portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

Explosive! George W. Bush is being sued!

Check this part of the doc;

"6. Appellant Schlund has alleged in his complaint supporting facts relevant to his FOIA/PA requests he is clearly a political witness against President George W. Bush, as he has personal knowledge from his possession and personal knowledge of the "Bolles Papers" which detail the systematic overthrow of the government of the United States, as he has set forth in his Verified Complaint. Appellant Schlund has a lawful right to all of his personal records maintained by the government and its various departments/agencies but is being refused those records as he is a political witness to the corruption of George W. Bush. President Bush, upon taking office, has intentionally forbidden the release of information relating to the public, especially political witnesses who engage in whistle-blowing activities concerning public corruption as follows:

In summary, on January 20, 2001, George W. Bush took the oath of office as the 43rd President of the United States; Bush moved to unravel the efforts of his predecessor, President William Clinton. President Bush had his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, immediately direct all federal agencies to freeze more than 300 pending regulations issued by the administration of President Bill Clinton. The regulations affected areas ranging from health and safety to the environment, industry, and, of course, the Freedom of Information Act.

The delay, Card said, would "ensure that the President's appointees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations." The process, as it turned out, expressly precluded input from average citizens. Inviting such comments, agency officials concluded, would be "contrary to the public interest.""
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 9TH CIRCUIT DOCKET NO. 03-16975

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III

Plaintiff/Appellant,

vs.


THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant/Appellee.


ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA,

U.S.D.C. NO. CV-02-00373-MHM

HONORABLE MARY H. MURGIA


APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF



Charles August Schlund, III
8520 N. 54th Drive
Glendale, Arizona 85302
(602) 670-2017
Plaintiff/Appellant, In Pro Per

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 9TH CIRCUIT DOCKET NO. 03-16975

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III
Plaintiff/Appellant,

vs.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants/Appellee.


CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Charles A. Schlund, III ("Appellant") certifies that the following have an interest in the outcome of this case: Appellant, Charles A. Schlund, III. The United States of America, a sovereign entity; The United States Department of Justice, a department of the U.S.A. with sub-entity known as the United Stated Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, a department of the U.S.A., are the Defendants in this matter.
There are no known interested parties other than those parties participating in this case, whose names appear above or in the original caption in United States District Court, District of Arizona,

CV-02-00373-MHM.



By:

Charles A. Schlund, III

Plaintiff/Appellant in Pro Per





TABLE OF CONTENTS Page



TABLE OF STATUTES ii
I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW iv
II. STATUTES INVOLVED v
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12
V. ARGUMENT 21


A. PLAINTIFF COMPLIED WITH THE FREEDOM OF 21
INFORMATION ACT REQUIREMENTS

VI. CONCLUSION 28

VII. PROOF OF SERVICE 29



CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

EXHIBIT "A"


TABLE OF STATUTES AND RULES

CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, AND RULES Page
U.S. Constitution
Articles 4,5 21,26
Statutes
5 U.S.C. 522 21,22,26
5 U.S.C. 551(1) 24
5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., as amended by Public Law 99-570 1801-1804 (1986)
and amendments thereafter 2,3,4,11,28
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) (1994 and Supp. IV 1998) 8
5 U.S.C. 522(f) 24
18 U.S.C. 1001 3
28 U.S.C. 1746 4
Homeland Security Act 9,10
Privacy Act of 1974 2,3
Public Law 99-570 1801-1804 (1987) and amendments thereafter 3
U.S. Patriot Act 9
Federal Administrative Rules
28 C.F.R. 16.1(a) 22,26
28 C.F.R. 16.1 et seq. 22
28 C.F.R. 16.3(a) 22
28 C.F.R. 16.41 et seq. 3
28 C.F.R. 16.4(d) 4,27
28 C.F.R. 16.5(d)(iv)(2) 26
TABLE OF STATUTES AND RULES (Con't)

STATUTES, RULES, AND CONSTITUTION Page
Rules (Con't)
31 C.F.R. 1.1 26
31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1) 22,24,26
31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i) 23,24
31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i)(s)(ii) 21,22,23
31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(1)(5)(8)(9)(10) 25
31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(1)(8)(10)(11)(12) 24
31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(12) 25
31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(14) 25
31 C.F.R. 1, App. E(3) 24
31 C.F.R. 1.5(b)(3)(f) 21,24
32 C.F.R. 1900.25(a)(1-6)(b)(f) 2,3
68 F.R. 7719, Appendix E 21



I.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The issues presented for review are the following:
1. Did the U.S. District Court err in granting the government's Motion to Dismiss upon Plaintiff/Appellant's reasonable compliance with the Freedom of Information Act?


