting from the above programs.
2. The attached proposal from [deletion] indicates the extent

of the investigations that his facilities will allow him to carry out
on the materials developed in the three lines of research referred
to in paragraph 1, as well as certain other materials of interest to
TSS/CD. [deletion] also serves as a general consultant to this
Division and provides cover and cut-out facilities to the Agency.
not exceed $100,000.00 At the present time, the sum of
$40,000.00 is being committed, the balance of the total to be
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.417
911ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 137 of 258
committed at a later date.
4. [deletion] has been granted a TOP SECRET clearance by

the Agency, and is fully capable of protecting the security of the
Government's interest in this matter.
[signature deleted]
TSS, Chemical Division
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: 24 Mar 55
APPROVED:
[signature deleted]
Chief TSS/Chemical Division
APPROVED FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF

$27,000:
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: Jun 2 1955
Attachments:
Proposal
Original Only.
[document ends]
[document begins]
30 January 1956
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.418
912ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 138 of 258
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORDS

activities now engaged in by the [deletion] under the direction of
TSS/CD. These activities take the form of three lines of
biochemical investigation, namely, the Curare-like effect of
certain this, the preparation of hydrogenated quinolines and
indole alkaloids and a program of investigation of toxic cerebral
states. This last investigation will include bio-assay and chemical
analysis of various body fluids of animals in which cerebral
toxemias have been produced. It is the aim of this program to
endeavor to understand the mechanism of such states as toxic
delirium, uremic coma, and cerebral toxicity from poisoning. In
order to continue the established "cover" activities of the
[deletion] and to make available a pool of subjects for testing
purposes, the [deletion] and [deletion] effects of compounds
resulting from the above program will be evaluated.
2. The attached proposal from [deletion] indicates the extent

of the investigations that his facilities will allow him to carry out
on the materials developed in the three lines of research referred
to in paragraph one, as well as certain other materials of interest
to TSS/CD. [deletion] also serves as a general consultant to this
Division and provides cover and cut-out facilities to the Agency.
not exceed $100,000. Charges should be made against Allotment
6-2502-10-001.
4. [deletion] has been requested to submit a summary

accounting or a copy of the [deletion] annual audit report be
made available for the sponsor's inspection. Also, it has been
requested that any unexpended funds shall be returned to the
Agency.
5. Title to any permanent equipment purchased by funds

granted [deletion] shall be retained by the [deletion] in lieu of
higher overhead rates.
* other than its activities as a cut-out
6. It was mutually agreed that documentation and accounting
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.419
913ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 139 of 258
for travel expenses which are normally reimbursable by the

[deletion] shall conform with the accepted practices of the
[deletion]
7. [deletion] agreed to comply with the requirements of the

Memorandum of Agreement.
[signature deleted]
APPROVED:

Chief, TSS Chemical Division
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date: 2 Feb 1956
Attachment:
Proposal
Distribution:
Original Only
[document ends]
[document begins]
1960
The research to be undertaken during the twelve month period

for which financial support is requested will be devoted to the
continued analysis of the neural and endocrine mechanism of
stress and the chemical agents that influence it. The screening
procedures are based largely upon a further analysis of phases of
stress and the influences of this physiologic behavior complex
upon both body and skin temperatures as detailed in the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.420
914ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 140 of 258
accompanying report.
The chemical synthesis of new compounds will be continued

at the [deletion] under the supervision of [deletion] and at the
[deletion] under the supervision of [deletion] These chemical
agents will be screened for their capacity to provoke stress or to
suppress the stress reaction in its acute or chronic phases. Animal
testing will include pharmacologic screening and proper toxicity
studies of these compounds as heretofore.
Chemical agents that have been found active and within a

suitable toxicity range will be subjected to clinical screening on
appropriate patients, the initial screening being carried out on
advanced cancer patients. The amount of money devoted to
chemical synthesis, however, has been further reduced. Chemical
compounds available from biologic sources as well as those
synthesized in the project will be screened, particularly those that
are active in either raising or lowering body temperature.
As heretofore any agents which prove to be of interest

[deletion] both on transplant
Page 2
animal tumors and on cancer patients. This cancer phase of the

project will be considered a by-product of the major objective,
which will be directed to the problem of stress.
[document ends]
[document begins]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.421
915ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 141 of 258
SUBJECT: Continuation of MKULTRA, Subproject No. 45
1. The scope of this subproject includes all those activities

now engaged in by [deletion], under the direction of TSD/RB
with the exception of those cutout functions specifically
mentioned in connection with other MKULTRA subprojects. In
general, the research effort under this subproject will continue
along the lines laid down in previous years. These involve the
synthesis and pharmacological and clinical evaluation of
compounds of those chemical families known to have application
in the psychochemical and "K" fields. During the past year
important progress has been made in the area related to stressor
compounds and the relationship of these materials to the
physiological pathways through which both stress and the
reaction to it are mediated in human beings. As indicated in the
attached proposal, the work of the past year has progressed to the
point where more definitive experiments on the stress reaction
can be carried out. Primarily this was brought about by the
characterization of several new materials which produce stress
reaction in humans and the application of some new clinical
methods of measuring the extent of the disturbance produced.
During the next year proportionally more effort will be expended
on the problem of the development of new
"knock-out" types of agents since progress has been slower than

is desirable in this direction and because a new approach to the
problem has been worked out.
2. [deletion] also serves as a general consultant to the Agency,

provides services of a sensitive nature on an ad hoc basis, and
serves as a cut-out in procurement problems.
not exceed $71,500.00 [handwritten note above: 40,000.00].
Charges should be made against Allotment 0525-1009-4902.
4 [deletion] has been requested to submit a summary

accounting or a copy of the Fund's annual audit report for the
sponsor's inspection. Also, it has been requested that any
unexpended funds shall be returned to the Agency.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.422
916ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 142 of 258

granted [deletion] shall be retained by [deletion], in lieu of higher
overhead rates.

for travel expenses which are normally reimbursable by
[deletion] shall conform with the accepted practices of the Fund.
[document ends]
[document begins]
SUBJECT: Continuation of MKULTRA, Subproject No. 45
1. The scope of this subproject includes all those activities

now engaged in by [deletion] under the direction of TSD/RB
with the exception of those cutout functions specifically
mentioned in connection with other MKULTRA subprojects. In
general, the research effort under this subproject will continue
along the lines laid down in previous years. These involve the
synthesis and pharmacological and clinical evaluation of
compounds of those chemical families known to have application
in the psychochemical and "K" fields. During the coming year it
is planned to concentrate more directly on the more practical
aspects of the "knockout" problem. Enough new potent
substances have become available lately to make such a change
in emphasis worthwhile. In connection with this change it should
be noted that certain findings made in [deletion] project at
[deletion] which cannot be further exploited at that facility will
be pursued at [deletion] in the future. For this reason it may be
necessary to supplement the findings of this subproject from time
to time during the year due to increases of scope.
2. [deletion] also serves as a general consultant to the Agency,

provides services of a sensitive nature on an ad hoc basis, and
serves as a cutout in procurement problems.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.423
917ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 143 of 258
not exceed $40,000. Charges should be made against Allotment
2125-1390-3902.
4. [deletion] has been requested to submit a summary

accounting or a copy of the Fund's annual audit report for the
sponsor's inspection. Also, it has been requested that any
unexpended funds shall be returned to the Agency.

granted [deletion] shall be retained by [deletion] in lieu of higher
overhead rates.

for travel expenses which are normally reimbursable by
[deletion] shall conform with the accepted practices of the Fund.
[signature deleted]
Chief
TSD/Research Branch
[signature deleted]
Research Director
Date [illegible]
Attachment: Proposal and Budget
Distribution: Original only
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.424
918ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 144 of 258
[document begins]
DRAFT
24 January 1964
SUBJECT: MKULTRA, Subproject 149
1. This subproject is being established for the purpose of

supporting realistic tests of certain development items and
delivery systems of interest to TSD/BB.
[handwritten note: 31 Jan '64 Testing in stand-down until policy

issues (illegible) at DCI level. OK to (illegible)]
2. During the course of development it is sometimes found

that certain very necessary experiments or tests are not suited to
ordinary laboratory facilities. At the same time, it would be
difficult if not impossible to conduct such tests as operational
field tests. This project is designed to provide a capability and
facilities to fill this intermediate requirement.
3. The activities under this subproject will be conducted by

Mr. [deletion], an individual in the import and export business, in
[deletion] Mr. [deletion] holds a TOP SECRET Treasury
Department clearance and a SECRET Agency approval. He is
completely witting of the aims and goals of his activities.
4. Mr. [deletion] possesses unique facilities and personal

abilities which makes him invaluable in this kind of testing
operation. Mr. [deletion] because of his peculiar talents and
-2-
capabilities as well as his excellent connections with all of the

local law enforcement agencies, will provide a unique and
essential capability. Because Mr. [deletion] is no longer resident
of the [deletion] area, it is necessary that a suitable replacement
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.425
919ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 145 of 258
be provided in order that a capability for continuance of our

activities be maintained.
5. The estimated cost of the project is $10,000.00 for a period

of one year. Charges should be made against Allotment Number
4125-1390-3902. Reimbursement will be made for services
rendered.
6. Accounting for funds advanced and any equipment under

this subproject will be in accordance with accounting procedures
established by the [deletion] [handwritten note: Administration
Staff/TSD] [deletion]
7. A memorandum of agreement along lines established by

previous audit recommendations in like situations will be
executed.
[signature deleted]
Chief
TSD/Biological Branch
Distribution:
Original only
[document ends]
[document begins]
SUBJECT: Request for Support of Research on the Mechanism

of Brain Concussion
1. This is a request for financial support for research on the

mechanism of brain concussion for the period 1 Feb 1956 to 1
Feb 1957.
2. The resonance-cavitation theory upon which this research is to

be based has been presented in the proposal submitted to the
[deletion] dated 27 March 1954.
3. The program as originally submitted estimated the duration of
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.426
920ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 146 of 258
the program to be from three to five years requesting a total of

$72,109 for the initial year.
4. At the request of the [deletion] a reduced budget was

submitted.
5. [deletion], amounting to $24,925, was then awarded to the

[deletion] to support this program from 1 Feb 1955 to 1 Feb
1956.
6. The progress made to date under the above contract can be

summarized as follows:
A. RESEARCH FACILITIES
The following research facilities have been established for

the investigation of the very diverse aspects of the problems
being studied:
a. [deletion]
A total of 2500 square feet of laboratory and office
space equipped with much of the diversified machinery and
apparatus necessary for research in this field.
b. Blast Range
A blast range has been established at [deletion] located
approximately [deletion] of the main laboratory. This area is
owned by the [deletion] and is closed to the public. Three blast
test series have been run to date.
c. [deletion]
Arrangements have been made with the [one line
deleted] for use of their human cadavers. A test area has been
assigned for this
B. PERSONNEL
Both full-time technical personnel and part-time professional

research personnel have been acquired and indoctrinated relative
to their specific function.
C. TECHNICAL PROGRAMS
Following is the technical progress made under the current

[deletion] contract:
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.427
921ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 147 of 258
a. Specialized instrumentation and numerous testing

techniques have been developed to obtain the desired dynamic
data.
b. Considerable data has now been obtained supporting the

resonance-cavitation theory of brain concussion.
c. Preliminary acceleration threshold data has been

obtained for a fluid-filled glass simulated skull.
d. Data has been obtained on the nature and the magnitude

of pressure fluctuations within a glass simulated skull subject to
either impact or sound waves propagated in air.
e. Initial studies have been made on the simulated glass

skull attempting to establish the cavitation patterns for various
types of impact.
7. The proposed method and program plan remain the same as

stated in the original proposal, except for the temporary deletion
of the immersion blast study.
8. The current level of activity on this project can be indicated by

the most recent billing to the [deletion] for the month of
November, which amounted to $4,034.61.
9. In the interest of efficiency and economy it is requested that at

least this level of activity be maintained for the coming year.
10.0 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

FUNDING
10.1 Trotter, W. defines brain concussion as: "an essentially

transient state due to head injury which is of instantaneous onset,
manifests widespread symptoms of purely paralytic kind, does
not as such comprise any evidence of structural cerebral injury,
and is always followed by amnesia for the actual moment of the
accident."
10.2 The implication of the underlined portion of the above

statement is that if a technique were devised to induce brain
concussion without giving either advance warning or causing
external physical trauma, the person upon recovery would be
unable to recall what had happened to him. Under these
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.428
922ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 148 of 258
conditions the same technique of producing the concussion could

be re-used many times without disclosure of its nature.
10.3 First, considering the possibilities of direct impact to the

head or body, it should be possible from the findings of this
research program to determine the following:
a. Optimum design of impacting devices.
b. Optimum points of impact on skull or body.
c. Intensity of the blow for the effect desired.
10.4 In regard to the potential impacting devices, there are

certain design requisites that are apparent at this time:
a. The impact should be delivered without advance
warning.
b. The area of impact and force distribution should be such
that surface trauma does not occur.
c. The intensity of the impacting force and its duration
should be such as to obtain the desired effect.
d. The device should be as small and as silent as possible.
10.5 The specific impacting devices might take the form of any
of the following:
a. A pancake type black-jack giving a high peak impact

force with a low unit surface pressure.
b. Concealed or camouflaged spring-loaded impacting
devices that trigger upon contact with the head.
(Original and sole copy :agg)
c. A projectile type impactor such as an air gun using a

small shot filled sack for a projectile.
d. An explosive pad detonated in contact with the head or

the body.
10.6 Let us now consider the possibilities of exciting the

resonance cavitation directly without impact. There is
considerable evidence that resonance cavitation can be induced
directly in the following ways:
a. A blast wave propogated in air. (Blast Concussion)
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.429
923ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 149 of 258
b. Physical excitation with a mechanical driver or horn,

turned to the resonant frequency of the head.
10.7 A single blast pressure wave propogated in air must have

considerable intensity in order to produce brain concussion.
However, there is considerable evidence (Carver & Dinsley) that
modification of the pressure wave can produce profound effects.
10.8 Excitation of the resonance cavitation by using a tuned

driver at this time appears to be well within the realm of
possibility. The neurotic-like manifestations normally associated
with blast concussion could possibly be induced by this method.
Use of this method, however, would require actual physical
contact with the drivers.
10.9 Excitation of the resonance cavitation by tuned sound waves

also appears to be a reasonable possibility. Concentration of the
sound-field at some remote point could be effected with
acoustical lenses and reflectors. The blast duration would be in
the order of a tenth of a second. Masking of a noise of this
duration should not be too difficult.
11.0 It would possibly be advantageous to establish the

effectiveness of both of the above methods as a tool in brain-
wash therapy. A full knowledge of the method and the resulting
sequela should be of aid to any person forced to submit to such
treatment.
12.0 Possibly the most significant potential aspect of this study

would be in the development of practical means of giving a
person immunity, even though temporary, to brain concussion.
One technique that appears to have potentialities involves the
introduction of a small quantity of gas, approximately 1 cc, into
the spinal cord. This gas bubble would then normally migrate to
the ventricles located at the centrum of the brain. The ability of
this bubble to expand under dynamic loading would be most
effective in preventing resonance cavitation from occurring.
(Original and sole copy :agg)
[document ends]
[document begins]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.430
924ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 150 of 258
MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
MKSEARCH, OFTEN/CHICKWIT
MKSEARCH was the name given to the continuation of the

MKULTRA program. Funding commenced in FY 1966, and
ended in FY 1972. Its purpose was to develop, test, and evaluate
capabilities in the covert use of biological, chemical, and
radioactive material systems and techniques for producing
predictable human behavioral and/or physiological changes in
support of highly sensitive operational requirements.
OFTEN/CHICKWIT
In 1967 the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and

the Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories undertook a
program for doing research on the identification and
characterization of drugs that could influence human behavior.
Edgewood had the facilities for the full range of laboratory and
clinical testing. A phased program was envisioned that would
consist of acquisition of drugs and chemical compounds believed
to have effects on the behavior of humans, and testing and
evaluation these materials through laboratory procedures and
toxicological studies. Compounds believed promising as a result
of tests on animals were then to be evaluated clinically with
human subjects at Edgewood. Substances of potential use would
then be analyzed structurally as a basis for identifying and
synthesizing possible new derivatives of greater utility.
The program was divided into two projects. Project OFTEN

was to deal with testing and toxicological, transmissivity and
behavioral effects of drugs in animals and, ultimately, humans.
Project CHICKWIT was concerned with acquiring information
on new drug developments in Europe and the Orient, and with
acquiring samples.
There is a discrepancy between the testimony of DOD and

CIA regarding the testing at Edgewood Arsenal in June 1973.
While there is agreement that human testing occurred at that
place and time, there is disagreement as to who was responsible
for financing and sponsorship. (See hearings before the
Subcommittee, September 21, 1977.)
[document ends]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.431
925ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 151 of 258
[document begins]
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
Office of Legislative
Counsel 23 December 1977
Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman

Dear Mr. Chairman:
During Admiral Turner's 3 August 1977 testimony before

your Committee and the Senate Human Resources Subcommittee
on Health and Scientific Research, you asked whether any
Agency employees had been terminated because of their
participation in MKULTRA Subproject 3. Admiral Turner
indicated he did not believe any employee had been terminated,
but would have Agency records searched on this question. Our
records have been searched and the results confirm the Director's
testimony that no such actions were taken.
Sincerely,
[George L. Cary signature]

George L. Cary
Legislative Counsel
[document ends]
[document begins]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.432
926ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 152 of 258
QKHILLTOP DEFINITION
QKHILLTOP was a cryptonym assigned in 1954 to a project

to study Chines Communist brainwashing techniques and to
develop interrogation techniques. Most of the early studies are
believed to have been conducted by the Cornell University
Medical School Human Ecology Study Programs. The effort was
absorbed into the MKULTRA program and the QKHILLTOP
cryptonym became obsolete. The Society for the investigation of
Human Ecology, later the Human Ecology Fund, was an
outgrowth of the QKHILLTOP.
[document ends]
Appendix A: Testing and Use of Chemical and

Biological Agents by the Intelligence Community
Appendix B: Documents Referring to Discovery of
Additional MKULTRA Material
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.433
927ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 153 of 258
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: Testimony of CIA Director Stansfield Turner Page 1 of 20
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
TESTIMONY OF ADM. STANSFIELD TURNER,

DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
Accompanied by Frank Laubinger, Office of Technical Services; Al Brody, Office of
Inspector General; Ernest Mayerfield, Office of General Counsel; and George L. Cary,
Legislative Counsel
Admiral TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanking you and
Senator Kennedy for having a joint hearing this morning. I hope this will expedite and facilitate
our getting all the information that both of your committees need into the record quickly.
I would like also to thank you both for prefacing the remarks today by reminding us all that the
events about which we are here to talk are 12- to 24-years old. They in no way represent the
current activities or policies of the Central Intelligence Agency.
What we are here to do is to give you all the information that we now have and which we did not
previously have on a subject known s Project MKULTRA, a project which took place from 1953
to 1964. It was an umbrella project under which there were numerous subprojects for research,
among other things, on drugs and behavioral modification. What the new material that we offer
today is a supplement to the considerable material that was made available in 1975, during the
Church committee hearings, and also to the Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific
Research.
At that time, the CIA offered up all of the information and documents it believed it had available.
The principal one available at that time that gave the greatest amount of information on this
subject was a report of the CIA's Inspector General written in 1963, and which led directly to the
termination of this activity in 1964, 13 years ago.
The information available in 1975 to the various investigating groups was indeed sparse, first
because of the destruction of material that took place in 1973, as detailed by Senator Kennedy a
minute ago, with the concurrence of the then Director of Central Intelligence and under the
supervision of the Director of the Office of Technical Services that supervised Project
MKULTRA.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.434
928ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 154 of 258
-9-
The material in 1975 was also sparse because most of the CIA people who had been involved in
1953 to 1964 in this activity had retired from the Agency. I would further add that I think the
material was sparse in part because it was the practice at that time not to keep detailed records in
this category.
For instance, the 1963 report of the Inspector General notes:
Present practice is to maintain no records of the planning and approval of test programs.
In brief, there were few records to begin with and less after the destruction of 1973.
What I would like to do now, though, is to proceed and let you know what the new material adds
to our knowledge of this topic, and I will start by describing how the material was discovered and
why it was not previously discovered. The material in question, some seven boxes, had been sent
to our Retired Records Center outside of the Washington area. It was discovered that as the result
of an extensive search by an employee charged with the responsibility for maintaining our
holdings on behavioral drugs and for responding to Freedom of Information Act requests on this
subject.
During the Church committee investigation of 1975, searches for MKULTRA-related material
were made by examining both the active and the retired records of all of the branches of CIA
considered likely to have had an association with MKULTRA documents. The retired records of
the Budget and Fiscal Section of the branch that was responsible for such work were not
searched, however. This was because the financial paper associated with sensitive projects such
as MKULTRA were normally maintained by the branch itself under the project title, MKULTRA,
not by the Budget and Fiscal Section under the project title, MKULTRA, not by the Budget and
Fiscal Section under a special budget file.
In the case at hand, however, this newly located material had been sent to the Retired Records
Center in 1970 by the Budget and Fiscal Section of this branch as part of its own retired holdings.
In short, what should have been filed by the branch itself was filed by the Budget and Fiscal
Section, and what should have been filed under the project title, MKULTRA, was filed under
budget and fiscal matters. The reason for this departure from the normal procedure of that time is
simply not known, and as a result of it, however, the material escaped retrieval and destruction in
1973, as well as discovery in 1975.
The employee who located this material did so by leaving no stone unturned in his efforts to
respond to a Freedom of Information Act request, or several of them, in fact. He reviewed all of
the listings of material of this branch, stored at the Retired Records Center, including those of the
Budget and Fiscal Section, and thus discovered the MKULTRA-related documents, which had
been missed in the previous searches.
In sum, the agency failed to uncover these particular documents in 1973, in the process of
attempting to destroy them. It similarly failed to locate them in 1975, in response to the Church
committee hearings. I am personally persuaded that there is no evidence of any attempt to conceal
this material during the earlier searches. Moreover, as we will discuss as we proceed, I do not
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.435
929ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 155 of 258
believe the material itself is such that
-10-
there would be a motive on the part of the CIA to withhold this, having disclosed what it did in
1975.
Next, let me move to the nature of this recently located material. It is important to remember what
I have just noted, that these folders that were discovered are finance folders. The bulk of the
material in them consists of approvals for the advance of funds, vouchers, and accountings and
such, most of which are not very informative as to the nature of the activities that they were
supporting. Occasional project proposals or memoranda commenting on some aspect of a
subproject are scattered throughout this material. In general, however, the recovered material does
not include overall status reports or other documents relating to operational considerations, or to
the progress on various subprojects, though some elaboration of the activities contemplated does
appear from time to time.
There are roughly three categories of projects. First, there are 149 MKULTRA subprojects, many
of which appear to have some connection with research into behavioral modification, drug
acquisition and testing, or administering drugs surreptitiously. Second, there are two boxes of
miscellaneous MKULTRA papers, including audit reports and financial statements from
intermediary funding mechanisms used to conceal CIA sponsorship of various research projects.
Finally, there are 33 additional subprojects concerning certain intelligence activities previously
funded under MKULTRA but which have nothing to do either with behavioral modifications,
drugs or toxins, or any closely related matter.
We have attempted to group the activities covered by the 149 subprojects into categories under
descriptive headings. In broad outline, at least, this presents the contents of these files. The
following 15 categories are the ones we have divided these into.
First, research into the effects of behavioral drugs and/or alcohol. Within this, there are 17
projects probably not involving human testing. There are 14 subprojects definitely involving
testing on human volunteers. There are 19 subprojects probably including tests on human
volunteers and 6 subprojects involving tests on unwitting human beings.
Second, there is research on hypnosis, eight subprojects, including two involving hypnosis and
drugs in combination.
Third, there are seven projects on the acquisition of chemicals or drugs.
Fourth, four subprojects on the aspects of the magician's art, useful in covert operations, for
instance, the surreptitious delivery of drug-related materials.
Fifth, there are nine projects on studies of human behavior, sleep research, and behavioral change
during psychotherapy.
Sixth, there are projects on library searches and attendants at seminars and international
conferences on behavioral modifications.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.436
930ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 156 of 258
Seventh, there are 23 projects on motivational studies, studies of defectors, assessments of

