Organized stalking ?

(3)




Quote: 1. Judge Hinojosa adopted the recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and plaintiff appealed. 2. Plaintiff’s appeal was based on the claim that a district judge cannot adopt a Report and Recommendation to dismiss a case when the disqualification of the magistrate judge has been established as a matter of law. 3. Judge Hinojosa and judge Ramos declined an invitation by the Judicial Council of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to engage plaintiff’s complaint of judicial misconduct. 4. The US Attorney General did not object to the claims and evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims of judicial disqualification. 5. In support of a motion to expedite the appeal, plaintiff filed on the Court of Appeals videotape showing the pain and suffering caused on plaintiff and on plaintiff’s children by the malicious exposure to radiation inside plaintiff’s home. The US Attorney General did not challenge the evidence. 6. Plaintiff filed a petition for hearing in banc after a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not address the issue presented to the Court. 7. On an Order dated December 13, 2004, the Panel of the Court denied plaintiff’s petition for hearing in banc. 8. On November 17, of 2004, defendant Christopher T. Lohden attempted to ram on the rear plaintiff’s vehicle. 9. Plaintiff asked defendant Lohden why Lohden attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle. 10. Defendant Lohden answered by saying that he was to call the police. 11. After defendant Lohden called the police on a cellular telephone, a lady came from the front door of the house and asked defendant Lohden what was going on. 12. Defendant Lohden answered “I called the police, this guy says that I tried to ram his car.” 13. The lady said, “You did! Why are you calling the police?! Don’t call the police!” The lady then walked back inside the house. 14. Plaintiff then asked Lohden to tell the police that plaintiff was coming back. 15. At that time defendant Lohden asked where plaintiff lived. 16. Plaintiff said ”You know where I live, and you know me, this is not the first time that you engage in this kind of harassment.” 17. Defendant Lohden did not reply to plaintiff’s statement. 18. Plaintiff returned when a police car was parked at the home of defendant Lohden. 19. Plaintiff explained to Mr. Hernandez and to Mr. Paniagua, officers of the Mission Police Department, the fact that Mr. Lohden had attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle. 20. Defendant Lohden did not deny plaintiff’s claim and instead said that plaintiff was doing thirty miles an hour on the road. 21. Officer Paniagua asked plaintiff to come across the street. 22. There, plaintiff explained to officer Paniagua and to officer Hernandez about the defendant’s attempts to ram plaintiff’s car; about the statements made by the lady that came out of the house; about the fact that defendant Lohden had attempted to run over plaintiff and plaintiff’s children when they were crossing the street; about the fact that everyday plaintiff was subjected to this type of harassment; about the fact that other individuals in the neighborhood have engaged in the same harassment; and about the fact that this harassment was the result of racism. 23. At several times relevant to this case defendant Ruth Watkins has come into convenience sores, followed by other individuals, who engage in acts of intimidation against plaintiff and then leave leaving without buying anything. 24. A several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has led the way to a number of individuals who have engaged in harassing and intimidating acts against plaintiff and his children including the pushing, placing their hands on plaintiff’s vehicle while looking at plaintiff’s children seated inside plaintiff’s vehicle. 25. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has communicated to these individuals by gestures and hand signals to some of these individuals. 26. At several times relevant to this case, defendant Watkins has acted in concert with other individuals in a course of repeated physical proximity and threatening behavior against plaintiff and his children. 27. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has claimed that this conduct is not harassment. 28. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has refused to identify others involved in this harassment. 29. At several times relevant to this case high intensifies of radiation have been detected when plaintiff is approaching and passing by Watkins’ home. 30. At several times relevant to this case, furtive high intensities of radiation have been detected to come from the direction of Watkins’ home into plaintiff’s home. 31. At several times relevant to this case defendant Diane K. Smedley has attempted to run over plaintiff and his children when plaintiff and his children were crossing the street. 32. At several times relevant to this case defendant Smedley has engaged in street harassment of plaintiff and his children. 33. On or about December 6, 2004, plaintiff complained to the Chief of Police of the Mission Police Department Lio Longoria about named defendants gang stalking, and Longoria claimed starting an investigation of plaintiff’s claims. 34. The road harassment ceased afterward. 35. On December 10, 2004, an ionizing meter collected a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation inside plaintiff’s home, causing on plaintiff among other things swelling, and pain. 36. The same day plaintiff showed to Jose Gonzales, investigator of the Mission Police department, video tapes of the increase in ionizing radiation inside plaintiff’s home, and the pain and suffering caused by the radiation to plaintiff’s three-year-old son. 37. On or about December 20, 2004, Ezquiel Navarro an investigator of the Mission Police Department notified to plaintiff that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had instructed Navarro not to disclose any information about the investigation because of a pending investigation of plaintiff by the Central Intelligence Agency. 38. Navarro claimed knowing about agents that take x- ray devices home. 39. The levels of ionizing radiation at points around the neighborhood resumed, while the intensity of radiation inside and outside plaintiff’s home increased. 40. Plaintiff’s ability to be with his family became more limited.

Arabic Forum