II.
STATUTES INVOLVED

This case involves all of the statutes and rules set forth in the Table of Statutes and Rules, supra.


III.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On or about February 28, 2002, Appellant Schlund served on the governmental agency Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ("ATF") his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request as attached exhibits indicating proper proof of mailing to the agency (Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by this reference). Exhibit "A" is a FOIA request addressed to Mr. James Covakas, FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Civil Division-Department of Justice, 901 East St. N.W., Room 808, Washington, D.C. 20226.

2. Exhibit "A" requests FOIA information in the possession and control of the Department of the Treasury and its sub-agencies and departments/agencies committed to information sharing systems, yet divisible, requesting information including, but not limited to, that set forth in Exhibit "A" pertaining to the June 17, 1978 activities between the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), and Department of Treasury, Bureau of ATF relating to DEA activities against Appellant Schlund. These FOIA requests ask for information pertaining to the government's fabrication of evidence to attempt to set up Appellant Schlund for the purpose of arresting, charging, and attempting to convict and imprison him based on a purported conspiracy theory involving the alleged manufacture of methamphetamine. The DEA activities involved fabricating evidence, subordination of perjury, and perjury, which was discovered by U.S. District Judge Lacey, who acquitted Plaintiff Schlund of all charges on that basis. The motive of the DEA was designed to create the reasonable suspicion and probable cause for purposes of creating an investigation task force to place Appellant Schlund under surveillance, invade his privacy, and ultimately place him in a position where they could subject him to torture.

3. Also, the motive of the DEA was to discredit Appellant Schlund as a political witness and to torture him through various electronic methods. This issue has been conceded by the government and remains beyond dispute. The records are voluminous in nature and have for twenty-seven years been purportedly connected to an allegedly valid open investigation of Appellant as retaliation against him by the government due to his acquittal and the immense amount of personal knowledge he possesses pertaining to select individuals who have been engaged in corruption in law enforcement and on the bench.

4. On February 28, 2002, Appellant Schlund submitted a timely and proper FOIA request to various agencies which are integrated and/or electronically connected to a great extent which share information recognized under the FOIA laws and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., as amended by Public Law 99-570 1801-1804 (1986) and amendments thereafter. Additionally, 32 C.F.R. 1900.25(a)(1-6)(b)(f) requires the various Defendant departments and agencies, including but not limited to all direct and collateral agencies, to conduct a search in all other departments, divisions, offices, and agencies for the information relating to Appellant Schlund's FOIA request. This also remains beyond dispute. Appellant Schlund contemporaneously submitted these various FOIA requests on the following dates:

a. February 21, 2003 - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms request to Chief, Disclosure Division, Washington, D.C. 20226;

b. February 28, 2002 - FOIA request to Mr. James Covakas, FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Civil Division, DOJ;

c. February 21, 2003 - Arthur G. Garcia, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 2 Renaissance Square, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 on behalf of the DOJ/ATF and the DOJ/DEA;

d. February 21, 2003 - Dorothy A. Chambers, Chief, Disclosure Division, ATF, FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Civil Division, D.O.J., Washington, D.C., 20530.

All of the above are referred to as Exhibit "A" and attached and incorporated in haec verba herein by this reference. These six pages of extensively detailed FOIA requests satisfy every single FOIA condition set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001, 28 C.F.R. 16.41 et seq., as required under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., as amended by Public Law 99-570 1801-1804 (1986) and amendments thereafter, 32 C.F.R. 1900.25(a)(1)-(6)(b)(f) and every other provision under 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. for a FOIA request. This includes proper attachments to said FOIA requests of Certification Of Identity required under 28 U.S.C. 1746 and Affirmation And Declaration Of Requestor, Charles August Schlund, III, as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and 28 C.F.R. 16.41(d), with all extensive personal details of the requestor, Appellant Schlund (Exhibit "A"). Again, Appellant Schlund's FOIA requests were properly sent to the local Assistant U.S. Attorney's offices, Bureau of ATF, and Civil Division, D.O.J., as required under the federal statutes and codes aforesaid.