behavior and training techniques.
Eighth, there are three subprojects on polygraph research.
Ninth, there are three subprojects on funding mechanisms for MKULTRA's external research
activities.
-11-
Tenth, there are six subprojects on research on drugs, toxins, and biologicals in human tissue,
provision of exotic pathogens, and the capability to incorporate them in effective delivery
systems.
Eleventh, there are three subprojects involving funding support for unspecified activities
conducted with the Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrich, Md. This activity is
outlined in Book I of the Church committee report, pages 388 to 389. (See Appendix A, pp. 68-
69).
Under CIA's Project MKNAOMI, the Army assisted the CIA in developing, testing, and
maintaining biological agents and delivery systems for use against humans as well as against
animals and crops.
Thirteenth, there are single subprojects in such areas as the effects of electroshock, harassment
techniques for offensive use, analysis of extrasensory perception, gas propelled sprays and
aerosols, and four subprojects involving crop and material sabotage.
Fourteenth, one or two subprojects on each of the following: blood grouping research; controlling
the activities of animals; energy storage and transfer in organic systems; and stimulus and
response in biological systems.
Finally, 15th, there are three subprojects canceled before any work was done on them having to
do with laboratory drug screening, research on brain concussion, and research on biologically
active materials.
Now, let me address how much this newly discovered material adds to what has previously been
reported to the Church committee and to Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health. The answer
is basically additional detail. The principal types of activities included in these documents have
for the most part been outlined or to some extent generally described in what was previously
available in the way of documentation and which was supplied by the CIA to the Senate
investigators.
For example, financial disbursement records for the period of 1960 to 1964 for 76 of these 149
subprojects had been recovered by the Office of Finance at CIA and were made available to the
Church committee investigators. For example, the 1963 Inspector General report on MKULTRA
made available to both the Church Committee and the Subcommittee on Health mentions
electroshock and harassment substances, covert testing on unwitting U.S. citizens, the search for
new materials through arrangements with specialists in hospitals and universities, and the fact that
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.437
931ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 157 of 258
the Technical Service Division of CIA had initiated 144 subprojects related to the control of
human behavior.
For instance also, the relevant section of a 1957 Inspector General report was also made available
to the Church committee staff, and that report discusses the techniques for human assessment and
unorthodox methods of communication, discrediting and disabling materials which can be
covertly administered, studies on magicians' arts as applied to covert operations, and other similar
topics.
The most significant new data that has been discovered are, first, the names of researchers and
institutions who participated in
-12-
MKULTRA projects, and second, a possibly improper contribution by the CIA to a private
institution. We are now in the possession of the names of 185 nongovernment researchers and
assistants who are identified in the recovered material dealing with these 149 subprojects.
There are also names of 80 institutions where work was done or with which these people were
affiliated. The institutions include 44 colleges or universities, 15 research foundation or chemical
or pharmaceutical companies or the like, 12 hospitals or clinics, in addition to those associated
with the universities, and 3 penal institutions.
While the identities of some of these people and institutions were known previously, the
discovery of the new identities adds to our knowledge of MKULTRA.
The facts as they pertain to the possibly improper contribution are as follows. One project
involves a contribution of $375,000 to a building fund of a private medical institution. The fact
that that contribution was made was previously known. Indeed, it was mentioned in the 1957
report of the Inspector General on the Technical Service Division of CIA that supervised
MKULTRA, and pertinent portions of this had been reviewed by the Church committee staff.
The newly discovered material, however, makes it clear that this contribution was made through
an intermediary, which made it appear to be a private donation. As a private donation, the
contribution was then matched by Federal funds. The institution was not made aware of the true
source of the gift. This project was approved by the then Director of Central Intelligence and
concurred in by CIA's top management including the then General Counsel, who wrote an
opinion supporting the legality of the contribution.
The recently discovered documents also give greater insight into the scope of an unwitting nature
of the drug testing, but contribute little more than that. We now do have corroborating
information that some of the unwitting drug testing was carried out in what is known in the
intelligence trade as safe houses in San Francisco and in New York City, and we have identified
that three individuals were involved in this undertaking, whereas we previously reported there
was only one person.
We also know that some unwitting testing took place on criminal sexual psychopaths confined at
a State hospital, and that additionally research was done on a knockout or K drug in parallel with
research to develop painkillers for cancer patients.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.438
932ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 158 of 258
These, then, are the principal findings identified to date in our review of this recovered material.
As noted earlier, we believe the detail on the identities of researchers and institutions involved in
CIA sponsorship of drug and behavioral modification research is a new element and one which
poses a considerable problem. Most of the people and institutions involved were not aware of
CIA sponsorship. We should certainly assume that the researchers and institutions which
cooperated with CIA on a witting basis acted in good faith and in the belief that they were aiding
their Government in a legitimate and proper purpose.
I believe that we all have a moral obligation to these researchers and institutions to protect them
from any unjustified embarrassment
-13-
or damage to their reputations which revelation of their identities might bring. In addition, I have
a legal obligation under the Privacy Act not to publicly disclose the names of the individual
researchers without their consent.
This is especially true, of course, for those researchers and institutions which were unwitting
participants in CIA sponsored activities.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I certainly recognize the right and the need of both the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research to
investigate the circumstances of these activities in whatever detail you consider necessary. I am
providing your committee with all of the documentation, including all of the names, on a
classified basis. I hope that this will facilitate your investigation while still protecting the
individuals and the institutions involved.
Let me emphasize again that the MKULTRA events are 12 to 24 years in the past, and I assure
you that CIA is in no way engaged in either witting or unwitting testing of drugs today.
Finally, I am working closely with the Attorney General on this matter. We are making available
to the Attorney General whatever materials he may deem necessary to any investigations that he
may elect to undertake. Beyond that, we are also working with the Attorney General to determine
whether it is practicable from this new evidence to identify any of the persons to whom drugs
were administered, but we are now trying to determine if there are adequate clues to lead to their
identification, and if so how best to go about fulfilling the Government's responsibilities in this
matter.
Mr. Chairman, as we proceed with that process of attempting to identify the individuals and then
determining what is our proper responsibility to them, I will keep both of these committees fully
advised. I thank you, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Admiral Turner. Your spirit of cooperation is much
appreciated. I would like to announce to the committee that in order to give every member an
opportunity to participate in this hearing, that we would set a time limit of 10 minutes per
Senator.
Admiral Turner, please give this committee the genesis of MKULTRA. Who or what committee
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.439
933ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 159 of 258
or commission or agency was responsible for dreaming up this grandiose and sinister project, and
why was it necessary? What is the rationale or justification for such a project and was the
President of the United States aware of this?
Admiral TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Mr. Brody on my right, who is a long-time
member of the CIA to address that in more detail. I believe everything that we know about the
genesis was turned over to the Church committee and is contained in that material. Basically, it
was a CIA-initiated project. It started out of a concern of our being taken advantage of by other
powers who would use drugs against our personnel, and it was approved in the Agency. I have
asked the question you just asked me, and have been assured that there is no evidence within the
Agency of any involvement at higher echelons, the White House, for instance, or specific
approval. That does not say there was not, but we have no such evidence.
-14-
Mr. Brody, would you amplify on my comments there, please?
Mr. BRODY. Mr. Chairman, I really have very little to add to that. To my knowledge, there was
no Presidential knowledge of this project at the time. It was a CIA project, and as the admiral
said, it was a project designed to attempt to counteract what was then thought to be a serious
threat by our enemies of using drugs against us. Most of what else we know about is in the Senate
Church committee report.
Senator INOUYE. Are you suggesting that it was intentionally kept away from the Congress and
the President of the United States?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir. We are only saying that we have no evidence one way or the other
as to whether the Congress was informed of this particular project. There are no records to
indicate.
Senator INOUYE. Admiral Turner, are you personally satisfied by actual investigation that this
newly discovered information was not intentionally kept away from the Senate of the United
States?
Admiral TURNER. I have no way to prove that, sir. That is my conviction from everything I
have seen of it.
Senator INOUYE. Now, we have been advised that these documents were initially discovered in
March of this year, and you were notified in July of this year, or June of this year, and the
committee was notified in July. Can you tell us why the Director of Central Intelligence was
notified 3 months after its initial discovery, why the delay?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. All this started with several Freedom of Information Act requests,
and Mr. Laubinger on my left was the individual who took it upon himself to pursue these
requests with great diligence, and got permission to go to the Retired Records Center, and then
made the decision to look not only under what would be the expected subject files, but through
every file with which the branch that conducted this type of activity had any conceivable
connection.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.440
934ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 160 of 258
Very late in March, he discovered these seven boxes. He arranged to have them shipped from the
Retired Records Center to Washington, to our headquarters. They arrived in early April. He
advised his appropriate superiors, who asked him how long he thought it would take him to go
through these and screen them appropriately, clear them for Freedom of Information Act release.
There are, we originally estimated, 5,000 pages here. We now think that was an underestimation,
and it may be closer to 8,000 pages. He estimated it would take about 45 days or into the middle
of May to do that. He was told to proceed, and as he did so there was nothing uncovered in the
beginning of these 149 cases that appeared particularly startling or particularly additive to the
knowledge that had already been given to the Church committee, some details, but no major
revelations.
He and his associates proceeded with deliberateness, but not a great sense of urgency. There were
other interfering activities that came and demanded his time also. He was not able to put 100
percent of his time on it, and there did not appear to be cause for a great rush here. We were
trying to be responsive to the Freedom of Information Act request within the limits of our
manpower and our priorities.
-15-
In early June, however, he discovered two projects, the one related to K drugs and the one related
to the funding at the institution, and realized immediately that he had substantial new information,
and he immediately reported this to his superiors.
Two actions were taken. One was to notify the lawyers of the principal Freedom of Information
Act requestor that we would have substantial new material and that it would be forthcoming as
rapidly as possible, and the second was to start a memorandum up the chain that indicated his
belief that we should notify the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of this discovery
because of the character at least of these two documents.
As that proceeded up from the 13th of June, at each echelon we had to go through the legal office,
the legislative liaison office and at each echelon about the same question was asked of him: Have
you gone through all of this, so that when we notify the Senate Select Committee we do not notify
half of the important revelations and not the other half? The last thing I want, Mr. Chairman, is in
any way to be on any topic, give the appearance on any topic of being recalcitrant, reluctant, or
having to have you drag things out of me, and my subordinates, much to my pleasure, had each
asked, have you really gone through these 8,000 pages enough to know that we are not going to
uncover a bombshell down at the bottom?
By late June, about the 28th, this process reached my deputy. He notified me after his review of it
on the 7th of July, which is the first I knew of it. I began reading into it. I asked the same probing
question directly. I then notified my superiors, and on the 15th delivered to you my letter letting
you know that we had this, and we have been working, many people, many hours since then, to
be sure that what we are telling you today does include all the relevant material.
Senator INOUYE. I would like to commend Mr. Laubinger for his diligence and expertise, but
was this diligence the result of the Freedom of Information Act or could this diligence have been
exercised during the Church hearings? Why was it not exercised? Admiral TURNER. There is
no question that theoretically this diligence could have been exercised at any time, and it may
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.441
935ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 161 of 258
well be that the Freedom of Information Act has made us more aware of this. Would you speak
for yourself, please.
Mr. LAUBINGER. I really don't attribute it, Senator, to diligence so much as thoroughness. If
you can imagine the pressures under an organization trying to respond, which I think the CIA did
at the time of the Church committee hearings, the hallways of the floor I am on were full of boxes
from our records center. Every box that anyone thought could possibly contain anything was
called up for search. It was one of a frantic effort to comply.
When the pressure of that situation cools down, and you can start looking at things systematically,
you are apt to find things that you wouldn't under the heat of a crash program, and that is what
happened here.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Senator Kennedy?
Senator KENNEDY. Admiral Turner, this is an enormously distressing report that you give to
the American Congress and to the American people today. Granted, it happened many years ago,
but what we are
-16-
basically talking about is an activity which took place in the country that involved the perversion
and the corruption of many of our outstanding research centers in this country, with CIA funds,
where some of our top researchers were unwittingly involved in research sponsored by the
Agency in which they had no knowledge of the background or the support for.
Much of it was done with American citizens who were completely unknowing in terms of taking
various drugs, and there are perhaps any number of Americans who are walking around today on
the east coast or west coast who were given drugs, with all the kinds of physical and
psychological damage that can be caused. We have gone over that in very careful detail, and it is
significant and severe indeed.
I do not know what could be done in a less democratic country that would be more alien to our
own traditions than was really done in this narrow area, and as you give this report to the
committee, I would like to get some sense of your own concern about this type of activity, and
how you react, having assumed this important responsibility with the confidence of President
Crater and the overwhelming support, obviously, of the Congress, under this set of circumstances.
I did not get much of a feeling in reviewing your statement here this morning of the kind of
abhorrence to this type of past activity which I think the American people would certainly deplore
and which I believe that you do, but could you comment upon that question, and also perhaps
give us what ideas you have to insure that it cannot happen again?
Admiral TURNER. Senator Kennedy, it is totally abhorrent to me to think of using a human

being as a guinea pig and in any way jeopardizing his life and his health, no matter how great the
cause. I am not here to pass judgment on my predecessors, but I can assure you that this is totally
beyond the pale of my contemplation of activities that the CIA or any other of our intelligence
agencies should undertake.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.442
936ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 162 of 258
I am taking and have taken what I believe are adequate steps to insure that such things are not
continuing today.
Senator KENNEDY. Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Admiral TURNER. I have asked for a special report assuring me that there are no drug activities
extant, that is, drug activities that involve experimentation. Obviously, we collect intelligence
about drugs and drug use in other countries, but there are no experimentations being conducted by
the Central Intelligence Agency, and I have had a special check made because of another incident
that was uncovered some years ago about the unauthorized retention of some toxic materials at
the CIA. I have had an actual inspection made of the storage places and the certification from the
people in charge of those that there are no such chemical biological materials present in our
keeping, and I have issued express orders that that shall not be the case.
Beyond that, I have to rely in large measure on my sense of command and direction of the people
and their knowledge of the attitude I have just expressed to you in this regard.
Senator KENNEDY. I think that is very commendable.
Admiral TURNER. Thank you, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. I think it is important that the American people understand that.
-17-
You know, much of the research which is our area of interest that was being done by the Agency
and the whole involved sequence of activities done by the Agency, I am convinced could have
been done in a legitimate way through the research programs of the National Institutes of Mental
Health, other sponsored activities, I mean, that is some other question, but I think you went to an
awful lot of trouble, where these things could have been.
Let me ask you specifically, on the followup of MKULTRA, are there now -- I think you have
answered, but I want to get a complete answer about any experimentations that are being done on
human beings, whether it is drugs or behavioral alterations or patterns or any support, either
directly or indirectly, being provided by the Agency in terms of any experimentation on human
beings.
Admiral TURNER. There is no experimentation with drugs on human beings, witting or

unwitting, being conducted in any way.
Senator KENNEDY. All right. How bout the nondrug experimentation our Committee has seen -
- psychosurgery, for example, or psychological research?
Admiral TURNER. We are continually involved in what we call assessment of behavior. For
instance, we are trying to continually improve our polygraph procedures to, you know, assess
whether a person is lying or not. This does not involve any tampering with the individual body.
This involves studying records of people's behavior under different circumstances, and so n, but it
is not an experimental thing. Have I described that accurately, Al?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.443
937ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 163 of 258
Mr. BRODY. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, it is limited to those areas?
Admiral TURNER. Yes; it does not involve attempting to modify behavior. It only involves
studying behavior conditions, but not trying to actively modify it, as was one of the objectives of
MKULTRA.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we are scarce on time, but I am interested in the other areas besides
polygraph where you are doing it. Maybe you can either respond now or submit it for the record,
if you would do that. Would you provide that for the record?
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
[The material on psychological assessments follows:]
Psychological assessments are performed as a service to officers in the operations directorate who recruit and/or
handle agents. Except for people involved in training courses, the subjects of the assessments are foreign nationals.
The assessments are generally done to determine the most successful tactic to persuade the subject to accept convert
employment by the CIA, and to make an appraisal of his reliability and truthfulness.
A majority of the work is done by a staff of trained psychologists, some of whom are stationed overseas. The
assessments they do may be either direct or indirect. Direct assessments involve a personal interview of the subject
by the psychologist. When possible the subject is asked to complete a formal "intelligence test" which is actually a
disguised psychological test. Individuals being assessed are not given drugs, nor are they subjected to physical
harassment or torture. When operating conditions are such that a face-to-face interview is not possible, the
psychologist may do an indirect assessment, using as source materials descriptions of the subject by others,
interviews with people who know him, specimens of his writings, etc.
-18-
The other psychological assessments involve handwriting analysis or graphological assessment. The work is done by
a pair of trained graphologists, assisted by a small number of measurement technicians. They generally require at
least a page of handwritten script by the subject. Measurements are made of about 30 different writing characteristics,
and these are charted and furnished to the graphologist for assessments.
The psychologists also give courses in psychological assessment to group of operations officers, to sharpen their own
capabilities to size up people. As part of the training course, the instructor does a psychological assessment of each
student. The students are writing participants, and results are discussed with them.
It is important to reiterate that psychological assessments are only a service to the operations officers. In the final
analysis, it is the responsibility of the operations officer to decide how a potential agent should be approached, or to
make a judgment as to whether any agent is telling the truth.
Admiral TURNER. The kind of thing we are interested in is, what will motivate a man to
become an agent of the United States in a difficult situation. We have to be familiar with that kind
of attitudinal response that we can expect from people we approach to for one reason or another
become our spies, but I will be happy to submit a very specific listing of these.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you do that for the committee?
In the followups, in the MKSEARCH, in the OFTEN, and the CHICKWIT, could you give us
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.444
938ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 164 of 258
also a report on those particular programs?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Did they involve experimentation, human experimentation?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. None of them?
Admiral TURNER. Let me say this, that the CHICKWIT program is the code name for the CIA
participation in what was basically a Department of Defense program. This program was
summarized and reported to the Church committee, to the Congress, and I have since they have
been rementioned in the press in the last 2 days here, I have not had time to go through and
personally review them. I have ascertained that all of the files that we had and made available
before are intact, and I have put a special order out that nobody will enter those files or in any
way touch them without my permission at this point, but they are in the Retired Records Center
outside of Washington, and they are available.
I am not prepared to give you full details on it, because I simply haven't read into that part of our
history, but in addition I would suggest when we want to get into that we should get the
Department of Defense in with us.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you will supply that information to the Intelligence Committee, the
relevant, I mean, the health aspects, obviously, and the research we are interested in?
Senator KENNEDY. Will you let us know, Admiral Turner?
Admiral TURNER. I will be happy to.
[See p. 169 for the material referred to.]
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. I am running out of time. Do you support the extension of the
protection of human subjects legislation to include the CIA and the DOD? You commented
favorably on that
-19-
before, and I am hopeful we can get that on the calendar early in September, and that is our strong
interest.
Admiral TURNER. The CIA certainly has no objection to that proposed legislation, sir. It is not
my role in the administration to be the supporter of it or the endorser of it.
Senator KENNEDY. As a personal matter, since you have reviewed these subjects, would you
comment? I know it is maybe unusual, but you can understand what we are attempting to do.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.445
939ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 165 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. From your own experience in the agency, you can understand the value of
it.
Just finally, in your own testimony now with this additional information, it seems quite apparent
to me that you can reconstruct in very careful detail this whole project in terms of the responsible
CIA officials for the program. You have so indicated in your testimony. Now with the additional
information, and the people, that have been revealed in the examination of the documents, it
seems to be pretty clear that you can track that whole program in very careful detail, and I would
hope, you know, that you would want to get to the bottom of it, as the Congress does as well. I
will come back to that in my next round. Thank you very much.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Goldwater?
Senator GOLDWATER. I have no questions.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Schweiker?
Admiral Turner, I would like to go back to your testimony on page 12, where you discuss the
contribution to the building fund of a private medical institution. You state, "Indeed, it was
mentioned in a 1957 Inspector General report on the Technical Services Division of CIA,
pertinent portions of which had been reviewed by the Church committee staff." I would like to
have you consider this question very carefully. I served as a member o the original Church
committee. My staffer did a lot of the work that you are referring to here. He made notes on the
IG's report. My question to you is, are you saying that the section that specifically delineates an
improper contribution was in fact given to the Church committee staff to see?
Admiral TURNER. The answer to your question is "Yes." The information that a contribution
had been made was made available, to the best of my knowledge.
Senator SCHWEIKER. To follow this up further, I'd like to say that I think there was a serious
flaw in the way that the IG report was handled and the Church committee was limited. I am not
making any accusations, but because of limited access to the report, we have a situ-
-20-
ation where it is not even clear whether we actually saw that material or not, simply because we
could not keep a copy of the report under the procedures we had to follow. We were limited by
notetaking, and so it is rather ambiguous as to just what was seen and what was not seen. I
certainly hope that the new Intelligence Committee will not be bound by procedures that restrict
its ability to exercise effective oversight.
I have a second question. Does it concern you, Admiral, that we used a subterfuge which resulted
in the use of Federal construction grant funds to finance facilities for these sorts of experiments
on our own people? Because as I understand what you are saying, while the CIA maybe only put
up $375,000, this triggered a response on the part of the Federal Government to provide on a
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.446
940ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 166 of 258
good faith basis matching hospital funds at the same level. We put up more than $1 million of
matching funds, some based on an allegedly private donation which was really CIA money.
Isn't there something basically wrong with that?
Admiral TURNER. I certainly believe there is. As I stated, the General Counsel of the CIA at
that time rendered a legal opinion that this was a legal undertaking, and again I am hesitant to go
back and revisit the atmosphere, the laws, the attitudes at that time, so whether the counsel was on
good legal ground or not, I am not enough of a lawyer to be sure, but it certainly would occur to
me if it happened today as a very questionable activity.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I think those of us who have worked on and amended the Hill-
Burton Act and other hospital construction assistance laws over the years, would have a rather
different opinion on the legal intent or object of Congress in passing laws to provide hospital
construction project money. These funds weren't intended for this.
It reminds me a little bit of the shellfish toxin situation which turned up when I was on the Church
committee. The Public Health Service was used to produce a deadly poison with Public Health
money. Here we are using general hospital construction money to carry on a series of drug
experimentation.
Admiral TURNER. Excuse me, sir. If I could just be, I think, accurate, I don't think any of this
$375,000 or the matching funds were used to conduct drug experiments. They were used to build
the hospital. Now, the CIA the put more money into a foundation that was conducting research on
the CIA's behalf supposedly in that hospital, so the intent was certainly there, but the money was
not used for experimentation.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I understand it was used for bricks and mortar, but the bricks
were used to build the facility where the experiments were carried on; were they not?
Admiral TURNER. We do not have positive evidence that they were. It certainly would seem
that that was the intent, but I do not want to draw inferences here --
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, why else would they give this money for the building fund if the
building was not used for a purpose that benefited the CIA program?
Admiral TURNER. I certainly draw the inference that the CIA expected to benefit from it, and
some of the wording says the General
-21-
Counsel's opinion was that this was legal only if the CIA was going to derive adequate benefit
from it, but, sir, there is no evidence of what benefit was derived.
Senator SCHWEIKER. There must have been some pretty good benefits at stake. The Atomic
Energy Commission was to bear a share of the cost, and when they backed out for some reason or
another, the CIA picked up part of their tab. So, at two different points there were indications that
CIA decisionmakers thought there was great benefit to be derived from whatever happened within
the brick and mortar walls of that facility.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.447
941ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 167 of 258
Admiral TURNER. You are absolutely right. I am only taking the position that I cannot
substantiate that there was benefit derived.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The agreement documents say that the CIA would have access to one-
sixth of the space involved in the construction of the wing, so how would you enter into an
agreement that specifically says that you will have access to and use of one-sixth of the space and
not perform something in that space? I cannot believe it was empty.
Admiral TURNER. Sir, I am not disputing you at all, but both of us are saying that the inference
is that one-sixth of the space was used, that experimentation was done, and so on, but there is no
factual evidence of what went on as a result of that payment or what went on in that hospital. It is
just missing. It is not that it didn't happen.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Admiral Turner, one other--
Senator KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield on that point?
Senator SCHWEIKER. I understand that in the agency's documents on the agreement it was
explicitly stated that one-sixth of the facility would be designated for CIA use and made available
for CIA research are you familiar--
Mr. BRODY. Senator, as I recall, you are right in that there is a mention of one-sixth, but any
mention at all has to do with planning. There are no subsequent reports as to what happened after
the construction took place.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Admiral Turner, I read in the New York Times that part of this series of
MKULTRA experiments involved an arrangement with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to test
LSD surreptitiously on unwitting patrons in bars in New York and San Francisco. Some of the
subjects became violently ill and were hospitalized. I wonder if you would just briefly describe
what we were doing there and how it was carried out? I assume it was through a safe house
operation. I don't believe your statement went into much detail.
Admiral TURNER. I did mention the safe house operation in my statement, sir, and that is how
these were carried out. What we have learned from the new documentation is the location and the
dates at which the safe houses were run by the CIA and the identification of three individuals who
were associated with running those safe houses. We know something about the construction work
that was done in them because there were contracts for this. Beyond that, we are pretty much
drawing inferences as to the things that went on as to what you are saying here.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, the subjects were unwitting. You can infer that much, right?
Admiral TURNER. Right.
-22-
Senator SCHWEIKER. If you happened to be at the wrong bar at the wrong place and time, you
got it.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.448
942ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 168 of 258
Mr. BRODY. Senator, that would be -- contacts were made, as we understand it, in bars, et
cetera, and then the people may have been invited to these safe houses. There really isn't any
indication as to the fact that this took place in bars.
Admiral TURNER. We are trying to be very precise with you, sir, and not draw an inference
here. There are 6 cases of these 149 where we have enough evidence in this new documentation
to substantiate that there was unwitting testing and some of that involves these safe houses. There
are other cases where it is ambiguous as to whether the testing was witting or voluntary. There are
others where it was clearly voluntary.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Of course, after a few drinks, it is questionable whether informed

consent means anything to a person in a bar anyway.
Admiral TURNER. Well, we don't have any indication that all these cases where it is ambiguous
involved drinking of any kind. There are cases in penal institutions where it is not clear whether
the prisoner was given a choice or not. I don't know that he wasn't given a choice, but I don't
positively know that he was, and I classify that as an ambiguous incident.
Senator INOUYE. Your time is up, Senator.
Senator Huddleston?
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, you stated in your testimony that you are convinced there was no attempt to
conceal this recently discovered documentation during the earlier searches. Did you question the
individuals connected with the earlier search before you made that judgment?
Admiral TURNER. Yes; I haven't, I don't think, questioned everybody who looked in the files or
is still on our payroll who looked in the files back in 1975, but Mr. Laubinger on my left is the
best authority on this, and I have gone over it with him in some detail.
Senator HUDDLESTON. But you have inquired, you think, sufficiently to assure yourself that
there was no intent on the part of any person to conceal these records from the previous
committee?
Admiral TURNER. I am persuaded of that both by my questioning of people and by the

circumstances and the way in which these documents were filed, by the fact which I did not and
should have mentioned in my testimony, that these were not the official files. The ones that we
have received or retrieved were copies of files that were working files that somebody had used,
and therefore were slipped into a different location, and again I say to you , sir, I can't imagine
their deliberately concealing these particular files and revealing the other things that they did
reveal in 1975. I don't see the motive for that, because these are not that damning compared with
the overall material that was provided.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Is this the kind of operation that if it were continuing now or if there
were anything similar to it, that you would feel compelled to report to the Select Committee on
Intelligence?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. You mean, if I discovered that something like this were going on
without my knowledge? Yes, I would feel absolutely the requirement to --
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.449
943ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 169 of 258
-23-
Senator HUDDLESTON. But if it were going on with your knowledge, would you report it to
the committee? I assume you would.
Admiral TURNER. Yes. Well, it would not be going on with my knowledge, but theoretically
the answer is yes, sir.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Well, then, what suggestions would you have as we devise charters
for the various intelligence agencies? What provision would you suggest to prohibit this kind of
activity from taking place? Would you suggest that it ought to be specifically outlined in a
statutory charter setting out the parameters of the permissible operation of the various agencies?
Admiral TURNER. I think that certainly is something we must consider as we look at the
legislation for charters. I am not on the face of it opposed to it. I think we would have to look at
the particular wording as we are going to have to deal with the whole charter issue as to exactly
how precise you want to be in delineating restraints and curbs on the intelligence activities.
Senator HUDDLESTON. In the case of sensitive type operations, which this certainly was,
which might be going on today, is the oversight activity of the agency more intensive now than it
was at that time?
Admiral TURNER. Much more so. I mean, I have briefed you, sir, and the committee on our
sensitive operations. We have the Intelligence Oversight Board. We have a procedure in the
National Security Council for approval of very sensitive operations. I think the amount of
spotlight focused on these activities is many, manyfold what it was in these 12 to 24 years ago.
Senator HUDDLESTON. How about the record keeping?
Admiral TURNER. Yes; I can't imagine anyone having the gall to think that he can just blithely
destroy records today with all of the attention that has come to this, and certainly we are
emphasizing that that is not the case.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Admiral, I was particularly interested in the activity that took place at
the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at Lexington, Ky., in which a Dr. Harris Isbell conducted
experiments on people who were presumably patients there. There was a narcotics institution, I
take it, and Dr. Isbell was, according to the New York Times story, carrying on a secret series of
correspondence with an individual at the agency by the name of Ray. Have you identified who
that person is?
Admiral TURNER. Sir, I find myself in a difficult position here at a public hearing to confirm or
deny these names in view of my legal responsibilities under the Privacy Act not to disclose the
names of individuals here.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I am just asking you if you have identified the person referred to in
that article as Ray. I am not asking you who he was. I just want to know if you know who he is.
Admiral TURNER. No. I am sorry, was this W-r-a-y or R-a-y?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.450
944ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 170 of 258
Senator HUDDLESTON. It is listed in the news article as R-a-y, in quotations.
Admiral TURNER. No, sir, we have not identified him.
Senator HUDDLESTON. So you have no knowledge of whether or note is still a member of

your staff or connected with the Agency in any way. Have you attempted to identify him?
-24-
[Pause.]
Admiral TURNER. Senator, we have a former employee whose first name is Ray who may have
had some connection with these activities.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You suspect that but you have not verified that at this time, or at least
you are not in a position to indicate that you have verified it?
Admiral TURNER. That is correct.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Wallop?
Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, not all of the -- and in no way trying to excuse you of the hideous nature of some
of these projects, but not all of the projects under MKULTRA are of a sinister or even a moral
nature. Is that a fair statement?
Admiral TURNER. That is correct.
Senator WALLOP. Looking down through some of these 17 projects not involving human
testing, aspects of the magician's art, it doesn't seem as though there is anything very sinister
about that. Studies of human behavior and sleep research, library searches. Now, those things in
their way are still of interest, are they not, to the process of intelligence gathering?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. I have not tried to indicate that we either are not doing or would not
do any of the things that were involved in MKULTRA, but when it comes to the witting or
unwitting testing of people with drugs, that is certainly verboten, but there are other things.
Senator WALLOP. Even with volunteer patients? I mean, I am not trying to put you on the spot
to say whether it is going on, but I mean, it is not an uncommon thing, is it, in the prisons of the
United States for the Public Health Service to conduct various kinds of experiments with vaccines
and, say, sunburn creams? I know in Arizona they have done so.
Admiral TURNER. My understanding is, lots of that is authorized, but I am not of the opinion
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.451
945ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 171 of 258
that this is not the CIA's business, and that if we need some information in that category, I would
prefer to go to the other appropriate authorities of the Government and ask them to get it for us
rather than to in any way--
Senator WALLOP. Well, you know, you have library searches and attendants at the national
seminars. This is why I wanted to ask you if the bulk of these projects were in any way the kinds
of things that the Agency might not do now. A President would not have been horrified by the list
of the legitimate types of things. Isn't that probably the case?
Senator WALLOP. And if it did in fact appear in the IG report, is there any reason to suppose
that the President did not know of this project? You said there was no reason to suppose that he
did, but let me reverse that. Is there any reason to suppose that they did not?
Admiral TURNER. No.
Senator WALLOP. Well, you know, I just cannot imagine you or literally anybody undertaking
projects of the magnitude of dollars here and just not knowing about it, not informing your
superior that
-25-
these were going on, especially when certain items of it appear in the Inspector General's report
on budget matters.
Admiral TURNER. Well, I find it difficult when it is that far back to hypothesize what the
procedures that the Director was using in terms of informing his superiors were. It is quite a
different climate from today, and I think we do a lot more informing to day than they did back
then, but I find it very difficult to guess what the level of knowledge was.
Senator WALLOP. I am really not asking you to second-guess it, but it just seems to me that,
while the past is past, and thank goodness we are operating under different sets of circumstances,
I think it is naive for us to suppose that these things were conducted entirely without the
knowledge of the Presidents of the United States during those times. It is just the kinds of
research information that was being sought was vital to the United States, not the means, but the
information that they were trying to find.
Admiral TURNER. I am sorry. Your question is, was this vital? Did we view it as vital?
Senator WALLOP. Well, your implication at the beginning was that it was a response to the
kinds of behavior that were seen in Cardinal Mindszenty's trial and other things. I mean,
somebody must have thought that this was an important defensive reaction, if nothing else, on the
part of the United States.
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir, I am sure they did, but again I just don't know how high that
permeated the executive branch.
Senator WALLOP. But the kinds of information are still important to you. I mean, I am not
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.452
946ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 172 of 258
suggesting that anyone go back and do that kind of thing again, but I'm certain it would be of use
to you to know what was going to happen to one of your agents assuming someone had put one of
these things into his bloodstream, or tried to modify his behavior.
Admiral TURNER. Absolutely, and you know, we would be very concerned if we thought there
were things like truth serums or other things that our agents or others could be subjected to by use
or improper use of drugs by other powers against our people or agents.
Senator WALLOP. Are there? I don't ask you to name them, but are there such serums?
Admiral TURNER. I don't know of them if there are. I would have to answer that for the record,
sir.
Senator WALLOP. I would appreciate that.
[The material referred to follows.]
Next: "Truth" Drugs in Interrogation

