Organized stalking ?

Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Case in the court


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Pro-se Plaintiff
Case NO. 4:05MC00003
Honorable Kenneth Hoyt US District Judge V.
Michael James Lindquist,
Christopher T. Lohden,
Diane K. Smedley, and
Ruth Watkins, Defendants. Jury Demand


PRO-SE PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT


( 1)


Quote: 1. Pro-se plaintiff, Jesus Mendoza Maldonado is a citizen of the United States of America. Plaintiff is a Mexican-American with Mexico as national origin. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1331, 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 42 U.S.C. 1986. 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over named defendants. Named defendants reside within the State of Texas, conduct business within the Sate of Texas, and the actionable acts and omissions stated in this complaint occurred within the Sate of Texas. 3. Venue is proper in the US District for the Southern District of Texas, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Texas. 4. Defendant Michael James Lindquist may be served with service of process at 2503 E. 28th St. Mission, Texas, 78574. 5. Defendant Christopher T. Lohden may be served with service of process at 2004 E. 25th St., Mission, Texas, 78574. 6. Defendant Diane K. Smedley may be served with service of process at 2020 E 27th St. Mission, Texas, 78574. Defendant Ruth Watkins may be served with service of process at 2217 E. 28th St., Mission, Texas, 78574. 7. Unless otherwise specified in this complaint, the term “defendants” refers to named defendants, and unidentified John and Mary Doe defendants. 8. Defendants are being sued on their individual, personal, capacity. 9. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff has been a party and a witness in federal court while litigating a case of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and fraud of federal funds against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, some of its officers, and others, collectively the Cooley defendants. 10. Plaintiff law suit against the Cooley defendants included a claim that the Cooley defendants operated a scheme to defraud more than seventy- percent of minorities of their federal loans halting their education while on the other hand, the Cooley defendants were giving away law degrees to their affiliates. 11. At several times when plaintiff was a law student at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Shawn Gannon and other law students claimed to be related to prominency within the Central Investigation Agency and other federal law enforcement agencies. 12. Plaintiff lawsuit against the Cooley defendants included a claim that the Cooley defendants incited a federal investigation and an electronic aggression against plaintiff which caused plaintiff severe injuries including an electrical sensitivity. 13. Plaintiff is sensitive to electricity. Plaintiff exposure to electricity causes among other things pain, swelling of vital organs, breathing, speech and concentration problems. Plaintiff’s ability to work, to travel long distances, and to be inside a building has been substantially impaired. 14. At several times relevant to this case an electronic aggression has caused plaintiff to be critically ill. The electronic aggression causes plaintiff to be in pain most of the time. 15. The next day plaintiff attempted to file a criminal complaint against the Cooley defendants, three identified agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were found in a restricted area of an elementary school, and around plaintiff’s vehicle. One door of plaintiff’s vehicle was found unlocked. 16. The principal of the elementary school who witnessed the incident, claimed that the local FBI office had directed him to destroy the information gathered by plaintiff. 17. At no time the US Attorney General has engaged the evidence in support of this claims. 18. The case against the Cooley defendants was dismissed after aggravation of plaintiff’s condition prevented him from attending depositions. 19. Before the lawsuit against the Cooley defendants was dismissed, the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s electrical sensitivity and mental stability were established as a matter of law. 20. The US court of appeals affirmed the dismissal and further aggravation of plaintiff’s condition prevented plaintiff from appealing to the US Supreme Court. 21. Aggravation of plaintiff health condition forced plaintiff to dismiss a case of disability discrimination that had been filed in State court. 22. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of non ionizing and ionizing radiation around plaintiff, (microwave and x-ray radiation, “radiation” hereafter), has increased during critical stages of federal, and State court proceedings, aggravating plaintiff’s health condition. 23. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of radiation has impaired plaintiff health condition during State administrative hearings in which plaintiff has been seeking rehabilitation services. 24. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of the electronic aggression has increased when plaintiff explains to others the discriminatory motive of the electronic aggression. 25. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff’s three -year-old son and four -year-old daughter suffered pain with convulsions when a meter showed high intensities of radiation inside plaintiff’s home. 26. At several times a microwave meter has detected several beams merging on the head of plaintiff’s three- year-old son. 27. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff’s three-year-old son has collapsed crying in pain when a microwave meter has shown several beams merging on his head. 28. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has recorded on videotape the electronic aggressions. 29. At several times relevant to this case, a microwave meter has shown several beams merging on the bed of plaintiff and on the bed of plaintiff’s children. 30. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s children have complained of pain when intense radiation has been found inside plaintiff’s home, 31. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s children have suffered convulsions while asleep.

Arabic Forum