5. The FOIA requests ask for personal information of Appellant Schlund's acquittal over twenty-five (25) years ago. There is no justification for the non-release of the records he has requested in his FOIA request (Exhibit "A").

6. Appellant Schlund has alleged in his complaint supporting facts relevant to his FOIA/PA requests he is clearly a political witness against President George W. Bush, as he has personal knowledge from his possession and personal knowledge of the "Bolles Papers" which detail the systematic overthrow of the government of the United States, as he has set forth in his Verified Complaint. Appellant Schlund has a lawful right to all of his personal records maintained by the government and its various departments/agencies but is being refused those records as he is a political witness to the corruption of George W. Bush. President Bush, upon taking office, has intentionally forbidden the release of information relating to the public, especially political witnesses who engage in whistle-blowing activities concerning public corruption as follows:

In summary, on January 20, 2001, George W. Bush took the oath of office as the 43rd President of the United States; Bush moved to unravel the efforts of his predecessor, President William Clinton. President Bush had his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, immediately direct all federal agencies to freeze more than 300 pending regulations issued by the administration of President Bill Clinton. The regulations affected areas ranging from health and safety to the environment, industry, and, of course, the Freedom of Information Act.

The delay, Card said, would "ensure that the President's appointees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations." The process, as it turned out, expressly precluded input from average citizens. Inviting such comments, agency officials concluded, would be "contrary to the public interest."

Immediately after taking office the effect of the above was that no information would be given to a member of the public requesting it (Appellant Schlund) on the grounds that it would be allegedly "contrary to the public's interest," and every request was pushed under the umbrella that such information could provide "a road map for terrorists." United States American citizens, such as Appellant Schlund, all over the nation have been told they cannot get their information or any other information from [their] American government because it might somehow connect to terrorist activities.

7. The U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Damion J. Keith then issued a statement that, "Democracies die behind closed doors." The wise United States Appellate Judge voiced his concern that the best way to overthrow a democracy is to hide and conceal, at all costs, government information from its public citizens under the pretext that every public information request could lead to "terrorist activity." This is exactly the corruption activities that Appellant Schlund forecasted over twenty-five (25) years ago after possessing and exposing the Bush papers commonly known as the "Bolles Papers" involving the attempted overthrow of the United States of America through Bush factions under the pretext of color of authority for the purpose of plundering the United States Treasury. Appellate Schlund is a political witness with personal knowledge of the corruption of high-ranking officials, including many federal judges in this regard. It is beyond dispute that since President Bush has been in office his administration has quietly, but efficiently, dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government, cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, environmental matters, and any information-related requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. The result has been a complete reversal of a long history of openness in government while making increasing amounts of information unavailable to the taxpayers who pay for its collection and analysis. These facts have been cited by the Bush administration officials in light of the September 11, 2001 attacks as the reason for the aggressively enhanced secrecy against the American citizens, as Appellant Schlund forecast over twenty-five years ago.

8. At the forefront behind the walls of secrecy and concealment set forth prohibiting American citizens from gaining government information on or relating to the citizenry have been the new surveillance powers granted under the post-9-11 U.S.A. Patriot Act, which is undergoing extensive litigation because of the clandestine workings of the Bush administration against its own citizenry, including Appellant Schlund. Exhibit "A" is the FOIA requests that have been shunned by the Defendant and have nothing to do with national security interests, nor has the government been able to substantiate same in nearly twenty-five years.