Continue Reading CIA Director Stansfield Turner's Testimony
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.453
947ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 173 of 258
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: "Truth" Drugs in Interrogation Page 1 of 11
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
"TRUTH" DRUGS IN INTERROGATION

The search for effective aids to interrogation is probably as old as man's need to obtain information from
an uncooperative source and as persistent as his impatience to shortcut any tortuous path. In the annals of
police investigation, physical coercion has at times been substituted for painstaking and time-consuming
inquiry in the belief that direct methods produce quick results. Sir James Stephens, writing in 1883,
rationalizes a grisly example of "third degree" practices by the police of India: "It is far pleasanter to sit
comfortably in the shade rubbing red pepper in a poor devil's eyes than to go about in the sun hunting up
evidence."
More recently, police officials in some countries have turned to drugs for assistance in extracting
confessions from accused persons, drugs which are presumed
-26-
to relax the individual's defenses to the point that he unknowingly reveals truths he has been trying to
conceal. This investigative technique, however humanitarian as an alternative to physical torture, still
raises serious questions of individual rights and liberties. In this country, where drugs have gained only
marginal acceptance in police work, their use has provoked cries of "psychological third degree" and has
precipitated medico-legal controversies that after a quarter of a century still occasionally flare into the
open.
The use of so-called "truth" drugs in police work is similar to the accepted psychiatric practice of narco-
analysis; the difference in the two procedures lies in their different objectives. The police investigator is
concerned with empirical truth that may be used against the suspect, and therefore almost solely with
probative truth: the usefulness of the suspect's revelations depends ultimately on their acceptance in
evidence by a court of law. The psychiatrist, on the other hand, using the same "truth" drugs in diagnosis
and treatment of the mentally ill, is primarily concerned with psychological truth or psychological reality
rather than empirical fact. A patient's aberrations are reality for him at the time they occur, and an accurate
account of these fantasies and delusions, rather than reliable recollection of past events, can be the key to
recovery.
The notion of drugs capable of illuminating hidden recesses of the mind, helping to heal the mentally ill
and preventing or reversing the miscarriage of justice, has provided an exceedingly durable theme for the
press and popular literature. While acknowledging that "truth serum" is a misnomer twice over -- the
drugs are not sera and they do not necessarily bring forth probative truth -- journalistic accounts continue
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.454
948ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 174 of 258
to exploit the appeal of the term. The formula is to play up a few spectacular "truth" drug successes and to
imply that the drugs are more maligned than need be and more widely employed in criminal investigation
than can officially be admitted.
Any technique that promises an increment of success in extracting information from an uncompliant
source is ipso facto of interest in intelligence operations. If the ethical considerations which in Western
countries inhibit the use of narco-interrogation in police work are felt also in intelligence, the Western
services must at least be prepared against its possible employment by the adversary. An understanding of
"truth" drugs, their characteristic actions, and their potentialities, positive and negative, for eliciting useful
information is fundamental to an adequate defense against them.
This discussion, meant to help toward such an understanding, draws primarily upon openly published
materials. It has the limitations of projecting from criminal investigative practices and from the permissive
atmosphere of drug psychotherapy.
SCOPOLAMINE AS "TRUTH SERUM"
Early in this century physicians began to employ scopolamine, along with morphine and chloroform, to
induce a state of "twilight sleep" during childbirth. A constituent of henbane, scopolamine was known to
produce sedation and drowsiness, confusion and disorientation, incoordination, and amnesia for events
experienced during intoxication. Yet physicians noted that women in twilight sleep answered questions
accurately and often volunteered exceedingly candid remarks.
In 1922 it occurred to Robert House, a Dallas, Texas obstetrician, that a similar technique might be
employed in the interrogation of suspected criminals, and he arranged to interview under scopolamine two
prisoners in the Dallas county jail whose guilt seemed clearly confirmed. Under the drug, both men denied
the charges on which they were held; and both, upon trial, were found not guilty. Enthusiastic at this
success, House concluded that a patient under the influence of scopolamine "cannot create a lie... and
there is no power to think or reason." [14] His experiment and this conclusion attracted wide attention,
and the idea of a "truth" drug was thus launched upon the public consciousness.
The phrase "truth serum" is believed to have appeared first in a news report of House's experiment in the
Los Angeles Record, sometime in 1922. House resisted the term for a while but eventually came to
employ it regularly himself. He published some eleven articles on scopolamine in the years 1921-1929,
with a noticeable increase in polemical zeal as time when on. What had begun as something of a scientific
statement turned finally into a dedicated crusade by the "father of truth serum" on behalf of his offspring,
wherein he was "grossly indulgent of its wayward behavior and stubbornly proud of its minor
achievements." [11]
-27-
Only a handful of cases in which scopolamine was used for police interrogation came to public notice,
though there is evidence suggesting that some police forces may have used it extensively. [2,16] One
police writer claims that the threat of scopolamine interrogation has been effective in extracting
confessions from criminal suspects, who are told they will first be rendered unconscious by chloral
hydrate placed covertly in their coffee or drinking water. [16]
Because of a number of undesirable side effects, scopolamine was shortly disqualified as a "truth" drug.
Among the most disabling of the side effects are hallucinations, disturbed perception, somnolence, and
physiological phenomena such as headache, rapid heart, and blurred vision, which distract the subject
from the central purpose of the interview. Furthermore, the physical action is long, far outlasting the
psychological effects. Scopolamine continues, in some cases, to make anesthesia and surgery safer by
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.455
949ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 175 of 258
drying the mouth and throat and reducing secretions that might obstruct the air passages. But the
fantastically, almost painfully, dry "desert" mouth brought on by the drug is hardly conducive to free
talking, even in a tractable subject.
THE BARBITURATES
The first suggestion that drugs might facilitate communication with emotionally disturbed patients came
quite by accident in 1916. Arthur S. Lovenhart and his associates at the University of Wisconsin,
experimenting with respiratory stimulants, were surprised when, after an injection of sodium cyanide, a
catatonic patient who had long been mute and rigid suddenly relaxed, opened his eyes, and even answered
a few questions. By the early 1930's a number of psychiatrists were experimenting with drugs as an
adjunct to established methods of therapy.
At about this time police officials, still attracted by the possibility that drugs might help in the
interrogation of suspects and witnesses, turned to a class of depressant drugs known as the barbiturates.
By 1935 Clarence W. Muehlberger, head of the Michigan Crime Detection Laboratory at East Lansing,
was using barbiturates on reluctant suspects, though police work continued to be hampered by the courts'
rejection of drug-induced confessions except in a few carefully circumscribed instances.
The barbiturates, first synthesized in 1903, are among the oldest of modern drugs and the most versatile of
all depressants. In this half-century some 2,500 have been prepared, and about two dozen of these have
won an important place in medicine. An estimated three to four billion doses of barbiturates are prescribed
by physicians in the United States each year, and they have come to be known by a variety of commercial
names and colorful slang expressions: "goofballs," Luminal, Nembutal, "red devils," "yellow jackets,"
"pink ladies," etc. Three of them which are used in narcoanalysis and have seen service as "truth" drugs
are sodium amytal (anobarbital), pentothal sodium (thiopental), and to a lesser extent seconal
(seconbarbital).
As one pharmacologist explains it, a subject coming under the influence of a barbiturate injected
intravenously goes through all the stages of progressive drunkenness, but the time scale is on the order of
minutes instead of hours. Outwardly the sedation effect is dramatic, especially if the subject is a
psychiatric patient in tension. His features slacken, his body relaxes. Some people are momentarily
excited; a few become silly and giggly. This usually passes, and most subjects fall asleep, emerging later
in disoriented semi-wakefulness.
The descent into narcosis and beyond with progressively larger doses can be divided as follows:
I. Sedative stage.
II. Unconsciousness, with exaggerated reflexes (hyperactive stage).
III. Unconsciousness, without reflex even to painful stimuli.
IV. Death.
Whether all these stages can be distinguished in any given subject depends largely on the dose and the
rapidity with which the drug is induced. In anesthesia, stages I and II may last only two or three seconds.
The first or sedative stage can be further divided:
Plane 1. No evident effect, or slightly sedative effect.
Plane 2. Cloudiness, calmness, amnesia. (Upon recovery, the subject will not remember what
happened at this or "lower" planes or stages.)
Plane 3. Slurred speech, old thought patterns disrupted, inability to integrate or learn new patterns.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.456
950ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 176 of 258
Poor coordination. Subject becomes unaware of painful stimuli.
-28-
Plane 3 is the psychiatric "work" stage. It may last only a few minutes, but it can be extended by further
slow injection of drug. The usual practice is to back into the sedative stage on the way to full
consciousness.
CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
The general abhorrence in Western countries for the use of chemical agents "to make people do things
against their will" has precluded serious systematic study (at least as published openly) of the
potentialities of drugs for interrogation. Louis A. Gottschalk, surveying their use in information-seeking
interviews, [13] cites 136 references; but only two touch upon the extraction of intelligence information,
and one of these concludes merely that Russian techniques in interrogation and indoctrination are derived
from age-old police methods and do not depend on the use of drugs. On the validity of confessions
obtained with drugs, Gottschalk found only three published experimental studies that he deemed worth
reporting.
One of these reported experiments by D.P. Morris in which intravenous sodium amytal was helpful in
detecting malingerers. [12] The subjects, soldiers, were at first sullen, negativistic, and non-productive
under amytal, but as the interview proceeded they revealed the fact of and causes for their malingering.
Usually the interviews turned up a neurotic or psychotic basis for the deception.
The other two confession studies, being more relevant to the highly specialized, untouched area of drugs
in intelligence interrogation, deserve more detailed review.
Gerson and Victoroff [12] conducted amytal interviews with 17 neuropsychiatric patients, soldiers who
had charges against them, at Tilton General Hospital, Fort Dix. First they were interviewed without
amytal by a psychiatrist, who, neither ignoring nor stressing their situation as prisoners or suspects under
scrutiny, urged each of them to discuss his social and family background, his army career, and his version
of the charges pending against him.
The patients were told only a few minutes in advance that narcoanalysis would be performed. The doctor
was considerate, but positive and forthright. He indicated that they had no choice but to submit to the
procedure. Their attitudes varied from unquestioning to downright refusal.
Each patient was brought to complete narcosis and permitted to sleep. As he became semiconscious and
could be stimulated to speak, he was held in this stage with additional amytal while the questioning
proceeded. He was questioned first about innocuous matters from his background that he had discussed
before receiving the drug. Whenever possible, he was manipulated into bringing up himself the charges
pending against him before being questioned about them. If he did this in a too fully conscious state, it
proved more effective to ask him to "talk about that later" and to interpose a topic that would diminish
suspicion, delaying the interrogation on his criminal activity until he was back in the proper stage of
narcosis.
The procedure differed from therapeutic narcoanalysis in several ways: the setting, the type of patients,
and the kind of "truth" sought. Also, the subjects were kept in twilight consciousness longer than usual.
This state proved richest in yield of admissions prejudicial to the subject. In it his speech was thick,
mumbling, and disconnected, but his discretion was markedly reduced. This valuable interrogation period,
lasting only five to ten minutes at a time, could be reinduced by injecting more amytal and putting the
patient back to sleep.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.457
951ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 177 of 258
The interrogation technique varied from case to case according to the background information about the
patient, the seriousness of the charges, the patient's attitude under narcosis, and his rapport with the
doctor. Sometimes it was useful to pretend, as the patient grew more fully conscious, that he had already
confessed during the amnestic period of the interrogation, and to urge him, while his memory and sense of
self-protection were still limited, to continue to elaborate the details of what he had "already described."
When it was obvious that a subject was withholding the truth, his denials were quickly passed over and
ignored, and the key questions would be rewarded in a new approach.
Several patients revealed fantasies, fears, and delusions approaching delirium, much of which could
readily be distinguished from reality. But sometimes there was no way for the examiner to distinguish
truth from fantasy except by reference to other sources. One subject claimed to have a child that did not
exist,
-29-
another threatened to kill on sight a stepfather who had been dead a year, and yet another confessed to
participating in a robbery when in fact he had only purchased goods from the participants. Testimony
concerning dates and specific places was untrustworthy and often contradictory because of the patient's
loss of time-sense. His veracity in citing names and events proved questionable. Because of his confusion
about actual events and what he thought or feared had happened, the patient at times managed to conceal
the truth unintentionally.
As the subject revived, he would become aware that he was being questioned about his secrets and,
depending upon his personality, his fear of discovery, or the degree of his disillusionment with the doctor,
grow negativistic, hostile, or physically aggressive. Occasionally patients had to be forcibly restrained
during this period to prevent injury to themselves or others as the doctor continued to interrogate. Some
patients, moved by fierce and diffuse anger, the assumption that they had already been tricked into
confessing, and a still limited sense of discretion, defiantly acknowledged their guilt and challenged the
observer to "do something about it." As the excitement passed, some fell back on their original stories and
others verified the confessed material. During the follow-up interview nine of the 17 admitted the validity
of their confessions; eight repudiated their confessions and reaffirmed their earlier accounts.
With respect to the reliability of the results of such interrogation, Gerson and Victoroff conclude that
persistent, careful questioning can reduce ambiguities in drug interrogation, but cannot eliminate them
altogether.
At least one experiment has shown that subjects are capable of maintaining a lie while under the influence
of a barbiturate. Redlich and his associates at Yale [25] administered sodium amytal to nine volunteers,
students and professionals, who had previously, for purposes of the experiment, revealed shameful and
guilt-producing episodes of their past and then invented false self-protective stories to cover them. In
nearly every case the cover story retained some elements of the guilt inherent in the true story.
Under the influence of the drug, the subjects were crossexamined on their cover stories by a second
investigator. The results, though not definitive, showed that normal individuals who had good defenses
and no overt pathological traits could stick to their invented stories and refuse confession. Neurotic
individuals with strong unconscious self-punitive tendencies, on the other hand, both confessed more
easily and were inclined to substitute fantasy for the truth, confessing to offenses never actually
committed.
In recent years drug therapy has made some use of stimulants, most notably amphetamine (Benzedrine)
and its relative methamphetamine (Methadrine). These drugs, used either alone or following intravenous
barbiturates, produce an outpouring of ideas, emotions, and memories which has been of help in
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.458
952ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 178 of 258
diagnosing mental disorders. The potential of stimulants in interrogation has received little attention,
unless in unpublished work. In one study of their psychiatric use Brussel et al. [7] maintain that
methedrine gives the liar no time to think or to organize his deceptions. Once the drug takes hold, they
say, an insurmountable urge to pour out speech traps the malingerer. Gottschalk, on the other hand, says
that this claim is extravagant, asserting without elaboration that the study lacked proper controls. [13] It is
evident that the combined use of barbiturates and stimulants, perhaps along with ataraxics (tranquilizers),
should be further explored.
OBSERVATIONS FROM PRACTICE
J.M. MacDonald, who as a psychiatrist for the District Courts of Denver has had extensive experience
with narcoanalysis, says that drug interrogation is of doubtful value in obtaining confessions to crimes.
Criminal suspects under the influence of barbiturates may deliberately withhold information, persist in
giving untruthful answers, or falsely confess to crimes they did not commit. The psychopathic personality,
in particular, appears to resist successfully the influence of drugs.
MacDonald tells of a criminal psychopath who, having agreed to narco-interrogation, received 1.5 grams
of sodium amytal over a period of five hours. This man feigned amnesia and gave a false account of a
murder. "He displayed little or no remorse as he (falsely) described the crime, including burial of the
body. Indeed he was very self-possessed and he appeared almost to enjoy the examination. From time to
time he would request that more amytal be injected." [21]
MacDonald concludes that a person who gives false information prior to re-
-30-
ceiving drugs is likely to give false information also under narcosis, that the drugs are of little value for
revealing deceptions, and that they are more effective in releasing unconsciously repressed material than
in evoking consciously suppressed information.
Another psychiatrist known for his work with criminals, L.Z. Freedman, gave sodium amytal to men
accused of various civil and military antisocial acts. The subjects were mentally unstable, their conditions
ranging from character disorders to neuroses and psychoses. The drug interviews proved psychiatrically
beneficial to the patients, but Freedman found that his view of objective reality was seldom improved by
their revelations. He was unable to say on the basis of the narco-interrogation whether a given act had or
had not occurred. Like MacDonald, he found that psychopathic individuals can deny to the point of
unconsciousness crimes that every objective sign indicates they have committed. [10]
F.G. Inbau, Professor of Law at Northwestern University, who has had considerable experience observing
and participating in "truth" drug tests, claims that they are occasionally effective on persons who would
have disclosed the truth anyway had they been properly interrogated, but that a person determined to lie
will usually be able to continue the deception under drugs.
The two military psychiatrists who made the most extensive use of narcoanalysis during the war years.
Roy R. Grinker and John C. Spiegel, concluded that in almost all cases they could obtain from their
patients essentially the same material and give them the same emotional release by therapy without the
use of drugs, provided they had sufficient time.
The essence of these comments from professionals of long experience is that drugs provide rapid access to
information that is psychiatrically useful but of doubtful validity as empirical truth. The same
psychological information and a less adulterated empirical truth can be obtained from fully conscious
subjects through non-drug psychotherapy and skillful police interrogation.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.459
953ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 179 of 258
APPLICATION TO CI INTERROGATION
The almost total absence of controlled experimental studies of "truth" drugs and the spotty and anecdotal
nature of psychiatric and police evidence require that extrapolations to intelligence operations be made
with care. Still, enough is known about the drugs' actions to suggest certain considerations affecting the
possibilities for their use in interrogation.
It should be clear from the foregoing that at best a drug can only serve as an aid to an interrogator who has
a sure understanding of the psychology and techniques of normal interrogation. In some respects, indeed,
the demands on his skill will be increased by the baffling mixture of truth and fantasy in drug-induced
output. And the tendency against which he must guard in the interrogate to give the responses that seem to
be wanted without regard for facts will be heightened by drugs: the literature abounds with warnings that
a subject in narcosis is extremely suggestible.
It seems possible that this suggestibility and the lowered guard of the narcotic state might be put to
advantage in the case of a subject feigning ignorance of a language or some other skill that had become
automatic with him. Lipton [20] found sodium amytal helpful in determining whether a foreign subject
was merely pretending not to understand English. By extension, one can guess that a drugged interrogatee
might have difficulty maintaining the pretense that he did not comprehend the idiom of a profession he
was trying to hide.
There is the further problem of hostility in the interrogator's relationship to a resistance source. The
accumulated knowledge about "truth" drug reaction has come largely from patient-physician relationships
of trust and confidence. The subject in narcoanalysis is usually motivated a priori to cooperate with the
psychiatrist, either to obtain relief from mental suffering or to contribute to a scientific study. Even in
police work, where an atmosphere of anxiety and threat may be dominant, a relationship of trust
frequently asserts itself: the drug is administered by a medical man bound by a strict code of ethics; the
suspect agreeing to undergo narcoanalysis in a desperate bid for corroboration of his testimony trusts both
drug and psychiatrist, however apprehensively; and finally, as Freedman and MacDonald have indicated,
the police psychiatrist frequently deals with a "sick" criminal, and some order of patient-physician
relationship necessarily evolves.
-31-
Rarely has a drug interrogation involved "normal" individuals in a hostile or genuinely threatening milieu.
It was from a non-threatening experimental setting that Eric Lindemann could say that his "normal"
subjects "reported a general sense of euphoria, ease and confidence, and they exhibited a marked increase
in talkativeness and communicability." [18] Gerson and Victoroff list poor doctor-patient rapport as one
factor interfering with the completeness and authenticity of confessions by the Fort Dix soldiers, caught as
they were in a command performance and told they had no choice but to submit to narco-interrogation.
From all indications, subject-interrogation rapport is usually crucial to obtaining the psychological release
which may lead to unguarded disclosures. Role-playing on the part of the interrogator might be a possible
solution to the problem of establishing rapport with a drugged subject. In therapy, the British narco-
analyst William Sargent recommends that the therapist deliberately distort the facts of the patient's life-
experience to achieve heightened emotional response and abreaction. [27] In the drunken state of
narcoanalysis patients are prone to accept the therapist's false constructions. There is reason to expect that
a drugged subject would communicate freely with an interrogator playing the role of relative, colleague,
physician, immediate superior, or any other person to whom his background indicated he would be
responsive.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.460
954ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 180 of 258
Even when rapport is poor, however, there remains one facet of drug action eminently exploitable in
interrogation -- the fact that subjects emerge from narcosis feeling they have revealed a great deal, even
when they have not. As Gerson and Victoroff demonstrated at Fort Dix, this psychological set provides a
major opening for obtaining genuine confessions.
POSSIBLE VARIATIONS
In studies by Beecher and his associates, [3-6] one-third to one-half the individuals tested proved to be
placebo reactors, subjects who respond with symptomatic relief to the administration of any syringe, pill,
or capsule, regardless of what it contains. Although no studies are known to have been made of the
placebo phenomenon as applied to narco-interrogation, it seems reasonable that when a subject's sense of
guilt interferes with productive interrogation, a placebo for pseudo-narcosis could have the effect of
absolving him of the responsibility for his acts and thus clear the way for free communication. It is
notable that placebos are most likely to be effective in situations of stress. The individuals most likely to
react to placebos are the more anxious, more self-centered, more dependent on outside stimulation, those
who express their needs more freely socially, talkers who drain off anxiety by conversing with others. The
non-reactors are those clinically more rigid and with better than average emotional control. No sex or I.Q.
differences between reactors and non-reactors have been found.
Another possibility might be the combined use of drugs with hypnotic trance and post-hypnotic
suggestion: hypnosis could presumably prevent any recollection of the drug experience. Whether a subject
can be brought to trance against his will or unaware, however, is a matter of some disagreement. Orne, in
a survey of the potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation, [23] asserts that it is doubtful, despite many
apparent indications to the contrary, that trance can be induced in resistant subjects. It may be possible, he
adds, to hypnotize a subject unaware, but this would require a positive relationship with the hypnotist not
likely to be found in the interrogation setting.
In medical hypnosis, pentothal sodium is sometimes employed when only light trance has been induced
and deeper narcosis is desired. This procedure is a possibility for interrogation, but if a satisfactory level
of narcosis could be achieved through hypnotic trance there would appear to be no need for drugs.
DEFENSIVE MEASURES
There is no known way of building tolerance for a "truth" drug without creating a disabling addiction, or
of arresting the action of a barbiturate once induced. The only full safeguard against narco-interrogation is
to prevent the administration of the drug. Short of this, the best defense is to make use of the same
knowledge that suggests drugs for offensive operations: if a subject knows that on emerging from narcosis
he will have an exaggerated notion of how much he has revealed he can better resolve to deny he has said
anything.
-32-
The disadvantages and shortcomings of drugs in offensive operations become positive features of the
defensive posture. A subject in narco-interrogation is garbled and irrational, the amount of output
drastically diminished. Drugs disrupt established thought patterns, including the will to resist, but they do
so indiscriminately and thus also interfere with the patterns of substantive information the interrogator
seeks. Even under the conditions most favorable for the interrogator, output will be contaminated by
fantasy, distortion, and untruth.
Possibly the most effective way to arm oneself against narco-interrogation would be to undergo a "dry
run." A trial drug interrogation with output taped for playback would familiarize an individual with his
own reactions to "truth" drugs, and this familiarity would help to reduce the effects of harassment by the
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.461
955ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 181 of 258
interrogator before and after the drug has been administered. From the viewpoint of the intelligence
service, the trial exposure of a particular operative to drugs might provide a rough benchmark for
assessing the kind and amount of information he would divulge in narcosis.
There may be concern over the possibility of drug addiction intentionally or accidentally induced by an
adversary service. Most drugs will cause addiction with prolonged use, and the barbiturates are no
exception. In recent studies at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital for addicts in Lexington, Ky.,
subjects received large doses of barbiturates over a period of months. Upon removal of the drug, they
experienced acute withdrawal symptoms and behaved in every respect like chronic alcoholics.
Because their action is extremely short, however, and because there is little likelihood that they would be
administered regularly over a prolonged period, barbiturate "truth" drugs present slight risk of operational
addiction. If the adversary service were intent on creating addiction in order to exploit withdrawal, it
would have other, more rapid means of producing states as unpleasant as withdrawal symptoms.
The hallucinatory and psychotomimetic drugs such as mescaline, marihuana, LSD-25, and microtine are
sometimes mistakenly associated with narcoanalytic interrogation. These drugs distort the perception and
interpretation of the sensory input to the central nervous system and affect vision, audition, smell, the
sensation of the size of body parts and their position in space, etc. Mescaline and LSD-25 have been used
to create experimental "psychotic states," and in a minor way as aids in psychotherapy.
Since information obtained from a person in a psychotic drug state would be unrealistic, bizarre, and
extremely difficult to assess, the self-administration of LSD-25, which is effective in minute dosages,
might in special circumstances offer an operative temporary protection against interrogation. Conceivably,
on the other hand, an adversary service could use such drugs to produce anxiety or terror in medically
unsophisticated subjects unable to distinguish drug-induced psychosis from actual insanity. An
enlightened operative could not be thus frightened, however, knowing that the effect of these
hallucinogenic agents is transient in normal individuals.
Most broadly, there is evidence that drugs have least effect on well-adjusted individuals with good
defenses and good emotional control, and that anyone who can withstand the stress of competent
interrogation in the waking state can do so in narcosis. The essential resources for resistance thus appear
to lie within the individual.
CONCLUSIONS
The salient points that emerge from this discussion are the following. No such magic brew as the popular
notion of truth serum exists. The barbiturates, by disrupting defensive patterns, may sometimes be helpful
in interrogation, but even under the best conditions they will elicit an output contaminated by deception,
fantasy, garbled speech, etc. A major vulnerability they produce in the subject is a tendency to believe he
has revealed more than he has. It is possible, however, for both normal individuals and psychopaths to
resist drug interrogation; it seems likely that any individual who can withstand ordinary intensive
interrogation can hold out in narcosis. The best aid to a defense against narco-interrogation is
foreknowledge of the process and its limitations. There is an acute need for controlled experimental
studies of drug reaction, not only to depressants but also to stimulants and to combinations of depressants,
stimulants, and ataraxics.
-33-
REFERENCES
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.462
956ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 182 of 258
1. Adams, E. Barbiturates. Sci. Am., Jan. 1958, 198 (1), 60-64
2. Barkham, J. Truth Drugs: The new crime solver. Coronet, Jan. 1951, 29, 72-76.
3. Beecher, H. K. Anesthesia. Sci. Am., Jan. 1957, 198, p. 70.
4. -----. Appraisal of drugs intended to alter subjective responses, symptoms. J. Amer. Med. Assn., 1955,
158, 399-401.
5. -----. Evidence for increased effectiveness of placebos with increased stress. Amer. J. Physiol., 1956,
187, 163-169.
6. -----. Experimental pharmacology and measurement of the subjective response. Science, 1953, 116.
157-162.
7. Brussel, J. A., Wilson, D. C., Jr., & Shankel, L. W. The use of methedrine in psychiatric practice.
Psychiat. Quart., 1954, 28, 381-394.
8. Delay, J. Pharmacologic explorations of the personality: narcoanalysis and "methedrine" shock. Proc.
Roy. Soc. Med., 1949, 42, 492-496.
9. deRopp, R. S. Drugs and the Mind. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1960.
10. Freedman, L. Z. "Truth" drugs. Sci. Am., March 1960. 145-154.
11. Geis, G. In scopolamine veritas. The early history of drug-induced statements. J. of Crim. Law.,
Criminal, & Pol. Sci., Nov.-Dec. 1959, 50 (4), 347-358.
12. Gerson, M. J. & Victoroff, V. Experimental investigation into the validity of confessions obtained
under sodium amytal narcosis. J. Clin. and Exp. Psychopath., 1948, 9, 359-375.
13. Gottschalk, L. A. The use of drugs in information-seeking interviews. Technical report #2, ARDC
Study SR 177-D Contract AF 18 (600) 1797. Dec. 1958. Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
14. House, R. E. The use of scopolamine in criminology. Texas St. J. of Med., 1922, 18, 259.
15. Houston, F. A preliminary investigation into abreaction comparing methedrine and sodium amytal
with other methods. J. Ment. Sci., 1952, 98, 707-710.
16. Inbau, F. G. Self-incrimination. Springfield: C. C. Thomas, 1950.
17. Kidd, W. R. Police interrogation. 1940.
18. Legal dose of truth. Newsweek, Feb. 23, 1959, 28.
19. Lindemann, E. Psychological changes in normal and abnormal individuals under the influence of
sodium amytal. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1932, 11, 1083-1091.
20. Lipton, E. L. The amytal interview. A review. Amer. Practit. Digest Treatm., 1950, 1, 148-163.
21. MacDonald, J. M. Narcoanalysis and criminal law. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1954, 111, 283-288.
22. Morris, D. P. Intravenous barbiturates: an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of conversion hysteria
and malingering. Mil. Surg., 1945, 96, 509-513.
23. Orne, M. T. The potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation. An evaluation. ARDC Study SR 177-D
Contract AF 18 (600) 1797, Dec. 1958. Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.463
957ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 183 of 258
24. Pelikan, E. W., & Kensler, C. J. Sedatives: Their pharmacalogy and uses. Reprint from The Medical
Clinics of North America. W. B. Saunders Company, Sept. 1958.
25. Redlich, F. C., Ravitz, L. J., & Dression, G. H. Narcoanalysis and truth. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1951, 107,
586-593.
26. Rolin, J. Police Drugs. Translated by L. J. Bendit. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956.
27. Sargant, W., & Slater, E. Physical methods of treatment in psychiatry. (3rd. ed.) Baltimore: Williams
and Wilkins, 1954.
28. Snider, R. S. Cerebellum. Sci. Am., Aug. 1958, 84.
29. Uhr, L., & Miller, L. G. (eds.). Drugs and Behavior. New York-London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1960.
Next: CIA Director Stansfield Turners Testimony, Continued

Previous: Opening Testimony of CIA Director Stansfield Turner
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.464
958ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 184 of 258
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: CIA Director Stansfield Turner's Testimony (pp. 33... Page 1 of 23
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents
CIA Director Stansfield Turner's Testimony

(Continued -- pp. 33-50)
Senator WALLOP. If they are, I would assume that you would still try to find from either
theirs or somebody else's information how to protect our people from that kind of activity.
Senator WALLOP. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Chafee?
Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
-34-
Admiral Turner, I appreciate that these tawdry activities were taking place long before your
watch, and I think you have correctly labeled them as abhorrent, but not only were they
abhorrent, it seems to me that they wee rather bungled, amateurish experiments that don't
seem to have been handled in a very scientific way, at least from the scanty evidence we
have.
It seems to me that there were a minimum of reports and the Agency didn't have the ability
to call it quits. It went on for some 12 years, as you mentioned. What I would like to get to
is, are you convinced now in your Agency that those scientific experiments, legitimate
ones that you were conducting with polygraph and so forth, were being conducted in a
scientific manner and that you are handling it in a correct manner to get the best
information that you are seeking in the end?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.465
959ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 185 of 258
Admiral TURNER. Yes, I am, and I also have a sense of confidence that we are limiting
ourselves to the areas where we need to be involved as opposed to areas where we can rely
on others.
Senator CHAFEE. I am convinced of that from your report. I just do hope that you have
people who are trained in not only handling this type of experiment, but in preparing the
proper reports and drawing the proper data from the reports. You are convinced that you
have this type of people?
Senator CHAFEE. The second point I am interested in was the final lines in your
testimony here, which I believe are very important, and that is that the Agency is doing all
it can in cooperation with other branches of the Government to go about tracking down the
identity of those who were in some way adversely affected, and see what can be done to
fulfill the government's responsibilities in that respect. I might add that I commend you in
that, and I hope you will pursue it vigorously.
A hospital in my State was involved in these proceedings, and it is unclear exactly what did
take place, so I have both a parochial interest in this and a national interest as well, and I do
hope you will press on with it. It involves not only you, I appreciate, but also HEW and
perhaps the Attorney General.
Admiral TURNER. Thank you, sir. We will.
Senator CHAFEE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, MKULTRA subproject 3 was a project involving the surreptitious

administration of LSD on unwitting persons, was it not?
Senator INOUYE. In February 1954, and this was in the very early stages of MKULTRA,
the Director of Central Intelligence wrote to the technical services staff officials criticizing
their judgment because they had participated in an experiment involving the administration
of LSD on an unwitting basis to Dr. Frank Olson, who later committed suicide. Now, the
individuals criticized were the same individuals who were responsible for subproject 3,
involving exactly the same practices. Even though these individuals were clearly aware of
the dangers of surreptitious administration and had been criticized by the Director
-35-
of Central Intelligence, subproject 3 was not terminated immediately after Dr. Olson's
death.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.466
960ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 186 of 258
In fact, according to documents, it continued for a number of years. Can you provide this
committee with any explanation of how such testing could have continued under these
circumstances?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir, I really can't.
Senator INOUYE. Are the individuals in technical services who carried on subproject 3
still on the CIA payroll?
Admiral TURNER. I am sorry. Are you asking, are they today?
Senator INOUYE. Yes.
Senator INOUYE. What would you do if you criticized officials of the technical services
staff and they continued to carry on experimentation for a number of years?
Admiral TURNER. I would do two things, sir. One is, I would be sure at the beginning
that I was explicit enough that they knew that I didn't want that to be continued anywhere
else, and two, if I found it being continued, I would roll some heads.
Senator INOUYE. Could you provide this committee with information as to whether the
individuals involved had their heads rolled?
Admiral TURNER. I don't believe there is any evidence they did, but I will double check
that.
[See p. 170 for material referred to.]
Senator INOUYE. As you know, Senator Huddleston and his subcommittee are deeply
involved in the drafting of charters and guidelines for the intelligence community. We will
be meeting with the President tomorrow. Our concern is, I think, a basic one. Can anything
like this occur again?
Admiral TURNER. I think it would be very, very unlikely, first, because we are all much
more conscious of these issues than we were back in the fifties, second, because we have
such thorough oversight procedures. I cannot imagine that this kind of activity could take
place today without some member of the CIA itself bypassing me, if I were authorizing
this, and writing to the Intelligence Oversight Board, and blowing the whistle on this kind
of activity.
I am also doing my very best, sir, to encourage an openness with myself and a free
communication in the Agency, so that I am the one who finds these things if they should
happen. The fact is that we must keep you and your committee and now the new committee
in the House informed of our sensitive activities. I think all of these add up to a degree of
scrutiny such that this kind of extensive and flagrant activity could not happen today
without it coming to the attention of the proper authorities to stop it.
Senator INOUYE. A sad aspect of the MKULTRA project was that it naturally involved
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.467
961ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 187 of 258
the people who unwittingly or wittingly got involved in experimentation. I would

appreciate it if you would report back to this committee in 3 months on what the Agency
has done to notify these individuals and these institutions, and furthermore, to notify us as
to what steps have been taken to identify victims, and if identified, what you have done to
assist them, monetarily or otherwise.
Admiral TURNER. All right, sir. I will be happy to.
Senator GOLDWATER. Will the Senator yield?
-36-
Senator INOUYE. Yes, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. I wonder if he could include in that report for our information
only a complete listing of the individuals and the experiments done on them, and whether
they were witting or unwitting, volunteer or nonvolunteer, and what has been the result in
each case. I think that would be interesting.
Admiral TURNER. Fine. Yes, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Kennedy?
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. It is your intention to notify the individuals who have
been the, subjects of the research, is that right, Admiral Turner? Do you intend to notify
those individuals?
Senator KENNEDY. If you can identify them, you intend to notify them?
Senator KENNEDY. And you intend to notify the universities or research centers as well?
Admiral TURNER. Senator, I am torn on that. I understand your opening statement. I put
myself in the position of the president of one of those, universities, let's say. If he were
witting -- if his university had been witting of this activity with us, lie has access to all that
information today. If lie, were not witting, I wonder if the. process of informing him might
put his institution's reputation in more jeopardy than letting them go on the way they are
today, not knowing. I really don't know the equities here.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, the problem is, all you have to do is pick up the newspapers
and you see these universities mentioned. In many instances, I think you are putting the
university people at an extraordinary disadvantage, where there is a complete change of
administration, and they may for one reason or another not have information that they are,
under suspicion. There is innuendo; there is rumor. I cannot help but believe that it will just
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.468
962ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 188 of 258
get smeared all over the newspapers in spite of all the security steps that have been taken.
It seems to me that those universities should be entitled to that information, so that the ones
with other administrations can adapt procedures to protect those universities. The
importance of preserving the independence of our research areas and the communities
seems to me to be a very fundamental kind of question about the protection of the integrity
of our universities and our research centers.
Admiral TURNER. You are saying that you feel that if we identify them privately to
themselves, we can benefit them in an adequate way to cover the risk that this will lead to a
more public disclosure? There are lots of the 80 who have not been identified publicly at
this point.
Senator KENNEDY. I think the universities themselves should be notified. I think then
the universities can take whatever steps in terms of their setting up the procedures to
protect. their own kinds of integrity in terms of the future. I would certainly hope that, they
would feel that they could make a public comment or a public statement on it. I think it is
of general public interest, particularly for the people that are involved in those universities,
to have some kind of awareness of whether they were. used or were not used and how they
were used.
I think they are entitled to it, and quite frankly, if there is a public official or an official of
the university that you notify and be wants
-37-
for his own particular reasons not to have it public, I don't see why those in a lesser echelon
or lower echelon who have been effectively used by it should not have the information as
well.
So, I would hope that you would notify the universities and then also indicate to the public.
I can't conceive that this information will not be put out in the newspapers, and it puts the
university people at an extraordinary disadvantage, and of course some of it is wrong,
which is the fact of the matter, and I think some university official saying, well, it isn't so,
is a lot different than if they know it is confirmed or it is not confirmed in terms of the
Agency itself. I think that there is a responsibility there.
Admiral TURNER. I have great sympathy with what you are saying. I have already
notified one institution because the involvement was so extensive that I thought they really
needed to protect themselves, and I am. most anxious to do this in whatever way will help
all of the people who were perhaps unwitting participants in this, and the difficulty I will
have is, I can't quite do, I think, what you suggested, in that I may not be able to tell an
institution of the extent and nature of its participation.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you can tell them to the best of your information, and it seems
to me that just because the university or an individual is going to be embarrassed is not a
reason for classifying the information. So, I would hope -- I mean, I obviously speak as an
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.469
963ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 189 of 258
individual Senator, but I feel that that is an incredible disservice to the innocent individuals
and I think, a disservice to the integrity of the, universities unless they are notified, to be
able to develop procedures you are developing with regards to your own institution and we
are trying to in terms of the Congress. Certainly the universities are entitled to the same.
Admiral TURNER. Yes. Not all of these, of course, were unwitting.
Senator KENNEDY. That's right.
Admiral TURNER. Many of them were witting, and therefore they can take all those
precautionary steps on their own, but I am perfectly open to doing this. I am only interested
in doing it in a way that when identifying a university it will not lead to the public
disclosure of the individuals, whom I am not allowed to disclose, and so on.
Senator KENNEDY. That could be done, it seems to me.
Admiral TURNER. So, we will see if we can devise a way of notifying these institutions
on a private basis so that they can then make their own decision whether their equities are
best served by their announcing it publicly or their attempting to maintain it--
Senator KENNEDY. Or you. I wonder. What if they were to ask you to announce, or
indicate?
Admiral TURNER. My personal conscience, sir, at this time, is that I would be doing a
disservice to these universities if I notified the public.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you meet with some university officials and ask what their
views are or whether they feel that the preservation of the integrity of the universities
would be better served or not? I think that would be useful to find out from small, large,
private, and public universities' officials how they view the integrity--
Admiral TURNER. Fine. I Will phone several university presidents today who are my
friends and who are not involved in this, and ask them what they think the equities would
be.
-38-
Senator KENNEDY. All right. You let us know, too.
Admiral TURNER. But I am not sure that I see that there is any great benefit, in my
notifying the public as opposed to the university notifying them. Let him have his choice
whether he wants -- each institution wants to have it made public.
Senator KENNEDY. Yes. The fact would remain that the institution's credibility would be
better served if the institution's president were to deny it and the university indicated that it
did not participate in that program than if the university were to deny it and the Agency
says nothing. It seems to me that that would be the strongest, and the only way that that is
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.470
964ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 190 of 258
going to be credible. I would value it if you would get some input from universities as to
what they believe is the fairest way in terms of the preservation of the integrity of the
universities.
Let me, if I could, ask on the question of the uses of these safe houses, as I understand from
information that was provided to us in the course of our last committee, the testing of
various drugs on individuals happened at all social levels, high and low, it happened on
native Americans and also on foreign nationals. That is what I understand was the nature of
the project itself.
Now, I am just wondering whether those tests were conducted at the two locations on the
east coast and the west coast which were known as safe houses. To your knowledge, is that
correct?
Senator KENNEDY. In terms of the research in this particular program, it did not go
beyond the safe houses located on the east coast and the west coast? I believe I am correct
on that.
Admiral TURNER. That type of unwitting testing of sort of randomly selected

individuals, yes.
Senator KENNEDY. It was just located in those two places?
Admiral TURNER. To the best of our knowledge, there were only two locations.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, how do we interpret randomly selected?
Admiral TURNER. Well, as opposed to prisoners in a prison who were somehow

selected.
Senator KENNEDY. All right. Do you know from this information how many people
were recruited during this period?
Admiral TURNER. No idea.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you know approximately?
Admiral TURNER. I asked that question the other day, and we just don't have --
apparently we are very -- well, either there were no records kept of the actual numbers and
types of people tested or they were destroyed.
Admiral Turner, I would like to come back to the experiments which may have been
conducted at the hospital research facilities which the CIA helped to finance. It wasn't clear
to me from your previous answers what kind of work was done there. I gather you are
unclear on that, too, from your remarks, yet I find in the CIA documentation which you
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.471
965ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 191 of 258
have supplied us, a list describing some of the advantages the Agency hoped to gain. It
says:
(a) One-sixth of the total space in the new hospital wing will be available to the Chemical
Division of TSS * * *; (b) Agency sponsorship of sensitive research
-39-
projects will be completely deniable; (c) Full professional cover will be provided for up to
three biochemical employees of the Chemical Division; (d) Human patients and volunteers for
experimental use will be available under controlled clinical conditions with the full
supervision of
and there is a blank, something has been deleted.
It seems pretty clear to me what they intended to do in that particular wing. Doesn't it to
you? Why would you go to such elaborate preparations, to buy part of the wing, bring three
of your own personnel there, give them a cover, and give them access to patients? Why
would you go to such trouble and expense to arrange, all that, if you weren't planning to
experiment on people in the hospital?
Admiral TURNER. I agree with you 100 percent, sir. Those were clearly the intentions. I
have no evidence that it was carried out in that way. I am not trying to be defensive,
Senator. I am only trying to be absolutely precise here.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, then, as to the nature of what was done there, the last
paragraph on the same page of the document says, "The facilities of the hospital and the
ability to conduct controlled experimentations under safe clinical conditions using
materials with which any agency connection must be completely deniable will augment
and complement other programs recently taken over by TSS, such as," and then there's
another deletion.
Now, the words following "such as" have been deleted. That is still classified, or at least it
was removed when this document was sanitized and released. It seems to be that whatever
was deleted right there would give you a pretty good clue as to what they were doing, since
it says that the activities would "augment and complement other programs" undertaken by
TSS. So, I have trouble understanding why you don't know what was contemplated. Just
the fact that similar programs are referred to in the document, though what they are is still
deleted, should enable you to check it out.
You could look at what went on in the similar programs mentioned following the "such as"
in the classified version of this document.
Admiral TURNER. Senator, I have not said that we don't know what was contemplated
being done there. We do not know what was done there.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.472
966ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 192 of 258
Senator SCHWEIKER. Why did you delete that reference? Why is that still classified,
that particular project of whatever it is?
Admiral TURNER. I don't know this particular case. We will get you the exact answer to
that one and inform you about it, but it is quite probable that that other case is unrelated to
this in the -- well, not unrelated, but that that was a project that still deserves to be
classified.
[The material referred to follows:]
Construction of the Gorman Annex was begun in 1957 and the Annex was dedicated in March
1959. Of the several MKULTRA projects conducted at Georgetown only one involving human
testing covered a time span subsequent to March 1959. Subproject 45 ran from 1955 to 1963,
thus it is possible that the final four years 1959-1963) of the subproject could have been spent
in the Gorman Annex. However, there is no reference to the Gorman Annex or a "new Annex"
in Subproject 45 papers, neither is there any mention of the subproject moving to a new
location in 1959 or later years.
Authorization to contribute CIA funds toward construction of the Gorman Annex is contained
in Subproject 35 of MKULTRA. Recently discovered material indicated that Dr. Geschickter
continued his research for sleep- and amnesia-producing drugs under Project MKSEARCH
through July 1967 at Georgetown University Hospital. But it is impossible to determine if the
facilities of the Gorman Annex were involved.
-40-
Senator SCHWEIKER. I think that would give us a pretty good clue as to what was
going to be done in the wing the CIA helped to finance.
Was there any indication at all in the records you found that the project ultimately used
cancer patients or terminally ill patients in connection with this facility?
Admiral TURNER. I'm sorry. I missed your question because I was trying to get the data
on the last one. I will read you the blank.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Go ahead.
Admiral TURNER. QKHILLTOP. It doesn't help you, but--
Senator SCHWEIKER. Can you tell us what that is, or is it still classified?
Admiral TURNER. I don't know, and I assume from the fact that we deleted it, it is still
classified, but I will get you that answer, sir.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you. I'd like to see that information.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.473
967ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 193 of 258
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA: CIA Director Stansfield Turner's Testimony (pp. ... Page 10 of 23
Now my next question was: Is there any indication, Admiral, that projects in that particular
center involved experimentation on terminally ill cancer patients?
Admiral TURNER. I missed the first part of your question, sir. I am very sorry.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Do you have any indication that some experiment in the facility
used terminally ill cancer patients as subjects? You do acknowledge in your statement and
it is clear from other documents that these kinds of experiments were at some point being
done somewhere. My question is, is there any indication that cancer patients or terminally
ill patients were experimented with in this wing?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, it does appear there is a connection here, sir.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The other question I had relates to the development of something
which has been called the perfect concussion. A series of experiments toward that end were
described in the CIA documents. I wonder if you would just tell us what your
understanding of perfect concussion is.
Admiral TURNER. Is that in my testimony, sir, or in some other document?
Senator SCHWEIKER. Subproject 54, MKULTRA, which involved examination of

techniques to cause brain concussions and amnesia by using weapons or sound waves to
strike individuals without giving and without leaving any clear physical marks. Someone
dubbed it "perfect concussion" -- maybe that was poetic license on the part of our staff
rather than your poets over there. I wonder if you could just tell us what brain concussion
experiments were about?
Admiral TURNER. This project, No. 54, was canceled, and never carried out.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I do believe the first year of the project in 1955 was carried
out by the Office of Naval Research, according to the information that you supplied us.
The CIA seems to have been participating in some way at that point, because the records
go on to say that the experimenter at ONR found out about CIA's role, discovered that it
was a cover, and then the project was transferred to MKULTRA in 1956. Again, this is all
from the backup material you have given us. So, it was canceled at some time. I am not
disagreeing
-41-
with that, but apparently for at least a year or two, somebody was investigating the
production of brain concussions with special blackjacks, sound waves, and other methods
as detailed in the backup material.
Admiral TURNER. The data available to me is that this project was never funded by the
CIA, but I will double-check that and furnish the information for the record for you as to
whether there was ever any connection here and if so, what the nature of the work was.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.474
968ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 194 of 258
Mr. Laubinger corrected his testimony regarding Subproject 54 during the September 21, 1977
hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Human Resources
Committee. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
Mr. LAUBINGER. On project 54, it has got a rather sensational proposal in there, in terms of
the work that they propose to do, and you asked about the proposal and I said, in fact, it was
never funded under MKULTRA. Now, I overlooked -- at least, my memory did not serve me
correctly when I went through that file folder to see one memorandum dated January 10, 1956,
which makes it quite clear, as a matter of fact, that that proposal was based on prior work that
was funded by the Agency.
Senator SCHWEIKER. By what?
Mr. LAUBINGER. By the CIA. So, that information was in their file folder. It did not
happen to be in my head when I testified.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I think I might have read you that, and that is why I argued at the
time with you, because I think I had in front of me, as I recall, some indication that it was
funded there. I did read that to you. So, you did supply it to us; there is no argument about that
information.
Mr. LAUBINGER. Perhaps I am sort of headstrong, myself, and in my own view, I am

reading under the ULTRA project, that if it had been funded under ULTRA, it would have had
a project number and identified as such. The thing that threw me was that it was funded,
apparently, outside of any MKULTRA activity and it was under the normal contracting
process, so that it was not included in MKULTRA as any work done under that funding
umbrella.
The file folder that you have and I have, right here, makes it quite clear, however, that a year's
work was done through navy funding -- a navy funding mechanism -- on which the proposal
was based that ultimately came into the MKULTRA program. That second proposal was never
funded. So, there was conflict and I, personally, I think, introduced a little bit of confusion in
that in my testimony.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, do you agree or not agree with DOD's statement here that even
though the initial funding was navy, it was really I conduit for the CIA?
Mr. LAUBINGER. I think that is correct.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Yes; I would appreciate that. I would like to know how it went
from ONR to CIA after a year. Somebody made a decision to make that transfer, and to
make this an MKULTRA subject. There had to be some sort of review that led to a
decision to continue that kind of concussion -- total blackout, maximum amnesia, and
whatever else it was you were interested in -- study and testing.
Mr. LAUBINGER. Senator, if I may try to say a few words on that, the files that were
available to us for inspection, which are limited, indicated that there was a project being
carried on by the Navy having to do with the, effects of brain concussion. The CIA
developed an interest in that, and considered funding it, but actually never did, and as the
admiral testified, the MKULTRA is merely a funding mechanism, a place they go for
money to do such things, but there is no evidence that I know of that that project was ever
funded.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.475
969ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 195 of 258
-42-
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I am confused, because here again is another quote from a
document that we have seen, which you have released and supplied to us:
Following is the technical progress made under the current [deleted] contract: (a) Specializing
instrumentation and numerous testing techniques have been developed to obtain the desired
dynamic data; (b) considerable data has now been obtained supporting the resonance-
cavilation theory of brain concussion; and (c) preliminary acceleration threshold data has been
It goes on to talk about a blast range and a 2,500-square-foot laboratory. The document
notes that "Three blast test series have been run to date." It describes a special blackjack
device, "a pancake-type blackjack giving a high peak impact force with a low unit surface
pressure."
I agree the records are inconclusive as to the results of this work, but it certainly seems that
some testing was done.
Mr. LAUBINGER. Senator, you are putting us in the same position I think you were
stating that you were in earlier referring to documents not before us, but I believe you are
quoting from a proposal that someone sent to the Agency to fund this work, and he is
referring to past work. The past work would have encompassed a lot of things like that, but
CIA was not involved with that.
Senator SCHWEIKER. What do you mean, Admiral, on page 6 of your testimony when
you mention projects using magician's art? How do magicians get into the spook business?
Admiral TURNER. I have interpreted this as to how to slip the mickey into the finn, but I
would like to ask my advisers here to comment.
Mr. BRODY. I think that is essentially it, Senator. It is surreptitious administration of

material to someone, deceptive practices, how to distract someone's attention while you are
doing something else, as I understand it. It was also some type of a covert communication
project involved with the study of how magicians and their assistants perhaps communicate
information to one another without having other people know it. This is the type of thing
that was involved, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Huddleston?
Admiral, in your checking these newly discovered documents and interviewing members
of the CIA staff, did you find information that would confirm the contention described by
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.476
970ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 196 of 258
the reporters for the New York Times that this type of experimentation was begun out of a
fear that the Agency that foreign powers might have drugs which would allow them to alter
the behavior of American citizens or agents or members of the Armed Forces who were
taken into custody, and which would have resulted in false confessions and the like? Is my
question clear?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. I haven't personally read the documentation on that. In my
discussions with the people who are well informed in this area at the Agency, I am told that
that is the case.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Was there any evidence or any indication that there were other
motives that the Agency might also be looking for drugs that could be applied for other
purposes, such as debilitating an individual or even killing another person? Was this part of
this kind of experimentation?
-43-
Admiral TURNER. Yes; I think there is. I have not seen in this series of documentation
evidence of desire to kill, but I think the project turned its character from a defensive to an
offensive one as it went along, and there certainly was an intention here to develop drugs
that could be of use.
Senator HUDDLESTON. The project continued for some time after it was learned that, in
fact, foreign powers did not have such a drug as was at first feared, didn't it?
Admiral TURNER. That is my understanding. Yes, sir.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Is there any indication that knowledge gained as a result of

these experiments has been useful or is being applied in any way to present operations?
Mr. BRODY. Senator, I am not sure if there is any body of knowledge. A great deal of
what there was, I gather, was destroyed in 1973. I would like to defer to Frank here. Do
you know of any?
Mr. LAUBINGER. I know of no drugs or anything like that developed under this program
that ever reached operational use or are in use today.
Senator HUDDLESTON. So apparently any information that was gathered was

apparently useless and not worth continuing, not worth further development on the part of
the Agency.
Mr. LAUBINGER. I am having difficulty hearing your questions.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I can hardly hear myself.
Admiral TURNER. I think the answer to your question is that we have no evidence of
great usefulness on this, and yet I think we should remember--
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.477
971ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 197 of 258
Senator HUDDLESTON. Well, is it accurate to say that this experimentation produced

few useful results or had little application at all to the operations of the Agency or anybody
else as far as we know?
Admiral TURNER. I think that is basically correct. At the same time, I would point out
that we had two CIA prisoners in China and one in the Soviet Union at this time, and we
were concerned as to what kinds of things might be done to them, but I am not saying that-
-
Senator HUDDLESTON. Have you detected any sign that any other nation is continuing
or has in the past conducted experiments similar to this or with a similar objective?
Admiral TURNER. I am not prepared to answer that one off the top of my head, sir, but I
will get it to you.
We maintain no files of up-to-date information on the testing of drugs in foreign countries.