9. As set forth above, Appellate Schlund filed his lawsuit to compel the government to release his personal information which relates to activities that occurred over twenty-five years ago up until the present concerning the government's corruption, fraud, fabrication of evidence, perjury, subordination of perjury, and other identified outrageous conduct of the government as determined by the U.S. District Judge Lacey. For over twenty-five years this has had nothing to do with national security interests or the interest of any credible investigation, but instead government corruption that undermines national security and always has. This too has been admitted by the government in its Motion to Dismiss filed February 7, 2003. The Motion by the government acknowledges that the federal agencies have an absolute statutory federal duty to make their records properly available to any person who makes a proper request (such as Appellate Schlund has done) for the turnover of their records by the government to the requestor (Appellate Schlund) (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) [1994 and Supp. IV 1998]). Despite this obligation in order to comply with the staunch Bush administration mandate, which has included increased pressure on the federal court, "This administration's policy is to withhold information as much as possible," as this court is well aware. In this regard the following took place:

January 20, 2001 - Inauguration Day, the Bush administration freezes President Clinton's era of open government disclosure, without allowing for public comment.

October 12, 2001 - the Bush administration appointee, Attorney General John Ashcroft, reversed President Clinton's policy of allowing American citizens to have access to government information (FOIA/PA) and encourages the agencies to deny Freedom of Information Act requests if a "sound legal basis exists." The sound legal basis criteria has been established that if the responding federal agency does not want to release the information, it takes the position that it does not have to do so. This position has been taken by the DOJ/ATF, the DOJ/DEA, and all other departments and agencies of the federal administration under the Bush administration.

October 26, 2001 - President Bush signs the U.S.A. Patriot Act, expanding law enforcement powers and government electronic surveillance over American citizens, violating their United States Constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy in every respect.

February 22, 2002 - Congress' General Accounting Office ("GAO") sues Vice President Dick Cheney for refusing to disclose records of his energy task force. The GAO eventually loses its case. A separate private case is still pending.

March 19, 2002 - White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card directs federal agencies to protect sensitive security information; all information then becomes classified as sensitive or otherwise of concern under the U.S.A. Patriot Act and non-disclosable.

November 25, 2002 - President Bush signs the Homeland Security Act. Its provisions restrict public access to information filed by companies about "critical infrastructure" and all other information normally released to American citizens concerning matters personal to them or other general concern relating to government activity involving their personal information protected under the United States Constitution. Under the Homeland Security Act, the Bush administration and all agencies under the Executive Branch of the United States government refused to turn over information related to Freedom of Information Act requests, such as the FOIA submitted by Appellant Schlund, despite the fact that federal law requires it and it relates to him personally.

January 3, 2003 - the Bush administration asked, in papers filed before the Supreme Court of the United States (the same court which illegally appointed Bush as President and condoned illegal fixing of the Presidential election), to significantly narrow its decisions restricting the information being released to American citizens under the Freedom of Information Act. Such information is then requested in Exhibit "A" submitted by Appellant Schlund, which has not been responded to.

March, 25, 2003 - President Bush issues standards on classified material, favoring strict secrecy and reversing all provisions on openness, and instructs the federal administrative agencies from complying with any Freedom of Information Act requests, such as that requested by Appellant Schlund. As set forth above, nearly one month before President Bush issues the standards on classified material favoring secrecy and reversing President Clinton's provisions on openness, Arthur G. Garcia, Assistant U.S. Attorney, files the government's Motion to Dismiss, claiming that Appellant Schlund's FOIA requests do not "reasonably describe" the records sought and "has not made an access request as required by the Freedom of Information Act," wrongfully and intentionally misrepresenting to the U.S. District Court that Appellant Schlund's "name does not appear on [FOIA] requests [as required by agency regulations]... has not made a formal request for documents within the meaning of the statute [and therefore] has no right to [the documents or to] sue in District Court when the agency refuses to release requested documents" (Dismissal Motion p.2, line 6-16). Attorney Garcia also attaches a purported Declaration of Dorothy A. Chambers, Chief, Disclosure Division, Bureau of ATF purporting to support Garcia's conclusions despite Appellant Schlund's Exhibit "A" FOIA requests clearly state otherwise.
On approximately October 18, 2003, the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Murgia disregards all of Appellant Schlund's compelling points and authorities, declarations, and other evidence filed in the record which prima facia support of his compliance with the FOIA requirements. The judge dismisses his proper lawsuit pursuing the right for him to receive his personal information from the government under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and follows the "no release of information" requirement imposed by Defendant Bush.

On October 21, 2003 Appellant Schlund files his Notice of Appeal.



IV.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 1977 Plaintiff Schlund was one of a group of people who read all of the CIA and other files that George Bush Sr. had removed from the CIA and other agencies in 1976 to deny the information from Jimmy Carter and those he would appoint to the different agencies and other positions within the government.

In 1978, after Plaintiff Schlund had refused all offers from the government to make Plaintiff Schlund a federal agent, judge, or any other position Plaintiff wanted within the government, the DEA then set up Plaintiff Schlund and framed him as being a drug manufacturer and tried Plaintiff in a federal trial. Plaintiff was acquitted of all charges, and the government appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the acquittal was upheld.

The government's corruption, the committing of perjury in court, and the government's threatening of Plaintiff witnesses resulted in the acquittal of Plaintiff Schlund. The DEA and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department had paid their witness Carl Altz to lie and had gone to Plaintiff's witnesses and threatened them. Plaintiff Schlund's first witness was Robert Snow. The government went and interviewed him, and he told them how Carl Altz was a drug manufacturer working for the government and all of the details. The government then threatened to slit his wife's and children's throats while he was on the witness stand if he said anything other than assert his Fifth Amendment rights. The government also went to Plaintiff Schlund's second witness, William L. Schlund, and threatened to prosecute him if he admitted to any knowledge about anything in the case.

After Plaintiff Schlund's acquittal, the government continued to offer Plaintiff Schlund positions in some of the drug cartels that the government ran through the CIA and DEA, police, and others. The government, to protect themselves, continued to frame Plaintiff Schlund as being a drug manufacturer, drug dealer, gun runner, murderer, thief, and for other crimes. Plaintiff Schlund was not guilty of other than refusing to murder children and young girls that these corrupt agents were feeding to their corrupt judges and politicians for sex. Plaintiff Schlund had refused to help in the fixing of the elections and had refused to sell drugs for the government. All of this is documented and provable in a trial.

In 1991 the DEA had one of their gang members, John Bashum, murder George King in Plaintiff Schlund's home to threaten Plaintiff's wife. The DEA at an earlier date had John Bashum murder the kid that lived behind Plaintiff to intimidate Plaintiff's wife. The DEA and others documented how John Bashum worked for Plaintiff with every kind of evidence possible when John Bashum did not work for Plaintiff, and all of this documentation was created to give John Bashum cover while he was on parole from prison so he could do political assassinations for the government using the cover that he was at work working for Plaintiff. All of the government's documentation is a lie created to cover up mass murder and treason by the government, including the courts. Plaintiff Schlund stands prepared to prove all of this before a jury. On the other hand, the government will not allow a trial and has repeatedly refused to allow any murder reports to be filed with the police, with the police throwing Plaintiff out of the police station and refusing to take any murder reports. The police's refusal to take murder reports dates back to the mid-1970's when Plaintiff had information on other murders and the car bombing in 1976 of the newspaper reporter Don Bolles. To this date the police continue to refuse to take a police report on any of these murders or assassinations that Plaintiff has information on, and all the witnesses are still being threatened and tampered with to cover up this corruption.

In 1991 Plaintiff Schlund went to the DEA and asked for all of this to stop. The DEA then continued to try to frame Plaintiff Schlund for any and every crime they could. Later in the year 1991, Plaintiff Schlund went to the FBI, whom Plaintiff had called many times and asked if they were interested in the information. It appears the DEA intercepted these calls and impersonated the FBI. At that time the FBI asked for the information and Plaintiff Schlund gave the FBI permission to monitor him without need of a warrant so the FBI could obtain the needed information. Monitoring does not mean torture. The CIA and other files in question that the FBI needed the information on involved hundreds of thousands of pages of information, including the names of all the corrupt judges, federal agents, police, and gang members; the names of all the people who had been assassinated; and information about the plans to fix the presidential elections of the United States, such as recently happened with the fraudulent appointment of George W. Bush.

In 1991, Plaintiff Schlund began to supply the FBI with the information the FBI requested. This information resulted in the DEA and CIA losing over one billion dollars in drugs and resulted in the massive decrease in crime beginning in 1991 up until the end of 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed president.