Some years ago we occasionally would review foreign research on antibiotics and
pharmaceuticals in connection with public health and civil defense assessments. For a few
years beginning in 1949 we assessed foreign research on LSD under Project ARTICHOKE
because of concern that such drugs might be employed against Agency and other U.S.
personnel. Information relative to this work has already been provided to relevant Committees.
In this early work we also occasionally looked at foreign human experimentation; we long ago
eliminated our holdings on this subject and no collection requirements are any longer served.
As consumer interest in this area has dropped off and higher priority areas need attention, we
have virtually no present coverage with the possible exception of an occasional scanning of
the literature for a specific program. To the best of our knowledge no other unit in the
Intelligence Community is tracking this subject now.
-44-
Senator HUDDLESTON. You don't know whether any of your agents anywhere in the
world have been subjected to any kind of procedure like this?
Admiral TURNER. We certainly know of other powers conducting research in these

areas, yes.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know how they go about that research?
Admiral TURNER. It is pretty sketchy, the information we have.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know of any other organization in this country or any
institution that has conducted extensive research on unwitting individuals and through
unwitting institutions?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.478
972ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 198 of 258
Admiral TURNER. Well, I have read something in the newspapers about this, but I have
not familiarized myself with it in specifies.
Senator HUDDLESTON. It is not a normal mode of operation for hitman research, is it?
Senator WALLOP. Mr. Chairman, I only have one to follow up on Senator Huddleston's
questions and my earlier ones. You are not really saying, are you Admiral Turner, that
there are no mind-altering drugs or behavior modification procedures which have been
used by foreign powers?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir, I am not.
Senator WALLOP. I drew that inference partly in answer to my question that you knew
of no truth serum. Maybe that is a misnomer, but surely there are relaxants that make
tongues looser than they would otherwise be. Isn't that true?
Senator WALLOP. So I think it is fair to say, too, that the experience of many American
prisoners of war in the Korean conflict would indicate that there are behavior modification
procedures in use by foreign powers of a fairly advanced degree of sophistication.
Senator WALLOP. Again, I will just go back and say I think this must have been part of
the motivation. I don't think you would have mentioned Cardinal Mindszenty had you
thought his behavior was normal at the time or had anybody else. So, I would just again
say I think it is a little bit scapegoating. I don't think the object of this hearing is in any way
to lay blame on those passed or those dead or otherwise, but I think it is a little bit
scapegoating to say that it stopped with the directors of the CIA or the DCT's of the time.
Also I think it is a little bit scapegoating, to say they didn't even know it, but that it was
some lower echelon acting alone.
I think this was a behavior pattern that was prevalent in those years, and I think the object
lesson is that we have discovered, we think and we hope, through your assurances and
other activities of the Congress, means of avoiding future incidents of that kind. I thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CHAFEE. No questions.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Kennedy, I think you have another question.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.479
973ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 199 of 258
-45-
Senator KENNEDY. Just talking about the two safe houses on the east and west, coast as
being the sources for the unwitting trials, now, the importance of this and the magnitude of
it, I think, is of significance, because we have seen from your records that these we're used
over a period of 8 or 9 years, and the numbers could have been considerable. You are
unable to determine, at least, in your own research, what the numbers would be, and what
the drugs were, how many people were involved, but it could have been considerable
during this period of time.
It would certainly appear to me in examining the documents and the flow charts of cash
slips that were expended in these areas that it was considerable, but that is a judgmental
factor on it, but I think it is important to try and find out what the Agency is attempting to
do to get to the bottom of it.
Now, the principal agent that was involved as I understand it is deceased and has been
deceased for 2 years. The overall agent, Mr. Gottlieb, has indicated a fuzzy memory about
this whole area. He has testified before the Intelligence Committee. Yet he was responsible
for the whole program. Then, the Director had indicated the destruction of the various
materials and unfamiliarity with the project.
Now, you have indicated in your testimony today that there are two additional agents on
page 9 of your testimony, you indicated there were two additional agents which you have
uncovered at the bottom of it, and you say the names of CIA officials who approved or
monitored the various projects. You talk about the two additional agents in your testimony.
Now, I am just wondering if you intend to interview those agents to find out exactly what
is being done. I suppose, first of all, shouldn't the project manager know what was being
done?
Admiral TURNER. Our first problem, Senator, is that we have been unable to associate
an individual with those names at this point. We are still burrowing to find out who these
people are. We haven't identified them as having been CIA employees, and we don't know
whether these were false names.
Senator KENNEDY. You are tracking that down, as I understand it?
Senator KENNEDY. You are tracking that. down, and you have every intention of
interviewing those people to find out whatever you can about the program and project?
Admiral TURNER. My only hesitation here is whether I will do this or the Justice
Department.
Senator KENNEDY. It will be pursued, though, I understand?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.480
974ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 200 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. Either through the Agency or through the Justice Department?
Admiral TURNER. [Nods in the affirmative.]
Senator KENNEDY. Is it plausible that the director of the program would not understand
or know about the details of the program? Is it plausible that Dr. Gottlieb would not
understand the full range of activities in those particular safe houses?
-46-
Admiral TURNER. Let me say it is unlikely. I don't know Mr. Gottlieb.
Senator KENNEDY. Has anybody in the Agency talked with Mr. Gottlieb to find out
about this?
Admiral TURNER. Not since this revelation has come out.
Senator KENNEDY. Not since this revelation? Well, why not?
Admiral TURNER. He has left our employ, Senator.
Senator KENNEDY. Does that mean that anybody who leaves is, you know, covered for
lifetime?
Senator KENNEDY. Why wouldn't you talk with him and find out? You have new
information about this program. It has been a matter of considerable interest both to our
committee and to the Intelligence Committee. Why wouldn't you talk to Mr. Gottlieb?
Admiral TURNER. Well, again, I think the issue is whether this should be done by the
Justice Department or ourselves.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, are we wrestling around because you and Attorney General
Bell can't agree--
Senator KENNEDY [continuing]. On who ought to do it?
Admiral TURNER. We are proceeding together in complete agreement as to how to go. I

have, in connection with trying to find all of these Americans or others who were
unwittingly tested, I have some considerable concern about the CIA running around this
country interviewing and interrogating people, because I don't want to give any impression
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.481
975ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 201 of 258
that we are doing domestic intelligence.
Senator KENNEDY. I am just talking about one, in this case. That was the man who was
responsible for the whole program, and to find out whether anyone within the Agency
since you have had this new material has talked to Gottlieb since 1975, and if the answer is
no, I want to know why not.
Admiral TURNER. The reason he was not interviewed in connection with the 1975
hearings was that he had left the employ of the CIA and there was a concern on the part of
the Agency that it would appear to the investigators that the CIA was in some way trying to
influence him and influence his testimony before the committee. If these committees have,
no objection, we would be happy to contact Dr. Gottlieb and see if he can augment
anything here in this new information, though I don't think there is much in this new
information that be can add to as opposed to what was available in 1975.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you see, Admiral Turner, you come to the two committees this
morning and indicate that now at last we have the information. We don't have to be
concerned about anything in the future on it. Now, I don't know how you can give those
assurances to the members of these committees as well as to the American people when
you haven't since 1975 even talked to the principal person that was in charge of the
program, and the records were destroyed. He is the fellow that was running the program,
and the Agency has not talked to him since the development of this new material.
Admiral TURNER. Our only concern here is the proprieties involved, and we will dig
into this and work with the Justice Department on
-47-
who, if either of us, should get into discussions with Dr. Gottlieb so as not to prejudice any
legal rights that may be involved here, or to appear in any way to be improper.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, do I understand you have not contacted the Justice Department
about this particular case since the development of this new material about Gottlieb?
Admiral TURNER. Not about Gottlieb specifically. We have contacted him.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, it is amazing to me. I mean, can you understand the difficulty
that any of us might have in terms of comprehending that when you develop a whole new
series of materials that are on the front page of every newspaper in the country and are on
every television, I mean, that means something, but it does not mean nearly as much as the
interest that we have in the fact about the testing of unwitting Americans, and every single
document that the staff reviews has Mr. Gottlieb's name on it and you come to tell us that
we don't have to worry any more, we have these other final facts, and Mr. Gottlieb has not
been talked to?
Admiral TURNER. Sir, I am not saying that these are in any way the final facts. I am
saying these are all the facts we have available.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.482
976ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 202 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. And you have not talked to the person who was in charge of the
program, so what kind of value or what kind of weight can we give it?
Admiral TURNER. We are happy to talk to him. I think the issue here again is one of
propriety and how to go about this. We have not, I believe, enough new information about
Gottlieb's participation here to signal that his interview would be that much more revealing
than what was revealed in 1975.
Senator KENNEDY. The importance of it, I think, from our point of view, is, he would
know the drugs that were administered, the volume of drugs, how it was administered, and
in terms of your ability to follow lip to protect these people and their health, to the extent
that it can be done, that opportunity is being lost.
I want to get on to some others, but will you give us the assurance that you will get ahold
of Gottlieb or that you will talk to Attorney General Bell and talk with Gottlieb?
Senator KENNEDY. And let us know as to the extent of it. I don't see how we can fulfill
our responsibility in this area on the drug testing without our hearing from Gottlieb as well,
but I think it is important that you do so, particularly since all of the materials have been
destroyed.
These other two agents, have they talked to them?
Admiral TURNER. We don't, know who they are, sir. We are trying to track down and
see whether these names can be related to anybody.
Senator KENNEDY. That is under active investigation by the Agency?
Senator KENNEDY. And you have the intention of talking to those people when you
locate them. Is that correct?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir, under the same circumstances as Gottlieb.
Senator KENNEDY. And you have people working on it? Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
-48-
Senator KENNEDY. With regards to the activities that took place in these safe houses, as
I understand from the records, two-way mirrors were used. Is that your understanding?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. We have records that construction was done to put in two-
way mirrors.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.483
977ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 203 of 258
Senator KENNEDY. And they were placed in the bedroom, as I understand.
[Pause.]
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we have documents--
Admiral TURNER. I believe that was in the Church record, but I don't have the details.
Senator KENNEDY. And rather elaborate decorations were added, as I understand, at,
least, to the one in San Francisco, in the bedroom, which are French can-can dancers, floral
pictures, drapery, including installation of bedroom mirrors, three framed Toulouse Lautrec
posters with black silk mats, and a number of other -- red bedroom curtains and recording
equipment, and then a series of documents which were provided to the committee which
indicate a wide proliferation of different cash for $100, generally in the $100 range over
any period of time on the particular checks. Even the names are blocked out, as to the
person who is receiving it. Cash for undercover agents, operating expenses, drinks,
entertainment while administering, and then it is dashed out, and then the other documents,
that would suggest, at least with the signature of your principal agent out there, that "called
to the operation, midnight, and climax."
What can you tell us that it might suggest to you about what techniques were being used by
the Agency in terms of reaching that sort of broad-based group of Americans that were
being evidently enticed for testing in terms of drugs and others? Do you draw ally kind of
conclusion about what might have been going on out there, in these safe houses?
[General laughter.]
Senator KENNEDY. There is a light side to it, but there is also an enormously serious
side. And that is that, at least the techniques which are used or were used in terms of
testing, and trying to find out exactly the range of drugs used and the numbers of people
involved and exactly what that operation was about, as well as the constant reiteration of
the, use of small sums of cash at irregular intervals. A variety of different techniques were
employed but there is an awful lot of documentation putting these matters together.
When you look at the fact that, it is a broad range population that has been tested, tested in
these two areas, with the kind of cash slips that were used in this payment mechanisms and
decorations and all of the rest, we are not able to put a bottom line on it but one thing is for
sure, and that is, Gottlieb knows. That is one thing for sure, because his name appears on
just about every one of these documents, and it is, I think, very important to find out what
his understanding is of the nature of that. So, we will hear more about that.
Admiral TURNER. I believe Gottlieb has been interviewed by the Congress.
Senator KENNEDY. That's right, he has, and in reviewing the record, it is not very
satisfactory, and it just seems with the new information
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.484
978ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 204 of 258
-49-
and the new documentation and the new memoranda -- and he did not have the checks at
that time -- and with the wide variety of different memoranda with his name on it, his
memory could be stimulated on that.
Thank you.
Senator INOUYE. I would like to thank the admiral and his staff for participating in this
hearing. I believe the record should show that this hearing was held at the request of the
Agency and the admiral. It was not held because we insisted upon it. It was a volunteer
effort on the part of the Agency. I think the record should also indicate that Admiral Turner
has forwarded to this committee a classified file, including all of the names of the
institutions and the persons involved as the experimentors.
I should also indicate that this hearing is just one step involved in the committee's
investigation of drug abuse. Just as you have had much work in going over the 8,000
pages, the staff of this committee has had equal problems, but I would like the record to
show that you have made these papers and documents available to the committee. I thank
you for that.
As part of the ongoing investigation, we had intended to call upon many dozens of others,
experimentors, or those officials in charge, and one of those will be Dr. Gottlieb.
In thanking you, I would like to say this to the American people, that what we have
experienced this morning in this committee room is not being duplicated in any other
committee room in any other part of the world. I doubt that very much. Our Agency and
our intelligence community has been under much criticism and has been subjected to much
abuse, in many cases justified, but this is the most open society that I can think of. For
example, in Great Britain there are about six people who are aware of the identity of the
man in charge of intelligence. In other countries, similar conditions exist. Here in the
United States we not only know Admiral Turner, we have had open hearings with him,
such as this. The confirmation hearings were all open.
In a few weeks, the Senate of the United States will debate a resolution to decide upon
whether we should disclose the amounts and funds being used for counterintelligence and
national intelligence. I would hope that, in presenting this issue to the public, the media
will take note that the Agency has cooperated and will continue to. The abuse that we have
learned about this morning is one I hope will never happen again, but without constant
oversight on the part of the Executive Office, on the part of the Congress, it could happen
again. It is important, therefore that we continue in this oversight activity.
So, once, again, Admiral, I thank yon very much for helping us. We will continue to call
upon you for your assistance. We would like to submit to you several questions that the
members and staff have prepared. I hope you will look them over carefully and prepare
responses for the record, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.485
979ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 205 of 258
Senator INOUYE. Yes, sir?
Senator KENNEDY. I, too, want to thank Admiral Turner for his responsiveness. I have
had meetings with him in the committees and also conversations, telephone conversations,
and private meetings, and
-50-
I have found him personally to be extremely responsive, and it is a very difficult challenge
which lie has accepted in heading this Agency. I want you to know, personally, I, too,
would like to see this put behind us. I don't think we are quite there yet in terms of this
particular area that we are interested in. I think the Intelligence Committee has special
responsibilities in this area of the testing, so we look forward to working with you in
expediting the time that we can put it behind, but it does seem to me that we have to dig in
and finish the chapter. So, I want to personally express my appreciation to you, Admiral
Turner, and thank you for your cooperation and your help, and I look forward to working
with you.
Admiral TURNER. Thank you.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure you emphasized this enough, but I
think the record ought to show that Admiral Turner informed the Select Committee on his
own initiative when the new documentation was found. The documentation has been made
available to us voluntarily, in a spirit of cooperation.
I think this shows a vast difference from the mode of operation that existed prior to the
formation at least of the Church committee, and a difference that is very helpful.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Admiral.
We would now like to call upon Mr. Philip Goldman and Mr. John Gittinger.
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Gittinger, will you please rise and take the oath.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I do.
Mr. GITTINGER. I do.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Goldman, will you identify yourself, and after that, Mr. Gittinger.
Senator KENNEDY. Before we start in, we had a third witness, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Pasternac, who planned to testify, traveled to Washington -- he, lives in Washington, and
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.486
980ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 206 of 258
was contacted recently --with the intention of testifying this morning. And something -- he
called us late this morning and indicated that he wanted to get a counsel before he would
wish to testify.
Senator INOUYE. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman, will you identify yourself, sir.
Next: Testimony of Philip Goldman and John Gittinger

Previous: "Truth" Drugs in Interrogation
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.487
981ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 207 of 258
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents

-34-
have.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.488
982ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 208 of 258
on others.

-35-
death.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.489
983ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 209 of 258
circumstances?
that.
of activity.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.490
984ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 210 of 258

-36-
those individuals?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.491
985ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 211 of 258
this point.
were used.
-37-
well.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.492
986ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 212 of 258
indicate?
be.
-38-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.493
987ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 213 of 258
universities.
the project itself.
correct?
on that.

individuals, yes.

selected.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.494
988ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 214 of 258
says:
-39-
supervision of
another deletion.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.495
989ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 215 of 258
classified.
-40-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.496
990ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 216 of 258

disagreeing
-41-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.497
991ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 217 of 258
information.

umbrella.
funded.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.498
992ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 218 of 258
-42-
pressure."

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.499
993ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 219 of 258
question clear?
that is the case.
-43-

you know of any?

the Agency.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.500
994ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 220 of 258

-
will get it to you.

-44-

areas, yes.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.501
995ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 221 of 258
you, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.502
996ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 222 of 258
-45-
done?
Department.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.503
997ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 223 of 258
-46-
about this?
lifetime?
Bell can't agree--

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.504
998ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 224 of 258
-47-
been talked to?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.505
999ofof673
548
1224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 225 of 258
destroyed.
-48-
way mirrors.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.506
1000
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 226 of 258
[Pause.]
[General laughter.]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.507
1001
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 227 of 258
-49-
Thank you.
you for that.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.508
1002
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 228 of 258
-50-
with you.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I do.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.509
1003
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 229 of 258
wish to testify.

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.510
1004
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 230 of 258
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
Table of Contents

-34-
have.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.511
1005
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 231 of 258
on others.

-35-
death.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.512
1006
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 232 of 258
circumstances?
that.
of activity.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.513
1007
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 233 of 258

-36-
those individuals?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.514
1008
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 234 of 258
this point.
were used.
-37-
well.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.515
1009
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 235 of 258
indicate?
be.
-38-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.516
1010
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 236 of 258
universities.
the project itself.
correct?
on that.

individuals, yes.

selected.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.517
1011
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 237 of 258
says:
-39-
supervision of
another deletion.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.518
1012
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 238 of 258
classified.
-40-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.519
1013
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 239 of 258

disagreeing
-41-
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.520
1014
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 240 of 258
information.

umbrella.
funded.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.521
1015
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 241 of 258
-42-
pressure."

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.522
1016
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 242 of 258
question clear?
that is the case.
-43-

you know of any?

the Agency.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.523
1017
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 243 of 258

-
will get it to you.

-44-

areas, yes.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.524
1018
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 244 of 258
you, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.525
1019
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 245 of 258
-45-
done?
Department.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.526
1020
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 246 of 258
-46-
about this?
lifetime?
Bell can't agree--

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.527
1021
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 247 of 258
-47-
been talked to?
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.528
1022
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 248 of 258
destroyed.
-48-
way mirrors.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.529
1023
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 249 of 258
[Pause.]
[General laughter.]
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.530
1024
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 250 of 258
-49-
Thank you.
you for that.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.531
1025
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 251 of 258
-50-
with you.
Mr. GOLDMAN. I do.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.532
1026
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 252 of 258
wish to testify.

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.533
1027
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 253 of 258
Sign the Resolution

1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990
APPENDIX B
Documents Referring To Discovery
Of Additional MKULTRA Material
22 June 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH: Deputy Director for Science and Technology
1. (U/AIUO) This memorandum is to advise you that additional MKULTRA documents

have been discovered and to obtain your approval for follow-on actions required. Paragraph
7 contains a recommended course of action.
2. (U/AIUO) As a result of John Marks FOIA request (F-76-374), all of the MKULTRA
material in OTS possession was reviewed for possible release to him. Following that
review, the OTS material in the Retired Records Center was searched. It was during that
latter search that the subproject files were located among the retired records of the OTS
Budget and Fiscal Section. These files were not discovered earlier as the earlier searches
were limited to the examination of the active and retired records of those branches
considered most likely to have generated or have had access to MKULTRA documents.
Those branches included: Chemistry, Biological, Behavioral Activities, and Contracts
Management. Because Dr. Gottlieb retrieved and destroyed all the MKULTRA documents
he was able to locate, it is not surprising that the earlier search for MKULTRA documents,
directed at areas where they were most likely to be found, was unsuccessful. The purpose of
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.534
1028
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 254 of 258
establishing the MKULTRA mechanism was to limit knowledge of the sensitive work being
performed to those with an absolute need to know. If those precepts had been followed, the
recently found B&F files should have contained only financial and administrative
documents. (In retrospect, I realize that
a serious error was made in not having B&F files and other seemingly innocuous files
searched earlier.) As it happened most of the individual subproject folders contain project
proposals and memoranda for the record, which in varying degrees, give a reasonably
complete picture of the avenues of research funded through MKULTRA. For your
information, the original memorandum setting up MKULTRA, signed by Mr. Dulles, is also
among these documents. A copy of the memorandum is attached.
3. (U/AIUO) At this writing, it does not appear that there is anything in these newly
located files that would indicate the MKULTRA activities were more extensive or more
controversial than indicated by the Senate Select (Church) Committee Report. If anything,
the reverse is true, i.e., most of the nearly 200 subprojects are innocuous. Thus, the
overview of MKULTRA is essentially unchanged. With two exceptions, the project find
fills in some of the missing details.
4. (U/AIUO) One of these exceptions is Subproject Number 45 which concerns an

activity that should have been reported earlier. That project deals with the search for a
knockout drug which was concomitant with, and a by-product of, cancer research at a major
university. It is believed that an objective reading of that project would demonstrate the
search for knockout materials and anesthetics were compatible activities. However, the
research proposal stated that "chemical agents... will be subjected to clinical screening... on
advanced cancer patients".
5. (C) Subproject Number 55 contains full details of CIA's contribution of $375,000 to

the [deletion] Building Fund. The Agency was then involved in drug research programs,
many of which were being conducted by [deletion] whose facilities were inadequate. In
order to facilitate the ongoing research programs, it was decided to expedite the building
program by contributing to it through a mechanism that was also being used to fund some
of the research projects.
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.535
1029
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 255 of 258
The contribution could be controversial in that it was made through a mechanism making it
appear to be a private donation. Private donations qualified for, and [deletion] received, an
equal amount of Federal matching funds. A letter from the Office of General Counsel dated
21 February 1954 attesting to the legality of this funding is in the file.
6. (U/AIUO) The Legislative Counsel has been made aware of the existence of these
additional MKULTRA documents which are still under review and sanitation. The MARKS
case is in litigation and we are committed to advise Mr. Marks of the existence of these files
shortly, and to deliver the releasable material to his attorneys by 31 July. A letter from the
Information and Privacy Staff to Mr. Marks' attorneys informing them of the existence of
this material is in the coordination process and is scheduled to be mailed on 24 June.
7. (U/AIUO) There are now two actions that should be taken:
a. Release appropriately sanitized material to Mr. Marks' attorneys as required by

FOIA litigation.
b. Inform the Senate Select Committee of the existence of the recently located records
prior to informing Mr. Marks' attorneys.
It is recommended that you approve of both of these actions.
8. (U/AIUO) If additional details on the contents of this material are desired, the OIS
officers most familiar with it are prepared to brief you at your convenience.
[signature]
David S. Brandwein
Director
Office of Technical Service
[document ends]
[document begins]
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.536
1030
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 256 of 258

Dear Mr. Chairman:
During the course of 1975 when the Senate Committee, chaired by Senator Church, was
investigating intelligence activities, the CIA was asked to produce documentation on a
program of experimentation with the effect of drugs. Under this project conducted from
1953 to 1964 and known as "MK-ULTRA," tests were conducted on American citizens in
some cases without their knowledge. The CIA, after searching for such documentation,
reported that most of the documents on this matter have been destroyed. I find it my duty to
report to you now that our continuing search for drug related, as well as other documents,
has uncovered certain papers which bear on this matter. Let me hasten to add that I am
persuaded that there was no previous attempt to conceal this material in the original 1975
exploration. The material recently discovered was in the retired archives filed under
financial accounts and only uncovered by using extraordinary and extensive search efforts.
In this connection, incidentally, I have personally commended the employee whose
diligence produced this find.
Because the new material now on hand is primarily of a financial nature, it does not
present a complete picture of the field of drug experimentation activity but it does provide
more detail than was previously available to us. For example, the following types of
activities were undertaken:
a. Possible additional cases of drugs being tested on American citizens, without their
knowledge.
b. Research was undertaken on surreptitious methods of administering drugs.
c. Some of the persons chosen for experimentation were drug addicts or alcoholics.
d. Research into the development of a knockout or "K" drug was performed in

conjunction with being done to develop pain killers for advanced cancer patients, and tests
on such patients were carried out.
e. There is a possibility of an improper payment to a private institution.
The drug related activities described in this newly located material began almost 25 years
ago. I assure you they were discontinued over 10 years ago and do not take place today.
In keeping with the President's commitment to disclose any errors of the Intelligence
Community which are uncovered, I would like to volunteer to testify before your
U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.537
1031
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 257 of 258
Committee on the full details of this unfortunate series of events. I am in the process of
reading the fairly voluminous material involved and do want to be certain that I have a
complete picture when I talk with the Committee. I will be in touch with you next week to
discuss when hearings might be scheduled at the earliest opportunity.
I regret having to bring this issue to your attention, but I know that it is essential to your
oversight procedures that you be kept fully informed in a timely manner.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
STANSFIELD TURNER
[document ends]

U.S. Sponsored
Whistleblower
Mind
IN SUPPORT
Control
of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
PagePage
No.538
1032
ofof
548
6731224 Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
December
September
June
27th17,
of
7, 2017
2016
Page No. 258 of 258
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
!
" #"
!
"#$ %&"'(
) * ++ , - . + * / +,0
/ ,* + ! 1"&&$&&& ! - . /
+,$ ! + - . - * , - ,
$% & ' ' !' ( ) * '

+ %
$% & ' ' !' ) ' , * * *
$% & ' ' !' - . * . . * *
. ' . ' . . * ' '!'
$% & ' .* '& $ / * $ ' 0 '!' ' /
' * $ ' 0 '!' 1 0 ' ** ' ! '
+ $% . ' % ' ! * !' ' 2 '
'
* ' % * 3
4 ' ' '( ) % 5'
' % ( * % * % 6 %! ) 5 '
& ! . % % . 7 % % ' ' ') %
+ !' , % / % / '% - % 6 %! '
1 8% ' . ' ' 9! % : ' '!' *%
/ ' , % % ; .* ' < * % . % ( 7
6 %! ) = 4 '> '* = '
1 ? % % * ' @#< * % ! . % (
$% . ."
! / ., -
! , + 2! . ., = % ! '
A41 ) $086B 9 B B ' .B .B
' : 0$0? $086B ' A4 4 A1> * ' '
! * % * '! ' ) ' ? ' ** ' '
C 1 =>8 4
C 1 . ' % ? ' ' ' A %
) ! & ! . * # % * % % ' '
)D& $A ' ' 8% ' ' ' % * B * B
B ' % %.
C 1 ' '! ' ) ' ? E E
. ' * ' ' E F . ' 'F '
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Intelligence Officers
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.174
539111of
1033 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
C 1 ' % '! ' ) ' ? % ! ' ' ' * ' ' .