In 1992, the information being supplied to the FBI by Plaintiff resulted in stopping CIA plans to fix the presidential elections and disrupted all of the CIA's plans for the overthrow of the United States by the CIA. See Plaintiff's lawsuit against the President George W. Bush, CV03-1590 PHX VAM.

In 1993, Plaintiff Schlund was working with the FBI, briefing them on the CIA's and George Bush Sr. plans to flood the streets of America with SKS assault riffles and other kinds of assault riffles and ammunition. Plaintiff Schlund was working with the FBI, supplying them with illegal drug information, illegal drug smuggling information, illegal drug manufacturing information, assault weapon information, the plans of the CIA and the Bush family to fix the presidential elections of the United States, information on murders and political assassinations, and much more.

At approximately this time period in 1993, the assassination attempts by the government against Plaintiff Schlund greatly increased. To cover-up the assassination attempts of Plaintiff Schlund by the government, the DEA and other agents would enter Plaintiff's home under the protection of a warrant issued from one of their corrupt and dishonest judges. These agents would then take one of Plaintiff's guns to use as a throw down weapon after the assassination of Plaintiff. Again the police would refuse to take a police report of the stolen gun. Plaintiff would tell the police to call the FBI, and the FBI informed the police that this was a federal matter above their jurisdiction. The police would then call Plaintiff back and refuse to take a police report and inform Plaintiff that it was a federal matter out of their jurisdiction. In fact, the Phoenix police told Plaintiff the DEA is above the law.

The above took place repeatedly, in many different variations. During some of the times the government was attempting to assassinate Plaintiff, they would first take a gun for a throw down weapon. About six or seven guns were taken this way. The FBI and others including police, IRS and others stopped all of the assassination attempts against Plaintiff. To cover up these crimes by the government, the guns were then planted or given to gang members to frame Plaintiff to make it look like the guns were not taken from Plaintiff. This is where the ATF comes into the picture. There are two possibilities. One, that the ATF worked with the DEA in the attempted overthrow of the United States and helped in the cover-up of the suspected planting of these guns, or two, that the ATF is not guilty of any of this and did not have Plaintiff under investigation. Plaintiff knows that the second possibility is incorrect because while Plaintiff was out shooting, an AFT agent approached him and stated that it was ridiculous that Plaintiff was amassing a modern arsenal like the DEA and police had claimed.

Plaintiff Schlund then filed FOIA and other lawsuits to obtain the needed information in the interest of justice to prove the murders and corruption and to prove the overthrow of the United States by the CIA. The information will prove who the corrupt agents and judges are. These corrupt agents are protected by corrupt judges and corrupt employees of the Justice Department.
Plaintiff Schlund repeatedly properly filed the FOIA requests. Every time the requests were filed they were denied for one made up reason or another. None of the reasons are based in reality. This corrupt process is being used to bankrupt Plaintiff Schlund as he is fighting in court. The government tortures Plaintiff with the CIA implants that the government injected into Plaintiff in 1993. The government has admitted to the injections of the CIA devices into Plaintiff Schlund, yet it perpetually denies publicly these implant devices exist. Advances in science have forced this information to become publicly known and has disclosed the truth of the use of implantable devices and other integrated technologies used by the government and others involved with it to cover up it and their corrupt activities.

The courts, including the 9th Circuit, have made up crap for rulings based on lies and made up things not plead in any of Plaintiff Schlund's meritorious lawsuits (see C.A. No. 00-15-126; D.CT. No.CIV-98-1875-PHX-RCB) and blatantly ignored the facts and controlling law.
In the FOIA lawsuit before the court, Plaintiff properly filed the request to the ATF and properly filed the resulting lawsuit. The Court then claimed the services were not proper and had Plaintiff refile the request to the address the Court provided. Plaintiff then filed the proof of service with the Court for service at the address that the Court gave Plaintiff. The Court then corruptly, in the interest of lawlessness and evil, threw out the case for alleged improper service. In other words, the Court lied and engaged in obstruction of justice.