' ' ' #7 ' 9=% , : % * ' '
* ' % 0 G 1 * 90 1 ' ' .
0 2 ! % * ' ( , ' ## : & * . * '
' * ' ' % % % % ' * * ' % ' % %
' . ' - = H %
* % ' / . ' =
* % * ; % % % 1 ' *
% * ; '! ' ) ' ? * % '
A . * . % ! ' * 1 > 1 . '
1 . %' '1 1 ! "& . =% , * % 0 1 ' I
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.175
540222of
1034 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
!
" #"
%%$ %&"'
3 4 + 5 , * 67 8 + 8 !
0 % ! % ! * ' ' ! ' . % ' /

#7 ' * % ! . % D % D % J ' ' . J 0
#7 0 % % . 0 G 1 0 1 %
' '* ' 0 2! % * % % ' ' * % 10
' % 6 0 % ' % % ! ' ( , + 0
% ! * ' ' % ! " % % ' %
' ' #* * ' * ' ' %
% ' .
D % D ' ' * % ' % ' * /
% * ' ' '* % & 1 ' % * % % .
% . % ' $% . ! ' ' % ** %
% . ! % ' % .! - . % % $%
' * % % % ; ' . ' * ' . %
' ' % % ' 1 . ' . 0 %
4 6$ * % & $% ' 1 1 * % ! ! % >
1 * ! ' ' ' ) % ' % . ## E
% ' * % ## & + C ' + H * ' % .
' J * % * ' % 4 % /
J ' ' % * $% ' ' % %
.! . ? % )/ % ' % % * # % .
% % * % * ' % > 1
$ / 7 ' ! % >
+ H * % * ' %
)/ % ' . ' ) % / % #
% % % / % 1 .1 *1 $% >
C ' % ' %% % % * ' . ' '
* $% ! ' . % $ " ' . G4 '
, 1 ' ' @7 > ' * ) ! ' !
$% . % J? ' 8 ' , . J ' ' ** * . ** *
) % % 0 % ' ' . ' ** ! . %' % )85 6$
' '! 0 . ' % % . ' % * %
. * % ' . * % ! . % ) %
* ! ). ** ' * % % % '
. % ' % * % % 0 % .
* % % % > 1 % * ' ) . * @ 0 % & +
C ' . ! ! ' ' ' . * ' % /
% * * * . '*
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.176
541333of
1035 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
% ' 0 * ' ' * * % #7 E %

% ' ' '
# ' *# % 0 %
' #7 E
. ## E 0 *
' % % ' % * *
1+A8)E % ' '
% % ' % ' ' ' ! '*
' #7 . * ' ' ' $ . , ! ' % *
' ' ' * 6 K / ' ! ' ' % *
J' ! J $% . % ' % A018 % . .
* ' %* % J? ' 8 ' , . J % '
LLLLLLLLLLLLLF FLLLLLLLLLLL
$ 9
!
*** . + + . ! .
/ /
/ - !! +, 1 6 " @#B " @ B " B "@@ @
, , , - 1 6 " #7@B @" #B " 77B "@
! - , + 1 6 )+ B # )+
9 , - .. + ,1 6 7" B " B " @#
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.177
542444of
1036 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
:: /
$ 9
--
"%;& : .
9 , $ "#'&<
/ + ! 3 #"#=>%'=;<;?
* .!
1 . *
). C 1 ' . ''
0 . . * ' . '' * '
* 0 % ** ' % * ' . *
' % * * . * C 1
0 % ** % 0 % ! ' . & ' ) ' 1 % B '

% ! - ' % * B ' ' % % ! * . ; ' .
'. ! % % ' ; 0 % ** % 0 % ! / '
. 9 '!' . ' :0 % ** % 0% ! '
* 3 9 , + $ . / * , ! + $
+ + $ : + 5 - , $ -- $ , +
-- $ 9 , , $ 9 , -- 0
% ! ' % , + +$ , -- $ 6 + @ -- $
+ ! $ 5 , - . , * 8 A 5
+ $ . ' % * % .! ? .
' ! ; ! . . % ' % ' ' %
* . %
0 % ** % ! ' * . ' % %. .% ' '

. ** . ' ! 0 % ** % . * % ' 0
. 0 / ' . / ' ' . * .
% '
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.178
543555of
1037 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
0 % ! ! * 9 / % -
! * ' ' % . ' % % %
* ' ' . % & ' ! % * % % ' ! '
* ' ' ! ' + *+ * + ! @ " M
' M > 4- 9 & ' % : * 0
% ' % > A % 0 % ! ! ! * % * .
'. .* . . . % ' * % & ' !
' . % . . . ** ' %
' * . . '!' % % ' % % % . '. *
. ' * % ! ' ' $ * % % . '
% % + * + * C $
% 3FF F* F' * F' 'F' L' 'L; L '*B +8+ C $ *
0 '!' ' ? % ! ! % & ' NC 1% * * 1 'O ' % & '
9>> : > % ' > ! ! ! . % ! % '
' * ! . H % H % ' .* ' !
* % B
0 % ** * % ** ' ! ' ; % ' * . '. ' * 0

'' % ! ' . ' % % % . *
' * H * % . 0 ' ; % + * + *
+ ! @ " M ' % % ' % ' * .% % %
% ' % - ' * ' ' % ! % . - % ' '
! ' % . * ' * H $% % '
* 3
"< B / "< "< C / / B 5 / :
/ 99
"< " 9 5 9 /D $% ' - % ; * %
- ' ' . % * * + + $% '
' . - ;
"< % C 9 / : : / "< % " 4- % -
. % ! . ! ! % ; % . - % ;
% . * . ; . 9 ' %. . % '
' ' % * % : . ' % / * ; . % % % ;
' . - ' % ' . !
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.179
544666of
1038 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
"< % % 2! . ' ' % * * + + *

' ' ' % % + +1 * % * * %
% 2 * % ' * % - *
%
"< % < B . , E , % - ' . % % %
& ' 1 A814+&A4 1 4- % ;
' ' . % * * + + . ' / . % %
* ' * % ; ' % ' ' . % + *
> % ' > ! ' % * ' % * * % ;
7
0% . % % * ! % * ./ ' 0 * %
% * % % ' ' ! * %
' 9 : '!' % % % 0 * % . 3
F+ G -- HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH$ --
$ - , + $ - 9 , $ - 9 , $
,$ HHHHHHHHH - HHHHHHHHHHHHHH$ %&HHHH$ - . ! + $
, F! . G HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH$ ! , ++
!! - . $ 6 * . F , ,- + ! - -- 2
, G HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ! , * , . ,
, , , . $ 6 *+ , 2 , . -
! ! , , * ,, -$ , . -- +
, + HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
+ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH .. ,, 2! ,
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.180
545777of
1039 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
KEISLING: Palace coup: what the Kathleen Kane prosecution is really ... http://newslanc.com/2015/12/09/keisling-palace-coup-what-the-kathleen...
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
December 9, 2015 Letters to the Editor, News and Commentary
" "#
$ % $
$ $
!
% &
' $ ( )*$
"# + "#
&
, " # $ +
- . $/ $ 0 1 2
&
, "# " # 3 1
$ 45)4&
6 $
+ $ &
" # !
' $
&
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.181
546888of
1040 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
1 of 4 3/22/2016 2:11 AM
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
"#
$ $
&
3 "# 8
&
)9*5$ "#
& :1
$ )9*5$
" &;
, $ 8
, "#7 !
&
< " #
- $ $ $
+ &
0 $ &
$ $
&3 $ $ "#
&
3 "#
&
3
$ &=
% &
3 $ $ 3
&
"# # $ . $ 6 1
$ &
#
&
3 # "#
. $
+ &
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
PagePage
Page
No.182
547999of
1041 of
ofof
of 113
23
27
231224
183
548
673 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
2 of 4 3/22/2016 2:11 AM
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
MediaGroup
Groupand
3 $ # $ "# .
&. 8
&
$1 " $ $ >: "#; .

$ &?
3 $" & # $
&
>3 # $? " &> &?
( $
"# &
0 $
&
3 $ 8 $
&
$ $
$ &
0 $ $
8 $ 8 &
' &
3 &@ &
. $ " #
8 $ $
8 . 1 $ > ? & #<
&
( A $ $ &# &3 6
"# &
, 8 $# &6
+ &
3 + 8 &
' $ #< # &6

&
B $ &
Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT ofBRIEF
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
17-01233
ControlStan
of Transcripts
Stan
J.Mind
J Caterbone
Caterbone
J. Caterbone
Testimonies
IN SUPPORT re
reOF
Control
of State-of-Affairs
Current
re APPEAL
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
Page Page
Page
Page
Page
No. 10
183
54810
10of
1042 of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
183
548
6731224 TuesdayTuesday,
Saturday
Wednesday
December
Sunday,March
27th22,
September
June 5, 2016
17,
of
7, 2017
3 of 4 3/22/2016 2:11 AM
Published by the Advanced MediaPACTS
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.549
1043
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.550
1044
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.551
1045
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.552
1046
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.553
1047
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.554
1048
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.555
1049
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.556
1050
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.557
1051
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.558
1052
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.559
1053
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.560
1054
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.561
1055
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.562
1056
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.563
1057
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.564
1058
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.565
1059
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.566
1060
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.567
1061
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.568
1062
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.569
1063
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.570
1064
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.571
1065
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.572
1066
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.573
1067
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.574
1068
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.575
1069
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.576
1070
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.577
1071
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.578
1072
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.579
1073
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.580
1074
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.581
1075
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.582
1076
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.583
1077
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.584
1078
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.585
1079
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.586
1080
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.587
1081
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.588
1082
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.589
1083
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.590
1084
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.591
1085
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.592
1086
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.593
1087
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.594
1088
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.595
1089
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.596
1090
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.597
1091
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.598
1092
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.599
1093
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.600
1094
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.601
1095
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.602
1096
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.603
1097
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.604
1098
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.605
1099
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.606
1100
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.607
1101
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.608
1102
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.609
1103
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.610
1104
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.611
1105
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.612
1106
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.613
1107
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.614
1108
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.615
1109
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.616
1110
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.617
1111
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.618
1112
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.619
1113
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.620
1114
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.621
1115
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.622
1116
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.623
1117
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.624
1118
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.625
1119
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.626
1120
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.627
1121
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.628
1122
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.629
1123
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.630
1124
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.631
1125
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.632
1126
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.633
1127
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.634
1128
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.635
1129
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.636
1130
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.637
1131
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.638
1132
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.639
1133
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.640
1134
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.641
1135
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.642
1136
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.643
1137
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.644
1138
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.645
1139
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.646
1140
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.647
1141
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.648
1142
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.649
1143
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.650
1144
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.651
1145
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.652
1146
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.653
1147
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.654
1148
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.655
1149
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.656
1150
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.657
1151
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.658
1152
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.659
1153
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.660
1154
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.661
1155
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.662
1156
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.663
1157
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.664
1158
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.665
1159
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.666
1160
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.667
1161
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.668
1162
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.669
1163
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.670
1164
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.671
1165
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.672
1166
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
Group and
- Testimonials
Stan J. Caterbone
of Targeted
Copyright
Individuals
2016
Whistleblower
IN SUPPORT of OF
Intelligence
APPEAL Officers
Page
Page
No.673
1167
ofof
6731224 Tuesday
Wednesday
December June
27th of
7, 2017
2016
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
Proposed Anti-Stalking Legislation to Pennsylvania General Assembly
Stan J. Caterbone

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-598-2200
November 21, 2016
To: PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATORS

Re: STATE OF AFFAIRS AND FOLLOW-UP TO ANTI-STALKING LEGISLATION EFFORTS
As you many of you know I have been visiting your legislative staff over the past 18 months
on many occasions and distributing materials, including my proposed legislation for more effective
and comprehensive ANTI-STALKING laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Due to the
severity of the HARASSMENT AND TORTURE PROGRAM that I am forced to experience on a daily
basis, and the continued ESCALATION by Lancaster City Residents, Neighbors, Law Enforcement,
Court Staff, Judges, and those of Elected Office, I find that I must again refresh your office staff
with a renewed sense of urgency to hear my pleas for help, and serve as a voice of others that
are victims of the same said crimes, possibly by the same said perpetrators.
In order to UPDATE YOU WITH THE CURRENT-STATE-OF-AFFAIRS I am providing the following

updated documents via links in an effort to remind you of your responsibility to me as your
constituent and to others like me. Please review the following:
1. STAN J. CATERBONE and CONFLICTS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION -

Monday November 14, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/331068312/Stan-J-Caterbone-and-
Conflicts-With-the-Trump-Administration-Monday-November-14-2016

Agencies November 12, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/330869219/False-Imprisonments-and-
Illegal-Interrogations-by-U-S-Intelligence-Agencies-November-12-2016
3. Stan J. Caterbone LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL COURT DOCKET SHEETS as of

November 12, 2016 - https://www.scribd.com/document/330921500/Stan-J-
Caterbone-Local-State-And-Federal-Court-811-Pages-Bookmarks-Docket-Sheets-
as-of-November-12-2016
Stan J. Caterbone
17-01233 BRIEF INExecutive
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1169
1 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
4. FEDS PROBE FULTON BANK and 3 other SUBSIDIARY BANKS of FULTON

FINANCIAL with STAN J. CATERBONE CIVIL ACTIONS and Mind Control Research
of Monday November 7, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/330528930/Feds-Probe-Fulton-Bank-and-
3-Other-Subsidiary-Banks-of-Fulton-Financial-With-Stan-J-Caterbone-Civil-
Actions-and-Mind-Control-Research-of-Monday-Novem
5. U.S. SUPREME COURT DOCKET, U.S. SUPREME COURT PEITIION, AND Letter
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION of the Sentence of Lisa Michell Lambert to
President Obama, November 15, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/331393349/Supreme-Court-of-the-United-
States-Case-No-16-8822-DOCKET-and-COMMUTATION-LETTER-to-OBAMA-Re-
CATERBONE-v-Allison-Hallet-Re-Lisa-Lambert-Habeus-Nove
Respectfully,
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1170
2 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
ACTIVE COURT CASES
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa
Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen
Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for
Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219
Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1171
3 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, LTD.,
&
STAN J. CATERBONE
Federal Whistleblower (Federal False Claims Act Violation in 1987 re ISC)
Targeted Individual of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
copyright 2009
Ya know what, I am beginning to analyze this War on Terror and am having difficulty understanding
it all. To me the most effective fundamental fight against Extreme Terrorism is to reduce the motive; or the
Hatred Against America. No one seems to talk about that subject. How do we reduce that Hatred Towards
America and the West?
See, from my perspective, my situation is very disturbing. I mean we have the United States Torturing Me, a
U.S. Citizen for no good or valid reason. I have warned EVERYONE about using my situation to feed this
HATRED towards America.
Low and behold a week or so ago I have had several Muslims sign up as Followers to my
www.scribd.com/amgroup01 online webspace, which I use to post documents. The following being the most
prominent IKWAN Scope, "The Largest Muslim Brotherhood's Scope on the Web":
http://ikhwanscope.net/main/
There have also been several Muslim individuals who signed up as followers around the same time, a week
or so ago. They have also signed up as followers on my www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone webspace.
You must understand, I am a VERY Patriotic Person and live a very patriotic life - I believe in the
U.S. Constitution and Our Founding Father's vision for America; I support Our Military and our
Troops; I believe in the Rule of Law; I am a Practicing Catholic, and have been my whole life; I
Believe in the TRUTH; I believe in Right v. Wrong; Good v. Evil; and finally I believe in God. What
do you believe in?
Posted on the Yahoo Fulton Bank Stock Message Board, January 7, 2010
Date Updated: October 10, 2015

Date Completed: July 28, 2009
Date Initiated: July 8, 2009
Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
scaterbone@live.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1172
4 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
UDATE OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2015
In 2015 Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group had to again return to local,
state, and federal courts. Again the obstruction of due process, the local gang stalking, torture,
trespass, thefts, and the like began in earnest. From the fabricated Petition for Involuntary
Psychiatric Commitment of April 2010 by Detective Clark Bearinger, until January of 2015, Stan J.
Caterbone and Advanced Media Group had been in seclusion and in a state of rehabilitation and
rest due to the forced medication by Fairmount Behavioral Hospital and Dr. Silvia Gratz. The
psychotropic drugs reduce your motor skills and put you in an extreme state of confusion. By
the end of the summer of 2010 every social media site, including the
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com website was taken off-line due to the intimidation and
coercion by Detective Clark Bearinger.
In May Stan J. Caterbone had again endured the Attacks and Torture from the
employees of the Lancaster County Courthouse, and the Lancaster County Government Building.
Then soon after the Residents of Lancaster County engaged in a massive Organized Stalking
Campaign. In addition an extreme Computer Hacking Campaign was initiated and executed in
an effort to again SILENCE Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group. And Again, the
Lancaster City Police Department took the lead role. As usual Stan J. Caterbone summoned state
and federal authorities for help and assistance, including direct communications with the White
House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and
Kathleen Kane, The Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, several U.S.
Congressmen, and of course the Lancaster County District Attorney's Office. Since August 1,
2015 the Geek Squad had performed diagnostics and repairs six (6) times due to computer
hacking. On at least 2 occasions the entire hard drive had to be wiped clean and restored.
On June 23, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone was named MOVANT in the 2014 Habeus
Corpus Petition by Lisa Michelle Lambert, Case No. 14:02559 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after filing an Amicus on the case. Judge Paul
Diamond was presiding since it's filing in 2014. However, the Petition was not able to
be granted and the case was stalled on jurisdictional law based on new and compelling
evidence, or lack there of. The Amicus was filed to cure that deficiency with direct
witness corroboration to the Prosecutorial Misconduct and Innocence of Lisa Michelle
Lambert. In fact a working theory was filed that suggested that the East Lampeter
Police Department engaged in a strategy of Entrapment that lead to the unfortunate
murder in 1991. This, would of course, allow a wrongful death claim to be filed by the
Show family. The case is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 15-
3400. There are three (3) questions that the Third Circuit may rule on; whether to free
Lisa Michelle Lambert, or grant her her Habeus Corpus, and whether to grant Summary
Judgment to Stan J. Caterbone in all civil actions in both state and federal courts.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1173
5 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
Two weeks later, on July 9, 2015, Detective Clark Bearinger filed another fabricated
Petition for Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment. And again Stan J. Caterbone endured 7 days in
the Fairmount Behavioral Hospital in Philadelphia. However, this time there was no MANDATORY
Treatment Program Ordered by the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. So Stan J.
Caterbone continued filing in the courts for assistance and resolution. In August, in a desperate
attempt to stop the local torture campaign, another Emergency Injunction was filed in the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. On August 6, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone went so far as
to undertake a Professional Polygraph Test administered by Bonnie Lee of Polygraph Solutions of
West Chester, Pennsylvania. The test ended up being 4 grueling hours of torture and a scam of
$600.00.
On July 9th , 2015 a Private Criminal Complaint was filed against Detective Clark Bearinger,
Officer Williams, Officer Binderup, and 2 unidentified patrolman. The Complaint contained
allegations of torture and abuse at every moment of contact. The Lancaster City Police
Department were so desperate for retaliation from the Amicus filing in the Lisa Michelle Lambert
case, that they actually broke the door in of 1250 Fremont Street in order to execute the
fabricated 302 petition. The Complaint was denied by the Lancaster County District Attorney on
August 8th . The Complaint is now under a Petition for Review by the Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas.
On August 17, 2015 another Emergency Injunction for Relief was filed in the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 15-06985. The Injunction was heard by Judge Jeffrey
Wright, who dismissed it as frivolous. An appeal, MD 1561, is pending in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.
In addition, by September 26, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone had been granted Electronic Filing
Privileges in the local, state, and federal courts. This should alleviate the fraud and abuses of the
U.S. Postal Service and the computer hackers.
In 2015 Stan J. Caterbone identifies a trend that suggests that the Lancaster County
community-at-large was subject to either community targeting or community hypnosis. The
community targeting theory is supported by experts Jullianne McKinney, Cheryl Welsh, and Dr.
John Hall. The community hypnosis theory is supported by direct personal relationships with the
Amazing Kreskin, Samuel P. Caterbone and Stan J. Caterbone.
In September of 2015 Stan J. Caterbone begins to digitize a library of approximately 45

audio cassette tapes from his father, Samuel P. Caterbone. The tapes range in date from 1971 to
1996. The tapes prove an identical targeting campaign against both Samuel P. Caterbone and
17-01233
Stan J. Caterbone
BRIEF INExecutive
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1174
6 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
Stan J. Caterbone. In addition the tapes confirm that Steven P. Caterbone, brother of Stan J.
Caterbone, was most likely a target dating back to the early 1960's. In addition, the death of
Samuel P. Caterbone on July 20, 2001 was confirmed to be that of murder, not natural causes.
In the early 1990's Dr. Phillip Caterbone, brother, had been solicited by the National
Institute of Health, or NIH in Washington, D.C., for a fellowship to research and catalog a study to
find a genetic marker for depression in the CATERBONE family. Phil interviewed all living
descendants and relatives of my father, Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., and took blood samples. I am
alleging that this was a deliberate act to continue the cover story of mental illness to distract and
provide plausible deniability for any linkage to U.S. Sponsored Mind Control.
HISTORY
In 1987 Stan J. Caterbone went public with allegations of fraud within International Signal
and Control, or ISC as they were commonly referred. After discussions with ISC and United
Chem Con officials (an ISC/James Guerin straw company), and as a shareholder of record since
1983 of ISC, Stan J. Caterbone had a meeting with an ISC executive on June 23, 1987, which
resulted in a 22 year legal odyssey. The discussions involved a joint venture with his company,
Financial Management Group, Ltd., or FMG, Ltd., but ended in disclosure of his recent public
allegations of fraud. Four years later, ISC founder and chairman James Guerin, and other officials
and companies pleaded guilty to a $1 Billion Dollar Fraud and export violations including the
selling of arms through South Africa to Iraq and Sadaam Hussein. However, money, power,
influence and public corruption had been used to cover-up the activities and Federal False Claims
Act violations of Stan J. Caterbone for the next eighteen years. There ensued a total blockade of
all United States Courts for all redress and remedy available in accordance with federal, state, and
local laws. This included recovery of his business interests; intellectual property; real estate;
personal and business real property; his unblemished and impressive reputation; and his most
valuable asset - the ability to produce income. This might be legally referred to as the Right-To-
Work under federal statutes. Notwithstanding, Stan J. Caterbone has never made a bad
investment or developed a business that did not make a profit over the next 22 years. This
includes two real estate properties that were illegally seized through foreclosure proceedings.
Since 1987 Stan J. Caterbone has been a prisoner and enemy of the state. ISC was a
Department of Defense (DOD) Contractor and a partner with United States Intelligence Agencies
since it's beginings in the early 1970's. One of it's first contracts was Project X with the National
Security Agency or NSA of Ft. Meade, Maryland.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1175
7 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
In summary, the following are facts and part of the public record regarding INTERNATIONAL
SIGNAL & CONTROL OR ISC:
Once the third (3rd) largest employer in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
with over 5,000 employees.
James Guerin, founder and CEO was once the largest philanthropist to
charitable organizations in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
The ISC/Ferranti Scandal was the third (3) largest white-collar fraud within the
United States as of 1992.
The following are some of the public officials and politicians associated with ISC:
George H.W. Bush, former U.S. President, and Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Robert Gates, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and
current Secretary of Defense.
Bobby Ray Inman, former Board of Directors if ISC, former Director of the NSA,
and currently associated and directly involved with Mind Control Research
organizations.
Alexander Haig, former U.S. Secretary of State, and ISC lobbyist and Board of
Directors?
Joseph McDade, former Pennsylvania House of Representative and Chair of the

Appropriations Committee who was later investigated for the United Chem Con
scandal.
Carlos Cardoen/Cardoen Industries, a joint venture partner with ISC and arms
merchant for the cluster bomb who eventually sold to Iraq and other Middle Eastern
Countries under U.S. Sanctions. ISC was credited with the design of the cluster
bomb, and has patents filed in the U.S. Patent Office.In 1987 ISC completed the
merger with the 3rd largest defense contractor of Great Britain, Ferranti
International; who paid $1 billion dollars for ISC and all of it's subsidiaries.
ABC News/Financial Times aired 3 episodes on ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel
regarding the ISC/CIA defense weapons; technologies; and cluster bombs to Iraq
story and lead into the allegations that then nominee for the Director of CIA Robert
Gates was involved with ISC and the selling of arms to Iraq.
ABC News 20/20 aired a story on the ISC/CIA efforts to sell cluster bombs to
Saadam Hussein and Iraq on February 1, 1991 days after the start of the Persian
Gulf War I, with the initial bombing raid destroying a cluster bomb factory built in
Iraq by Carlos Cardoen. On July 1st and 2nd of 1987 Stan J. Caterbone solicited
the legal counsel of Lancaster Attorney Joseph Roda for counsel regarding, FMG,
Ltd., International Signal & Control (ISC); Commonwealth Bank, etc., and was
billed for his services. Joseph Roda did absolutely nothing but refute Stan J.
Caterbone's claims and would not believe him.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas),

Lancaster Attorney Joseph Roda represented William Clark, ISC's in-house legal
counsel, and never mentioned any conflict to Stan J. Caterbone in 1987.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1176
8 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
James Guerin deposited $1.75 million dollars into an escrow account at Fulton
Bank, Lancaster, County.

Christopher Underhill of Harman, Underhill & Brubaker, represented James
Guerin. In 2005 Christopher Underhill represented the Manheim Township Police
Department (05-cv-2288 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al.,.

Philadelphia Attorney Joseph Tate represented James Guerin and ISC, and in 2007
Joseph Tate represented Scooter Libby during his federal prosecution by U.S.
Special Prosecutor Fitzpatrick.
THE MANIFEST OF A COVER-UP

Not only did the allegations of fraud within ISC have to be silenced at a time when merger
negotiations were ongoing with Ferranti, but all of the fraud; extortion; public corruption;
burglaries; civil rights violations; anti-trust and intellectual property right violations; lender
liability torts; false arrests; false imprisonments; as well as other civil and criminal activities had
to be covered up and buried in bureaucratic red tape. Information and findings are still being
uncovered and discovered to this day. Contrary to popular belief, up until 1996 a grand jury
investigation into ISC was still ongoing. It is not known whether it has closed or not. All of these
activates constitute a RICO crime due to the pattern and organization of the perpetrators. The
pattern and source of the activities can be traced back to 1987, with subgroups changing over
time, but still engaging in the same practices. The following plan of action was followed in order
to perpetrate the cover-up:
Totally discredit Stan(ley) J. Caterbone and any and all allegations in every
way possible.
Fabricate a history of mental illness.
Fabricate a criminal record.
Attach his character and honesty with rumors and propaganda.
Extort and maintain his net worth to $ zero or load him with debts.
Keep him out of any profession and or occupation when and where
possible.
Totally isolate him and disenfranchise him from his friends, colleagues, and
family into a life of solitaire.
Somehow persuade the community of Lancaster County to buy into this

plan of action through money, favors, etc.,
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1177
9 of 56
of 1224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
Always keep attorneys and anyone remotely involved with the legal
community away at times when efforts for justice are pursued.
When attempts to enter the U.S. legal system arise, isolate, harass, and
extort any monies and/or possessions of value.
Change the history of events and the truth.
THE COURTS AND THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM
For 18 years, (from 1987 until 2005) it has always been fairly easy to keep these issues
from court dockets and judges. During these years Stan J. Caterbone had solicited at least
twenty attorneys, some from large firms with national recognition in their respective fields of
specialties. Attorneys from New York City to Santa Barbara and San Diego California were visited
and consulted as well as a group of ex FBI agents who specialized in white collar crime that are
now globally recognized. However, the money and influence of persons and entities that wanted
these issues silence always prevailed. The issues were so complex and convoluted, and involved
such high profile politicians and U.S. agencies, it was far easier to state that there was no case, or
their were no claims that would result in remedy or redress. Between the Republican Party and
the Department of Defense, the CIA and the NSA, there was not an attorney that could not be
influenced. The obstruction of justice and due process in this case is most likely unprecedented in
nature and in malice.
However in 2005 that all changed when Stan J. Caterbone appeared as a pro se litigant
representing himself, without any counsel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in CATERBONE v. The Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or case no. 05-cv-
2288. This case is still not settled and has been withdrawn by plaintiff Stan J.
Caterbone in October of 2008 after a successful ruling in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals (07-4474) in September of 2008. The case will be continued upon the security
of evidence and the cease and desist of obstruction of justice and due process. On May
16, 2005 at the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia, Stan J. Caterbone filed the case under seal.
One week later in the United States Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Reading,
Pennsylvania, again appearing as pro se, Stan J. Caterbone filed a petition for protection under
the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code, in case no. 05-23059.
These acts of entering the United States legal system with these issues triggered yet
another round of attempts to keep these cases from the courts and judges - Organized Stalking
with Directed Energy Devices and Weapons, built on a foundation of mental telepathy or total
Mind Control.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1178
10 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
REMOTE VIEWING; ORGANIZED STALKING; DIRECTED ENERGY DEVICES AND
WEAPONS.
Organized stalking and harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of fraud
within ISC. This organized stalking and harassment was enough to drive an ordinary person to
suicide. As far back as the late 1980's Stan J. Caterbone knew that his mind was being read, or
"remotely viewed". This was verified and confirmed when information only known to him, and
never written, spoken, or typed, was repeated by others. In 1998, while soliciting the counsel of
Philadelphia attorney Christina Rainville, (Rainville represented Lisa Michelle Lambert in the Laurie
Show murder case), someone introduced the term remote viewing through an email. That was
the last time it was an issue until 2005. The term was researched, but that was the extent of the
topic. Remote Viewers may have attempted to connect in a more direct and continuous way
without success.
In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control turned into an all-out assault of mental
telepathy; synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices
and weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted victim.
This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action
in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288. This
assault began after the handlers remotely trained Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The
main difference opposed to most other victims of this technology is that Stan J. Caterbone is
connected 24/7 with a person who declares that she is Interscope recording artist Sheryl Crow of
Kennett Missouri. Stan J. Caterbone has spent 3 years trying to validate and confirm this person
without success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment. See attached documents for
more information.
In 2006 or the beginning of 2007 Stan J. Caterbone began his extensive research into
mental telepathy; mind control technologies; remote viewing; and the CIA mind control program
labeled MK ULTRA and it's subprograms.
FAMILY HISTORY
If you listen to the propaganda machine and the community of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, including professionals, the family history of Stan J. Caterbone goes something like
the following:
Father, Samuel Caterbone, Jr., Schizophrenic who ran out on his family
because of nervous breakdowns while trying to run a small dry cleaning business.
He traveled the world looking for the Blessed Mother Mary and Space Aliens. He
ended up living in government subsidized housing broke and with a severe mental
illness.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1179
11 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
Brother, Samuel A. Caterbone, suffered from the very same illness has
his father, Schizophrenia, who finally killed himself trying to live in California.
Brother, Thomas W. Caterbone, suffered from the very same mental

illness as his brother, Stan J., Bipolar Mood Disorder, who ran a lawn
business and finally committed suicide at an early age.
Stan J. Caterbone, suffered from Bipolar Mood Disorder, or Manic

Depression and had a nervous breakdown in 1987 trying to compete in the
financial services industry. When he has his nervous breakdowns, he always
threatens to sue everyone in court and is deeply paranoid in thinking the
whole world is against him. He always spends all of his money during his fits
of mania and has delusions about his success as a businessman.
The Family History was formulated back in the 1960's when Samuel Caterbone, Jr.,
father of Stan J. Caterbone, became engaged in a black budget mind control program that began
during his service in the United States Navy as a radioman and air gunner. Samuel Caterbone,
Jr., was most likely a direct product of MK ULTRA or one of it's subprograms. His brother, Samuel
A. Caterbone, was most likely part of the LSD experiments of MK ULTRA. Stan J. Caterbone is
most likely part of a program sponsored by the Department of Defense Agencies, such as DARPA
or the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The facts of Stan J. Caterbone's intimate discussions
with both his father and brother over the years before they died, the totality of documents that
were preserved in their estate, including service records; letters; official court papers; high school
documents; and the like - all will prove that they were in fact part of MK ULTRA or one of it's
subprograms.
The following are the facts and the real record of the family history:
Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., (Father) served in the Navy from 1943 to 1946 and
graduated with honors from Air Gunners School in Jacksonville, Florida, which by the
MANUAL depicts a Special Ops type of service recruiting only the most physically and
mentally fit of all of the branches of service. I have secured his ENTIRE NAVY RECORD
WITH JOURNALS AND PHOTO ALBUMS in safety deposit boxes. He was an exceptional
student/athlete while attending Lancaster Catholic High School, participating in the band as well
as sports. He was also his senior class secretary/treasurer. After the Navy, he went on to build a
successful dry cleaning business, which he is credited with inventing a filtration system for the
solvents. He also developed a very good investment in real estate along the Manheim Pike,
owning several properties. By his own writings, A NOTARIZED AFFADAVIT FROM 1996,
and from his personal accounts to me, he was a victim of SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY and
possibly a COVERT CARRIER as proven by his 3 PASSPORTS which depict him traveling
the world visiting countries like Hong Kong, Lispin, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Canada,
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1180
12 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
France, etc. The PASSPORTS ARE SECURED IN MY SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES. His viewing
is documented to have begun back in the early 1970's. He also suffered from organized stalking,
and was considered an enemy and prisoner of the state. Back in the 1960's, he was a world
traveler, this is documented by his passports. Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., may have been a covert
carrier for someone in intelligence. Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., had his mental health history laced
with electro shock therapy. Electro Shock Therapy Experiments is another subprogram of MK
ULTRA. In addition, and especially disturbing is his criminal record with the Lancaster City Police
Department and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. In 1973 Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr.
was convicted of forging a 2 checks from the Caterbone Cleaners, Inc., checking account. The
one check to Joe the Motorists Store at the Manor Shopping Center was never entered into
evidence, it was for a total of $70.00. The other check was made out to Lancaster Attorney
James Coho for $200.00 with "divorce proceedings" written in the memo. This was his only
criminal record. Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., was sentenced to one year probation by President
Judge William Johnstone. However, on August 29, 1973 after nine months, Judge Johnstone
wrote an ORDER releasing him from probation and ordering him to "leave the vicinity of the
County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania". The President Judge of Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas literally threw my father out of Lancaster County for forging 2 checks from his own
corporation. In 1987 I was arrested for stealing my own files from my own company, Financial
Management Group, Ltd., You can research the life of Candy Jones and Kate O'Brien to learn more
on this topic. Samuel Caterbone, Jr., has left enough writings and documentation to know that his
life fits the model for targeted individuals, complete with economic ruin, isolation, disenfranchised
from family and friends, and of course a fabricated mental illness history. You can view most of
his record online. On or about May 18, 2001 Samuel P. Caterbone Jr., finally received an
inheritance from his mother's (Mary Caterbone) estate. The check was for some $70,000.00.
The estate was probated in November of 2000. Some two weeks later, on Memorial Day Weekend
of 2001, he had called me to come to New York City to help care for him. He was in perfect
health until this time. In a matter of six (6) weeks he had succumbed to lung cancer. As per
Julianne McKinney, former intelligence officer for the U.S. Army and victim activist of U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control, the weapons are lethal enough to kill and the one thing that I worry
about is that of dying of cancer (paraphrase). There is no doubt now that my father's death was
a murder, not natural.
Samuel A. Caterbone, (Brother) served in the United States Air Force in 1968 to 1970.
In 1991, Stan J. Caterbone accused the United States Government of using his brother, Samuel
A. Caterbone for part of the LSD experiments on mind control, or MK ULTRA. A notarized letter of
October 23, 1991 was sent certified mail to the California Attorney General on the subject matter,
with a return letter from the California Attorney General on January 14, 1992. By his own
admission before his death, Samuel A. Caterbone disclosed to Stan J. Caterbone of the "bad LSD"
trips while in the Air Force. Since his death of December 25, 1984, Stan J. Caterbone and others
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1181
13 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
questioned the classification of suicide, and made allegations of foul play that was ultimately
responsible for his death. Finally in a meeting in Santa Barbara, California with the Santa Barbara
Public Guardian's Office, an office admitted that the death was more likely due to foul plan than
suicide. Samuel A. Caterbone was also an exceptional student and athlete while attending
Lancaster Catholic High School. After playing varsity football as a sophomore, he had an
unfortunate accident while deer hunting the following November. While in the woods in
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, his hunting pants caught fire trying to stay warm. It left him in the
Lancaster General Hospital for months, going through painful skin grafts and isolation. The
hunting accident interrupted his athletic career and scared his legs for life. The Schizophrenia
diagnosis was a combination of LSD flashbacks and organized stalking and harassment.
Thomas P. Caterbone, (Brother) had an unfortunate transaction at Fulton Bank that set
a course of action that resulted in a suicide. Although diagnosed with Bipolar Disease and Manic
Depression -- embezzled and extorted monies were most likely the reason for his suicide in 1996.
THE PROBLEM WITH TOMMY'S DEATH IS THAT HE DIED ON KILL DEVIL ISLAND, NORTH
CAROLINA AND MY BROTHER SAMMY WAS MURDERED ON CHRISTMAS DAY OF 1984,
WHICH SUGGESTS SOME SORT OF ATHEIST THEME. Fulton Bank was involved in a fraud that
took $72,000 from a real estate settlement closing and lead to his total financial ruin and collapse
in June of 1995. The funds were never recovered and Fulton Bank is a defendant for a wrongful
death claim in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., 05-cv-2288. FULTON BANK triggered a severe
and lethal death blow to Thomas P. Caterbone, and as of this day has refused to acknowledge any
wrongdoing or remorse. Thomas P. Caterbone was also an exceptional athlete. Playing for
Lancaster Catholic High School, Franklin and Marshall College, the Harrisburg Patriots, and even
the Philadelphia Eagles. Tom also coached football at J.P. McCaskey and Franklin and Marshall
College. Thomas P. Caterbone had a very successful lawn and landscaping business before joining
forces with John DePatto of United Financial Services and selling residential mortgages. John
DePatto was the former head of Parent Bank, owned by James Guerin and ISC. Parent Bank,
owned by ISC also foreclosed on 2323 New Danville Pike, Conestoga, Pennsylvania in 1988, which
was owned by Stan J. Caterbone. Thousands of dollars of equity was extorted in the process,
despite still being short sold for a profit to Mr. Keith Kirchner, an executive of Lancaster
Newspapers and former graduate of Lancaster Catholic High School.
Stan J. Caterbone is a remote viewer (at least one way in), is telepathic, and a
federal whistleblower with an exceptional entrepreneurial record in spite of all of his adversaries
and their assaults. In spite of the U.S. Sponsored mind control and torture, he has endured and
will prevail. Legally, Stan J. Caterbone has been able to preserve his claims, and progress his
legal challenges and claims through both the federal and state court system appearing pro se,
without the aid or expense of additional legal counsel. Some of his claims and briefs will most
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1182
14 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
likely be landmark decisions in years to come. Stan J. Caterbone was a 2-Sport MVP at Lancaster
Catholic High School, in both football and track. Stan J. Caterbone never received less than a B
grade in his four years of high school and had an 87+ average. Stan J. Caterbone excelled in
computer technologies, taking his first full term course in 1975, while in high school and
continuing into college at Millersville University, graduating with a degree in business
administration in 1980. Stan J. Caterbone excelled profoundly at building his companies, first
beginning with Financial Management Group, Ltd., then working with Tony Bongiovi of Power
Station Studios and the "Digital Movie"; then building Advanced Media Group, Ltd.. Over the
years, despite the illegal seizures and foreclosures, Stan J. Caterbone has amassed a portfolio of
impressive real estate deals that have always paid off in profits, no matter how or when they
were sold. The same was true of his businesses. Financial Management Group, Ltd., was a
$20,000 dollar investment in 1986 and was still sold for approximately $100,000 two years later,
despite the false arrests and the extortion of most of it's real value and equity.
The mental health history and the criminal records were completely fabricated, and a
close review and investigation into the actual court records and hospital records can prove that in
very short fashion. There are TWO (2) ways to quickly dispute the Mental Health History and
Record:
One - Review the word "Delusional; delusions; etc.,; every instance of the word
used by mental health professionals, and the false reports by friends and family were associated
with facts, and matters of the official record, the complete opposite of the meaning of the word
"delusional". And they still exist to this very day.
Two - Review the 3 Fabricated Suicide Allegations of the following dates: August
10(?), 1987 at Burdette Tomlin Hospital (Cape May County New Jersey); February 18th(?), 2005
by Kerry Egan and the Southern Regional Police Department; and July 19, 2009 for the 302
Commitment by the Lancaster City Police Department at Lancaster General Hospital.
The Criminal Record is very similar, since 1987 Stanley J. Caterbone has had 31 false
arrests; formal charges and convictions dismissed prior to court proceedings or won on summary
appeals in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania; most of which Stan J. Caterbone appearing as
pro se (representing himself). These have resulted in civil complaints filed in 2008 in CATERBONE
v. The County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
THE PUBLIC RECORD

The Public Record is comprised of court filings and exhibits in U.S. Federal Courts;
Pennsylvania State Courts; and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. In all some 40,000
pages of documents are now filed and electronically scanned or microfilmed in prothonotary
offices. In addition in both the U.S. Federal Courts and the Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas there are more than 11 hours of audio recordings; some 3,000 scanned images; and
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1183
15 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
several video broadcasts of the ISC News broadcasts all stored on a CD-ROM and filed as an
exhibit to some of the law suits filed by Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group, as
plaintiffs. Stan J. Caterbone has over 100 court docket sheet numbers in federal, state, and local
courts.
There are also Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation records; Department of Welfare

and Lancaster County Assistance Office records; Local Real Estate Tax records; Lancaster County
Tax Assessment records; Social Security Administration Benefits records; Lancaster Catholic High
School transcripts; Millersville University transcripts; all for Stan J. Caterbone, in addition to his
court filings.
For Samuel A. Caterbone, my brother, there are United States Air Force service
records; Lancaster Catholic High School transcripts; Millersville University transcripts; Social
Security Administration records; Santa Barbara County Guardian and Public Defender records;
and papers and documents persevered from his estate.
For Samuel P. Caterbone, my father, there are United States Naval records, Lancaster
Catholic High School transcripts; Social Security Administration records; Lancaster County
Assistance Office records; Local Real Estate Tax records; Lancaster County Tax Assessment
records; Samuel Caterbone Cleaners, Inc., corporate records; Real Estate Deeds and Mortgages;
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas civil and criminal records; and of course papers and
documents persevered from his estate
PUBLIC WEBSITE ADDRESSES OF INTEREST:
6. STAN J. CATERBONE and CONFLICTS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION -

Monday November 14, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/331068312/Stan-J-Caterbone-and-
Conflicts-With-the-Trump-Administration-Monday-November-14-2016

Agencies November 12, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/330869219/False-Imprisonments-and-
Illegal-Interrogations-by-U-S-Intelligence-Agencies-November-12-2016
8. Stan J. Caterbone LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL COURT DOCKET SHEETS as of

November 12, 2016 - https://www.scribd.com/document/330921500/Stan-J-
Caterbone-Local-State-And-Federal-Court-811-Pages-Bookmarks-Docket-Sheets-
as-of-November-12-2016
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1184
16 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
9. FEDS PROBE FULTON BANK and 3 other SUBSIDIARY BANKS of FULTON

FINANCIAL with STAN J. CATERBONE CIVIL ACTIONS and Mind Control Research
of Monday November 7, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/330528930/Feds-Probe-Fulton-Bank-and-
3-Other-Subsidiary-Banks-of-Fulton-Financial-With-Stan-J-Caterbone-Civil-
Actions-and-Mind-Control-Research-of-Monday-Novem
10.U.S. SUPREME COURT DOCKET, U.S. SUPREME COURT PEITIION, AND Letter
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION of the Sentence of Lisa Michell Lambert to
President Obama, November 15, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/331393349/Supreme-Court-of-the-United-
States-Case-No-16-8822-DOCKET-and-COMMUTATION-LETTER-to-OBAMA-Re-
CATERBONE-v-Allison-Hallet-Re-Lisa-Lambert-Habeus-Nove
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1185
17 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED FOR REVIEW
** It is important to note that as of this writing, Remote Viewing AND the use of
Mind Control for the purpose of controlling everything from prosthetic limbs to cars
with the human mind has recently been commercialized by corporate America, and
certain Fortune 500 companies. For years corporations have been using Remote
Viewers as consultants for trend analysis and market forecasts.. FACEBOOK is even
known to have researched and possibly developed technologies that are intended to
connect it's billions of users, via Mind Control Techniques. This is often the evolution
of most technologies born out of the U.S. Department of Defense. Top Secret
experiments and the resulting technological advancements can stay secretive for so
long. This has recently been used in a NBC story of the Television drama "Medium" this
last season. On July 9, 2008 I had recorded an AM radio live broadcast on WHAN Coast
to Coast with a guest that was one of the leading Physicist turned Remote Viewer and
expert that testified to this same notion.
Dated: November 21, 2016

Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
The following are no longer in service:
www.advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com
www.scribd.com/amgroup01
www.facebook.com/scaterbone
www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone
www.mcvictimsworld.ning.com/profile/StanJCaterbone
http://www.youtube.com/advancedmediagroup
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1186
18 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
September 7, 2009
Stan J. Caterbone
Advance Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
Derrick Robinson
Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance
P.O. Box 9022
Cincinnati, Ohio 45209
Phone 1-800-571-5618
Fax 1-866-433-4170
email: info@freedomfchs.com
Re: Is County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania Ground Zero for Organized Stalking and
Covert Surveillance?
Derrick,
My pleasure. Derrick, I was trying to get group rates at our new Lancaster Convention Center
Marriot Hotel last week, just as a little fact finding mission. I have a theory that I would like to
send your way. I thought it would be very fruitful to bring some TI's together for a conference,
unless you think the exposure would be harmful.
I believe that they try new models for harassment; organized stalking and surveillance on me
here in Lancaster. Remember, Lancaster is now one of the most "Watched Communities" in the
country. "With those cameras, the Safety Coalition will operate and monitor 165 cameras across
Lancaster City making Lancaster the most watched city of its size in the nation." See article
attached, Watching you: City to add 105 more cameras.
I believe that Lancaster may be ground zero for some of the models of organized stalking and
harassment that we TI's experience and wanted to get some reaction from Lancaster. Some
history on the Lancaster Convention Center. Dale High of High Industries is the lead partner in our
new convention center/hotel. It is first class all the way. Now in the late 1980's I was a joint
venture partner with Dale High in American Helix Technology Company/Advanced Media Group.
American Helix was a cd manufacturer and I and my company Advanced Media Group was the
CD-ROM division of American Helix. I was one of a handful of CD-ROM manufacturers in the
domestic United States back then. Also in 2005 I filed a civil action against the lead hotel, the
Eden Resort Inn, for trying to block the development and building of the Hotel/Convention Center,
see attached.
Now, some history about Lancaster and the intelligence community. Back in the 1980's there were
several defense contractors located in Lancaster, the main being International Signal & Control,
which I, of course, blew the whistle on a billion dollar fraud and arms to Iraq.
Click here for an overview of ISC.
Click here to see the Lancaster Newspapers Archives regarding International Signal & Control, or
ISC.
Click here to view the live video of the WGAL-TV News Broadcast of October 31, 1991 the evening
of the ISC indictments. The U.S. Department of Justice and other U.S. Agencies held a Press
Conference in the Philadelphia Federal Courthouse to announce the indictments and $ Billion
Dollar Fraud.
Click here for Part 2 of the WGAL-TV 8 Broadcast.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1187
19 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
Now politically, Lancaster is and has always been predominately Republican. Lancaster is one of
the oldest cities in the country and our courthouse was one of the first in this country. Lancaster
has one of the oldest fraternities of the Masons. Lancaster and the George W.Bush administration
has a close and very "interesting relationship". George H. Bush had a very close relationship with
ISC, and of course the NSA and CIA all had a very "close" relationship with International Signal &
Control, or ISC. The following are some transcripts for Ted Koppel and ABC News Nightline
regarding ISC and Arms to Iraq and the intelligence community. The transcripts are contained in
my Amicus for Case No. 2006-cv-2160 filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
Now, Robert Gates, presently the Secretary of the United States Defense Department, and his
relationship to Lancaster. First of all, the attached video is the authentic transcript of Robert
Gates' confirmation hearing in September of 1991 for the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). If you fast forward to approximately 9:00:00 you will see the back and forth
questions from Senator Murkowski to Robert Gates regarding the allegations by several members
of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding his alleged involvement with ISC
and the Arms deals with Carlos Cardoen and the shipping of cluster bombs through South Africa
and on to Iraq. Of course, he denied all of the allegations.
Robert Gates also has relatives that live in Lancaster County, if fact he attended a wedding here a
few months ago, on May 3, 2009 at St. John Neuman Catholic Church in Manhiem Township,
Lancaster County. His wife has a niece that lives in Manheim Township.
Now, I'll give you the ABC News Nightline May 23, 1991 excerpt regarding ISC and the NSA,
National Security Agency:
"It all started legally, if covertly, back in 1974. That's when the National Security Agency, a super-
secret U.S. Intelligence unit asked ISC to help complete project X, a chain of electronic listening
posts based at South Africa's Simonstown Naval Station. South Africa was using these posts to
follow Soviet submarine traffic off of the Cape of Good Hope. To ensure secrecy, ISC and the NSA
made sure shipments could not be tracked back to them. They created a company called Gamma
Systems Associates. In fact, this company was nothing more than a post office box at John F.
Kennedy Airport. Gamma was a cut-out. ... But this sanctioned covert operation was stopped in
1977 when President Carter, a strong opponent of South Africa's apartheid regime, told U.S. firms
to stop any military-related business with Pretoria. But ISC continue shipping electronics, some
civilian, some military, to South Africa. The in the early 1980's, South Africa began to intensify its
efforts at ballistic missile development. For ISC, that was a golden opportunity because on of its
top executives was a man named Clyde Ivey, an American electronics expert who has been the
father of South Africa's missile program. Ivey had extraordinary contacts in the nations defense
structure. Begining in 1984, federal investigators say, senior ISC exeutives, including Ivey, began
regular contacts with CIA officials." You can read the rest. The entire transcript of the May 23,
1991 ABC News/Nightline broadcast.
Now remember, George H. Bush was director of CIA. "He served in this role for 357 days, from
January 30, 1976 to January 20, 1977.[22] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations,
including those based on investigations by Senator Frank Church's Committee regarding illegal
and unauthorized activities by the CIA, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the
agency's morale.[23] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy
Carter both as a Presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of
remaining in that position in a Carter administration[24] but it was not to be," according to
Wikipedia.
Now, lets get to Bobby Ray Inman, former Navy, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA),
former Director of International Signal & Control (ISC), and currently part of the Mind Control
industry. The following appears on the Welcome page of my website:
"S.A.I.C. involvement in 1993 American Para psychological Association meeting arrangements, via
their 'Cognitive Sciences Laboratory'. Science Applications International Corporation is a big time
defense contractor, has held the largest number of research contracts of any defense contractor.
Bobby Ray Inman (ISC Board of Directors) is on its board of directors, among others."
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1188
20 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
by John Porter, CIA Program on Mind Control copyright 1996. In 1994, after Bobby Ray Inman
requested to be withdrawn from consideration as Bill Clinton's first Defense Secretary, his critics
speculated that the decision was motivated by a desire to conceal his links to ISC. Inman was a
member of the so-called "shadow board" of the company which was allegedly either negligent or
approved the exports." by Wikipedia on International Signal and Control, (ISC).
Now, lets list the former Navy personnel:

George H. Bush, former President of the United States, former Director of CIA.
James Guerin, President and Founder of International Signal & Control.
Bobby Ray Inman, former Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Director of
International Signal & Control, (ISC).
My father, Samuel P. Cateronne, Jr.
His father, Samuel J. Caterbone, Sr.
George Noory, of Coast to Coast Radio (just anecdotal, nothing assumed or alleged).
George W. Bush flew with the Navy.
James Cross
I will Finish later and add more.
Next we get to Jim Guerin's attorney back in 1989 through at least 1992. His name was Joseph
Tate, of Philadelpha. This link will take you to a document regarding Joseph Tate, James Guerin
and Joseph Roda, Esq., of Lancaster, my former attorney who said I fabricated everything back in
1987. The document contains a letter of September 12, 2005 from Special Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald regarding Scooter Libby, Former Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. the letter
involves Scooter Libby's Grand Jury Indictment for leaking Covert CIA Operative Valerie Plame
and eventually outing her.
Now in Austin Texas in July of 2005 I was detained by 2 Agents from The Defense Intelligence
Agency. I was merely visiting a Military Museum, that had old and vintage helicopters and
airplanes. near where my brother, Dr. Phillip Caterbone lived. I was visiting on my way to
California. While inside the museum 2 Agents from the Department of Defense Defense
Intelligence Agency escorted me outside to my Honda Oddesey and interrogated me making me
confirm that I was visiting and staying with my brother. They caused a problem for my brother's
Medical Practice by shaking up one of his secretaries. The reviewed my court documents for
CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., Case No. 2005-cv-0288 filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The demanded that I stay off all military bases
before releasing me.
In 2006 I was telepathic with an older NSA executive on many occasions who wanted to meet me
at the Clipper Stadium who told me he wanted to rent a facility in Lancaster for a training
exercise. I told him to to and see Dale High and the High Group for space at the Greenfield
Industrial Park. He said he was retiring and that our discussions were keeping him a few weeks
longer than expected. We had intimate discussions of my history and the Chesapeake Bay Area.
We also discussed Sheryl Crow, and he told me his wife was a fan. I turned him on to her new
album, Wildflower, and he said she liked it. We had to disengage because he was being harassed
by other telepathic assailants.
My former secretary (Susan Bare) at Pflumm Contractors, Inc., where I was controller and was
hired to rescue the company from near bankruptcy in 1993, told me that her husband, Ross Bare,
who grew up just some 10 or so doors from me, worked for the NSA. She disclosed this soon
after I hired her in 1994 or 1995.
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1189
21 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
I will finish later and add to this allegation. This is a work-in-progress.
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1190
22 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
AFFIDAVIT
BE IT ACKNOWLEDGED, that Stanley J. Caterbone, Advanced Media Group, Advanced

Media Group, Ltd., Global Entertainment Group, Ltd., Power Productions I, Radio Science
Laboratories, Ltd., of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the undersigned deponent, being of legal
age, does hereby depose and say under oath as follows:
I am now convinced that the situation surrounding my litigation and all factors attributed
to my financial and professional demise bore out of the fact that my Father, Samuel P. Caterbone
was a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control, in the truest sense of the words. The
whistleblowing activities of 1987 either were a coincidence or I was set up in the very beginning
by Pennsylvania State Senator Gibson Armstrong (former stock broker) in 1983 when he solicited
me to purchase the ISC stock. The preceding would have been the perfect cover story for my
demise; that I was involved in fraud. Following this analysis would lead one to conclude that the
collateral damage from the activities of my financial ruin always left my fellow businesses in
financial ruin, for example the shareholders and affiliated professionals of Financial Management
Group, Ltd., Tony Bongiovi and Power Station Studios, Cross Microwave Consultants, American
Helix/High Industries, Pflumm Contractors, Inc., Mike Caterbone's AIM Wholesaler's Business,
Sheryl Crow Singer Songwriter, my immediate family, friends, and relatives, and now the
Lancaster County Courthouse.
Following this analysis would lead one to concur that the legal and financial remedies
would only be reconciled by the above named parties enjoining my civil litigation. This AFFIDAVIT
is to be considered a legal and binding document to accomplish that remedy.
And I affirm that the foregoing is true except to statements made upon information and belief,
and as to those I believe them to be true. Witness my hand under the penalties of perjury this
10th day of October, 2015.
Signature,
____________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Signature
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1191
23 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On before me,________________________personally appeared

, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature_____________________________
Affiant______Known______Produced ID
Type of ID_________________________
(Seal)
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1192
24 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
! " #$ %
%& ' % % (( ' ) #$ % %& % % #$ %& %
% #$ % " #$ % ) * ) %# ' + %
' % ( ' # ) ' & # % '! % % $ ! ( !
! % ' % $ ' %' # % '( *',
" * & % ' # '# # % ! " ! % ( ' # %

" ( % $ ( '' % "' # ( ( " "# )
* ' & " ( - $ ' % % # ' ' ' ( * %'
* ' * ! & ' ( ./01 * % * ' ' #$ & ! !
) ' & ' "' ! 2( " ' 3 3 4 ./05 * ' %
" $# ' ' 3 $ % ! * #% & $ ( & ' ( "
% "' 6 * ' & & % ( #% * ! ' '' * #% % #%
% " ! ( " & ' ( " ( # * ' ( " ( * #' '' '
( # ( 7 "$ + #((" % 8 $ ' % ' % '
% (( %$ ( '' ' ( ! " #$ % ! & %) *
#% ' " % '' ' '' * & '# ' & ! + ' %
" ' ' " 8 798 ! %#' ' + $ :: % + ' + ' # 6
)( #"" ' 3 ;' ' ;' #' '' ) $
% '' % ) " ) ' ( #' 7 ' " " % % + $ :: '
" % '' ' ( ' & # ) < * ! !* "
"" % ( " ( %' % & '
* ! ' '' * #% % # ! % ( " % '

* #% % & " %$ ' < !" & ! ' =
' '% % ! % % !% #" "$ ' " %
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No. 31
31
21
30
31
31
31
of
1193
25 of
ofof
51
of
51
41
50
51
of51
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Saturday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
WednesdayOctober
March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
10,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No. 32
32
31
32
32
32
of
1194
26 of
ofof
51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No. 33
33
32
33
33
33
of
1195
27 of
ofof
51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No. 34
34
33
34
34
34
of
1196
28 of
ofof
51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
! " #
$% &
' ( )! *+ ,
-''.#!' /0 12. )! /01- . !#!-/ 1

1!/ !1.230/. !/4 !45!/ .4 ".4-! #206)
5 ) ! ' 4
! 71 5 & !
+( $ +
0 8 ' 9
! "
# $ % & ' " '
()" * " ) ! + !!
, 4 ) ) 4 ) - & & ! *
.//0 1
. . 2 - ( 4 ! (0 -& , ! # .//0
2 3 ( '' ' 0 & ( ) 3
4 5 .//6 - & , ! #
7 ' / ( - ( & # .//6 ' '
! * 5 ! !)8 % 5
& ((! ' 4 ' ./,0
0 2 1 ( " ( ' ( # ( !
.//6 ' 4 ' ./,0
6 ! : 2 3 ( ' 5 # & 5 &
( ! ' ' .//6
9 5 / (' % .//: ' 4 '
: " 2 ( ' ( & #
% .//: ' 4 ' ./,0
; 5 ( ' ( * 5 .//: *
< 8 ' 4 '
,/ 3 ; (' ( & ) .//: ' 4 '
,, ' ' 4 3 ( )= 1
# .//; , ! #
,. ! 3 < 2 3 (' ( # .//; ' 4 '
,2 " 6 # " 6 ( " (
( * ! # * .//;
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1197
29 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
,7 1#-& & < (' ( " ( * ./,/ ' 4 '

,0 ' 4 2 3 (' ( > 1 * ./,/ '
4 '
,6 " < (' ( 1 & $ ( !
1 4 ./,/ ' 4 '
,9 0<; < 3 (' (# .0 ./,/ # & ) ' 4 '
,: & 3 (& & ( # .6 ./,/ & 4 &
8
=' # ; (% & % #1 # .0 ./,/ 1 5
& 4 + $& & # !
5
$ 1 & 2 3 ( : ./,0 8 )
$ " 6 ( =( $ %( # $
!
1 +
$$ 5 / ( * .//,0 % 8
$, ' 4 3 ( ./,0 ?
$> 3 ( '' ' 0 #

% ./,, /0 ..::
4 5 $& 1 !
$% ? ) " * ./,0
,.0. 4 &
$+ ) '@ 3 (/ 0 3 ( ' .2 ./,0
+ 1 !8# ( '" 5 > (
1 & + (
! 1
$* " & 3 0 4 ./,6
! ! ( !
1
$A ) ! # < 0 @ ( ; ( )! -
!1 >8# % ?
? @!8>>$ " 8' 84 *$1 ! ( ( )'48>!)#)'" '1 8( " ! '&A
$= 6 & & ' & # ; ./,6

'& + 3 4 # # +
1!
$& 4 4
, ' / 9 * ./,6
@ (' A
#8< '" ( # (
2, 1.''6 ,+ ( " $ +
=
,$ B 2 3 ( " #
# '& 4 # #
,, ! 3 < - ) ( *
@# A
,> ! (3 ( " 98 " * ,7 ./,6 &
,% 1 ) 2 3 2 9
" * ,7 ./,6
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1198
30 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
./,0
( ! 8 &
8 & 3
4 ' . <
?;0'. !'. 1!':-/#( ;!2! "./1( !/4 0''6 -0/ 10 );B - !' 1;2.!1 0&
5-0'./ . 0/ ! 2.#6'!2 3! - ( $ %
B 2 3
" 3 ) @
! 3 < - )
1.''-6 ,+ - ) (/ (
! (3 ( "
3
0<; 3 2
' 4
1 ) 2 3 2
1 & 1
' ) 4 ; @
1 B # ,: ./,6
Stan J. Caterbone
SUPPORTSummary
OF APPEAL PagePage
No. 1199
31 ofof
561224 Monday
Wednesday
November
June21,
7, 2017
2016
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 37
37
36
37
37
37
of
1200
32
27 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 38
38
37
38
38
38
of
1201
33
28 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 39
39
38
39
39
39
of
1202
34
29 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
! " # " $% &
! " #
$ %
"&# '
$ ( %
' ( " ") " * ) ! " ! + " * " ,

! , "" ! " ! " ! " ! , ,
+ " - ! ! )
*
% ( *
(
%
! .
/"0 ! , * 1 ! + 2"3
4 - 1 " " 1 , ! !
4 1 , ! ! ) ** ! "
! 5 6 ) " " # 4 4 + &,,-
. . $ / ..$/
&,,0
% % 1 2 1
%
&,, 3 &,, %
4 %
%
& , , " " " !, " 5

00 6
7 8 9
%
: 7 - 8, 9 , "2 ! " , , , ! 1 , ** !
, ! : 7 ) , . 4 ;
&,,- ( &<;= 5 (
> $;$ ? $
! % % 4
1 &,,@ &,,= ,
$ >
A 1 B3 .+
&,,=
1 B3 2
>
%
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 40
40
39
40
40
40
of
1203
35
30 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
< ) * " ) ! A 24
1 ! ' &,, &, , A %
1 2 5 % % " #9 9
- ! ) " " " ; " , . 4

4 "$ C# &,,@(&,,= A D $
3 1 B 3 24 %
5
! %
% &,,0 4 % %
! %3 %
@ < " - "" * ,! " + , :

! * % E % 0 =
9 9
$ 0 =9 00&9 00 &,,- &, , $
!
% %
! %
D 3 $ ! % %
3
= )) /4 0 ), " $ ;
F G + 0 = / F G %
! + $ 3 00 &,,<
3 * E
3 3 " H %#
$ / %
$ D $ $ . +
&,,- &, ,
4 !- " , - .
3 * &,,@ D $ / B
$ &,,
0 6 -) ! 24 0 = . A * D
/ 4 / 00 3 $ 00=; 00 .
5 :
, # ! 7 3 %
&,,- &, , ! D $
$ ! D $ 3 D 3 $ D % A
D E 7F ! 8F
D $ &,,- &,,0 >
% ! D $
3 D A %
; % . + % %
4 E
$
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 41
41
40
41
41
41
of
1204
36
31 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
) 7 24 00
F F A $;$ (F 7 8 !
.
,-(&& &,,- 1 $
2 1 3
& # = $ % &,,- D $ /
B 3 1
: 5 " * < :# ) " . 0 = / F G

00 9 00=( 00 9 &,,- &, , . 3 B
B 3 1 $ 3
. / $
< > ) "" "" " 0 =

/ ;3 $ &,,@
- #, " ! "" " E % D E $

&,,- $ D 3
@ " " " 24 = 0 = &, &,,- &,,@

$ 3 D $ $ $ 3 !
= " ) " " = , D $ 3 0 =

@, &,,@ ! @, 1
&,,@
9
!
@, !
#" !, ! " "1 , " ! "* # ) ": - " E

0 = / F
G . &,,-
! !
B 3
0 " # ) . 0 = / F G 00 9
00=( 00 9 &,,- &, , . 3 B
B 3 1 $ 3 /
$ : &,,-
' 9 9 9 9 9 A
&, ( " , !
. 00 $ 3
$ ! 7 8
&, , !
F &,, &, ,
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 42
42
41
42
42
42
of
1205
37
32 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
& , * " *# ) F ) $
&& " : !- &,,- 4
% A D $ 3 1
&: ;! , ! " > ? " 24 &,,0

5 > ; B
%
&< ) < !- $ / %
$ D $ $ . + &,,-
&, , F $ %
&, , 5 % % (
2 %
&- - A &,,- &, , $ A )

A + .+ $ $
&@ * ! : : , * * @ 7 " . 3
0 = &,, &,,0
3 *
&= 5 ! ! 6 ) " " 7 "! ) " ": )" .

4 &,,@ E 4 &,,@
"
#
& 5 ! !6 ) " " ; . 4 &,,-
&0 ! < ") + " . / 0 = "&# @

- 9 &,,@ : 9 &,,0
9 &, , . $ $ / B
00 &,,
:, 7 ) , * * ! " F
0 =
A ;A 0 =
F 0 =
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 43
43
42
43
43
43
of
1206
38
33 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
3 ! ! 6 0 = 0 =
" $ . .
+ 1 $ . #
I $ $ "2
! $ + # ' J +
. 00&
+$;F &,;&, F 00 ! '
D 3 $ 24
"$ A + 1 . #
$ $ $ 1 1 "1E1# $
K 0=,K
E K 3 > L F F . A
A . F + B + 1 $
+ 1 $ $
$ 1
1 B 6 $ 3 >
+ B 1 $
$ ! 00,K
> 1 B 3 > 1 B3 F
! F ! ! A ! ! >
1 1
00 % F F
) % 3 F 7 8
&,,- & 1 1
! 4 '
A
. 3 ! 4
A F 4 0<,K 4
0=,K 0 ,K 00,K
9 A .
1 3 > % 2! 4
/ &,, F ) %$ A .
0@,K D 1 4 A? D!B
0@,K " # +
$ 0 <9 F $ $ * 00 /
7 D 18
.
E % 0 =
$ % 0 ,K M
M 1 $ 0 = 00
00= E % / % 4 !
&,,- (
9 9
; !
1 $ $ !2B+EF2
D $ 3 ,-( (&&
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 44
44
43
44
44
44
of
1207
39
34 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
# ") ! "
7! N (
O O
N
.
!
5 4 (
F 5 (
G A 8
A' , ? * ? 1 * " " * #" !, " " , , * 7 "
!, A ,
( > " !, '! B $C * #" !, D ! " &
73 "
# (
K ; 2
.
" #( K !
; 5
7 ! 8 9 9 9 9
9 9 %
! % (
% '
5
% !
7A 8 ! $ ' O 7D .2 (
8 ! 8 *
O
% 8
' + ( -
7 (
' % (
! % % %
4 %
K
K M M M % M
% (
K 8
' + - 6 "
7E %
' N %( (
4 (
; ! (
(
7 8 (
7 8
87 - 7 > !,
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 45
45
44
45
45
45
of
1208
40
35 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
! * , " 1"
! , * 1 3
@ E ! DD ! 1 * )) )
@ E ! DD -
B &. @ DD
B @ . DD ") ! " , " *" * ( ! ") "
"
B @ & DD ) "
B @ . DD ) * , " ! * 1
B @ & DD ) ! * " *
B @ $ DD ") ! 7
B @ DD 7
B @ E DD "!
" * *
. @ EB& DD ! * ) * , "
. @ EB DD ") ! 1 ,! * , "
& @ & B DD 6, " 1 ) ! "
B @ DD 5 " ! !
B @ & DD 1 "": !
B @ DD ) 1 , 1 "": !
B @ & DD > " 1 "": !
B @ DD ' " ! ! " ! * ! * " "
B@ E DD ) ; !" * , " ) ) " !

) * 1 ,"
B@ % DD *) F ) ! , ! ) F
"E # PPPPPPP " %#
>7 '?
% 4 %
" Stan J. Caterbone

# PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
F " Stan J. Caterbone

# PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
1 June 19, 2015

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Pennsylvania
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP $
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Lancaster
19
PPPPPPP June
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP 15
&,PP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Stan J. Caterbone - I was a notary from '94-'98 F 3 24 Don't Know When
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
SJC I
. . $ / I $ Q &, , "!
&, , . . $ / I #
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 46
46
45
46
46
46
of
1209
41
36 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 47
47
46
47
47
47
of
1210
42
37 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 48
48
47
48
48
48
of
1211
43
38 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 49
49
48
49
49
49
of
1212
44
39 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 50
50
49
50
50
50
of
1213
45
40 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
No.
Page 51
51
50
51
51
51
of
1214
46
41 of
ofof
of51
of
51
50
51
of51
5651
1224
41 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday
Saturday, March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June
October 2016
17,
15,
11,
21, 2015
2016
7, 2015
10, 2017
! "# $
%" "&##'( #$
!"
# $ " " ! #!" ! ! % &! ' ! # ( ' )
* + , ) -
#- ) . - / * ) ' ) 0 /- -
/ * . - . 0 ) - - 0 ) #- /
/- . - * - 0 1 /
* ) 0 0 . - 0 - 2 *
) 3 . 0 . /
- 0 ) . 4 * . 5678 0 )
. / 9::; ' - - 9::; /
- 0 - 0 / .1 0 - -
- 0 ) - ) <
)
) * * + + ,, -
* . /+ / , - * ,! + 0
1 , ! 2 3 + ,
- 344/// 4 5
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
7- , , - * , - , / * * 3
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.Page
247
22
1of
12152of
of
2of
1
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No. 148
11of
1of
1216of
1of
of
51
of
51
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
Wednesday15,
March
2016
15,
3/15/2016
November
June 2016
17,
15,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
% "
% "
/
4 4 2 1
12! 1 3
" # $ "% $ $ $ & ' $ ($ "

' " & % $ ) $% $ % ) ) " % "
($ ) ' $ ' ) $% $ "" " "& %
!& ! ) "
# $ %" " "% ) " %% ) ) $

* % +, " # -
. ' * %& # & & & ) - ! & $

# &"
& ) " #' % ) $ % '" & $

* % +, "
# $ "% %% '$ "
" !
+ % / 0$
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No. 449
44
3of
4of
1217of
4of
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No. 350
33
2of
3of
1218of
3of
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
8 * 9 : * ; < *+ ; ) .
- 7 (
#- 0 - =8 * 9 : * ; < *+ ; )
. >>>
* !
& *
5, #- . - .- ) - - #- "
) )= - 0 - .- - 0 .
- ) - )-
9, 0 ( / 5697 > - ) 0 ) - .-
? 0 - ) - - .- - 0 - ? )
- - - - . - . 0 - .- ?- 0
0 - ) .- - .- 0 4 0 >
@, #- ) ) - 0 . - / - - 0 - -
) - - 0 2 #- 0 . ) -
- - 0 0 ) 0 0 - .
A,#- . 0 0 . - . ) - < -
@ ) - < . # - B 0 ) - 0
" . . # 0 . 0 - 2 .
- < ) ) ) -
.& !
# - . ) - /- ) ) 3
. 0 - . . /
) ) - ) / .C * . - . 0 - - 0 2
- 0) - < 4
$ 8 * 9 : *
) /0 / ) 0 ) / / ) 0
- - /- 0 * - / - - -
) ) - - ) - ) )- - 00 ) 0 - . )
- 0 ) . 4 * . - 0 0 ) 2 0 -
0 - - +D 5 :::, - - ) 0 0
0 0 )
) / 0 + , /- - 0 .
2 - )) - . - - + ,
. - 0 - - - 0 0 - ) / -
)
B - ) - ?- ? 0 . . * / . / ) )
) - 0 0 4 -
0 . - - . 0 E
EE
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.Page
551
55
4of
12195of
of
5of
2
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
B - ) - ? ) ? 0 / 0 .
) 0 - / - . )
/ - - 0 . )? ) ?
B - ) - ? - ? 0 / - . -
) 0 - .- - ) 00 - 0
) 0 ) / 00 0
0 / - - - - - . ) - - )
) - - ) - ) ) - - ) 0
0 / - - - - - /- - .
) - - ) ) - - ) - ) ) - - ) 0
- - ) - -
- - #- ) 0 * . - - -
- / - -
0 . )? - ?
B ) - - 0? 00 ? 0
- - 0 ) F 0 - . -
-
#- . - . . - ) ) 0
/ - - 0 - 0 ) 5: 0 - -
) - . - - . - ) . - )
- ) ) - - ) ) - ) ) - 0 -
- 00 ) 0
B ) - ? 00 ) 0 ? 0 -
. )) / - - . - /- .
- - - /- / - - F0 - . - - -
? ! - , -
/- / ) - 00 0 /- - / - .
2 - / - - ) - - 0 0
/ . 0 ) 00 * - )
- ) . /- - ) - 0
/- - 0 3 00 ) -
- . ) 00 ) F ) - -
- - ) ) - - / ) ) -
- 00 ) 0 G ) - - 0 0 ) F
B - ) - ? 00 ) 0 ? 0 /- - 0 .
- . )) / - - .
- /- . - - - /- / - - F0 - .
- - -
?! 00 ? 0 - -
0 ) F0 - . - -
8 - * + *
+ , ! /- / - - 0 *
0 ) 00 / - - - -
. . - - - ) 2 -
0 0 ) - - ) 0 . )
0 0 - . - - - 0
. ) -
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.Page
652
66
5of
12206of
of
6of
3
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
+ , ! /- 0 * - 0 *
0 ) 00 / - - - -
/- - ) 0 0 * . - -
. ) 0 0 - . - - -
0 . ) -
! /- 0 * - 0 *
0 ) 00 / - - - - -
) / * . ) 0 0 - ) ) 0 - -
+D 5 :::, 0 0 ) ) 0 - -
- ) 0 0 - . - - -
0 . ) - #- ) - ) - ) / .
0 F C
+5, #- 0 . 2 -
0 ) - )) - . - - -
+9, #- 0 * - 0 * 0 )
00 / - - - - - )
/ * . 0 - 5: 0 9A=- /- - ) 0
0 * . - - - -
0 - / * ) ) 0 0 /- ) 0
- ) 0 - / - /- 0 - - - - -
. . . 0 - - . . . . 0 -
+ , )) 00 ) - 0 0 - 00 /-
- - / 0 )) 00 )
00 0 0 . - 0 0 - 00
/- - 00 00 / . ) / -
+ , + , + , + , /- - . / - 0 *
- 3 . ) 0 - - + , + ,
+ , . -
+), ) . - F 0 ) )
- - 0 ) - -
.
+., B ) - - 0 ? 00 ?
0 - - 0 ) F 0 - .
- -
+/ - *+ /
/- - ) . 4 * . - 0 00
- ) - / - - 4 . / - -
0 0 ) ) / - ) ) F .
- +D5: :::,
B - ) - 0 - . / ) -
) .
. 0 + 0 . 0 0
0 . 0 F 0 / ) 3 +! B, / ) 3 +< B,
. , . - * / . 0 )
) . - 2 1 0 . . . + - . ) - -
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
CaterboneGrop
Group
INExecutive
Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.Page
753
77
6of
12217of
of
7of
4
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
0 - - - 0 / = . ) = =
= 0 . 0 . - - .
. ) - ) 0) / 0
0 . 0 0 ) - 1 F . - 0 .
. - )
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.Page
854
88
7of
12228of
of
8of
5
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
!
" # #
$ # ! " %
& # ' " ( # ) * ()+
"
, - ." ! %
/ # "" # "
, %/ #
0 " %
1 ( # ) 1 ( #
- ! . # "
%2 3 # %4
" 5%1% "
%4 "' %
#
" !" "
0 % ()
! # %
() 6 7 8 0 # " # "
%9 & : ' "
# ' " %
-4, " # # "
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL PagePage
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.Page
955
99
8of
12239of
of
9of
8
of
51
of
51
50
5151
of
5651
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017
.' %
' # # !
# " "
" %'
() ;
" %
<= 0 " %
# " 9 (
" 5%1% " " !
%
( - !; . " ()
( , ! ! " >?
-1 @ . # # % @ #
" 511 @ # " ; ,
# "" # ( %
1 @ ( - ,
" % 5%1% ( 4 A 1
4 1 ) %
() # ;
# 5%1% # # " "
" " % 0 #
%B " #
# %
-4 , " #
. 0 %
, %
- 0 " C 4 $
. %- #
%' # " C%% ,
4 %.
) 7 ) - # . ' ,
" %
-: 5 1 # .)
% -@ ; %' " %@
%4, "
$ " , %.
D $ , !
2 ) $&
, 1 C% E
Advanced
Stan
Stan
Stan J.
J. Caterbone
17-01233J.BRIEF
Medi
Media
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
INExecutive
Caterbone Executive
Press
PressSummary
Executive
Executive
SUPPORT Release
Release
Summary
Summary
Summary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No. 10
10
10
910
1224
56 10
of
of
9of
of51
50
of
51
51
51
of
56 51
1224 Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
Monday March
December
15,
Wednesday March
2016
November15,
3/15/2016
June 2016
17,
15,
11,
7, 2015
21, 2016
2017

Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Appeal BRIEF PER ORDER OF MAY 26, 2017 Filed On June 7, 2017

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Appeal BRIEF PER ORDER OF MAY 26, 2017 Filed On June 7, 2017

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Stan J.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

CASE NO. 17-01233

BRIEF FOR APPEAL AS PER NOTICE OF MAY 26, 2017

1. Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Appeal BRIEF PER ORDER OF

MAY 26, 2017 Filed on June 7, 2017

3. Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography

4. CASE SUMMARY ARGUMENT

7. THE STAN J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP STATE-OF-

2. THE INTERNET, COMPUTER, FILES, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES

4. PHYSICAL PAIN, TORTURE, AND CRIPPLING

5. $13,052.94 DAMAGES DUE TO VANDALISM AND THEFTS

7. INTERNET LINKS OF EVIDENCE FOR ALL CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS

8. LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP re INTERVENTION IN THE STAN J.

U.S. Sponsored Mind Control Executive Summary WITH EXPERT

2. In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom CIA No-Touch Torture Makes

and Volume 1 July 12, 2016

Passing a City Resolution 5-2 to Ban Spaced-Based Weapons in Support

6. Julianne McKinney, US Army Intelligence Officer, Whistleblower, and

1975 United States Senate Select Hearings on Mkultra

In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN IS TO FORMALIZE

The Debtor, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, is AN INDIVIDUAL, A CORPORATION, A

This Plan of Reorganization (the Plan) under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy

Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.

In 2009 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED

In 2005 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner began a philanthropic endeavor by spending our

In 2000 to 2002 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed an array of marketing and

In 1999 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed a comprehensive business plan to develop

In 1999 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner contributed to the debate, research, and

In 1993 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as

Published on OpenJurist (http://openjurist.org)

600 F2d 600 Hampton v. Hanrahan

600 F.2d 600

Iberia HAMPTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 and 77-1370.

United States Court of Appeals,

Argued Aug. 14, 1978.

John O. Tuohy, Camillo F. Volini, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.

At 4:30 a. m. on December 4, 1969, fourteen

During the trial, Jeffrey H. Haas and G. Flint

The principal issue on appeal is whether the

William O'Neal Paid informant for the FBI.

Cook County State's Attorney's Office

Edward Hanrahan Cook County State's Attorney.

James Meltreger Assistant State's Attorney.

Sheldon Sorosky Assistant State's Attorney.

Chicago Police Crime Laboratory

John Koludrovic Supervising officer of the Mobile Crime Laboratory Unit.

John Sadunas Firearms examiner.

Chicago Police Department Internal Investigations Division ("IID")

Harry Ervanian Captain, Chicago Police Department, director of IID.

John Meade Sergeant, Chicago Police Department.

II. DIRECTED VERDICT

1. Prevent a coalition of militant black nationalist groups . . . .

3. Prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups . . . .

Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence

A series of investigations and inquests followed the December 4 raid. On December 12

Does Groth's statement describe what occurred at the apartment?

Did you use excessive force in effecting these arrests?

III. CONSPIRACY CLAIMS

C. Hanrahan and Jalovec