It has become self-evident that law and the American Constitution have been suspended by corrupt judges of the courts. The corrupt judges then continue to pretend that Plaintiff Schlund is guilty of some made up surreal and fantastic crime, perpetual in nature, and continues to have Plaintiff tortured and deprived of sleep in retaliation of Plaintiff filing the lawsuits. This torture has already resulted in near death and damages that will result ultimately in the death of Plaintiff. The torture of Plaintiff has stopped Plaintiff from writing books, voting, serving on juries, and has denied Plaintiff every other Constitutional right. All of this is based on a surreal and fantastic investigation based on corrupt judges and corrupt agents covering-up drug running, murder, and treason.

This corruption and the stopping of Plaintiff from writing books has now allowed these corrupt people to plunder the treasury of the United States for trillions of dollars and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, as Plaintiff Schlund advised accurately over the last 12 years to the FBI.

When the Court commits such crimes they call the person they are torturing a Paranoid Schizophrenic. In this case, the Court, by its rulings, has proved who the Paranoid Schizophrenic is, and it is not the Plaintiff.

The intent of the torture being used against Plaintiff Schlund is to force him, under torture and sleep deprivation, to become violent so that the government can justify their evil and satanic acts. The Court's part in this conspiracy is to throw out all lawsuits to render the Motion for Relief from torture moot. No court could have ever acted more evil. Saddam Hussein's torture chambers are kid's stuff compared to the torture administered by the corrupt judges of the America courts.

Plaintiff tried to word this nicely in previous lawsuits, which resulted in the further torture of Plaintiff who has suffered great pain and suffering by the use of the most cruel and unusual punishment possible by any court. Plaintiff now requests this Court to order the lower court to act fairly and within the laws of the United States, to hear the Motion for Relief from Torture, and to release all of the ATF records on Plaintiff Schlund to Plaintiff Schlund. There is no real and legitimate investigation of Plaintiff, and there is no crime being committed by Plaintiff Schlund, as reliable and verifiable evidence will support at trial.

Plaintiff Schlund was tortured all night the night of 14 February, 2004. The torture was done in retaliation for writing the above for the Court. Plaintiff Schlund lost the night's sleep and was horribly tortured as an act of obstruction of justice, terrorism, and witness tampering in the cover up of the fixing of the presidential election of the United States.

V.

ARGUMENT

1. Plaintiff complied with the Freedom of Information Act requirements.
On or about February 28, 2002, Plaintiff Schlund served on the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ("ATF") his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, properly addressed to Mr. James Covakas, FOIA-Privacy Act Office, Civil Division-Department of Justice, 901 East Street, N.W., Room 808, Washington, D.C. 20530. The ATF was an agency of the United States Department of Treasury on February 28, 2002, according to the Code of Federal Regulation ("C.F.R.") pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i)(s)(ii). Plaintiff Schlund also submitted his proper FOIA request to the ATF with the address of 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20226. All references to FOIA also include the Privacy Act ("PA") and shall be deemed included within the FOIA, unless specifically denoted otherwise herein.

Prior to July 1, 2003, Plaintiff Schlund submitted his FOIA request addressed to Mr. James Covakas, supra, at the 901 East Street, N.W., Room 808, Washington, D.C. 20530 address, which was proper pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 16.1(a) and 16.3(a), in addition to the alternative avenues as set forth in said provisions and the Appendixes thereto referred to in 28 C.F.R. 16.1 et seq. Submission to the 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. is not the exclusive method for requesting information under FOIA as the government admits, supra.

The government admits that the ATF was an agency of the United States Department of Treasury on February 28, 2002 (31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i)(S)(ii). 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1) states,

"This subpart contains the regulations of the Department of the Treasury implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act, Amendments of 1996. The regulations set forth procedures for requesting access to records maintained by the Department of the Treasury. These regulations apply to all bureaus of the Department of Treasury. Any reference in this subpart to the Department or its officials, employees, or records shall be deemed to refer also to the bureaus or their official, employees, or records. Persons interested in the records of a particular bureau should also consult the appendix to the subpart that pertains to that bureau. The head of each bureau is hereby authorized to substitute the officials designated and change the address specified in this appendix to the subpart applicable to the bureau. The bureaus of the Department of the Treasury for the purposes of this subpart are:


(i) The department offices, which include the offices of:
(K) The General Counsel and all offices reporting to such official, including immediate staff;... ;
(L) The Inspector General and all offices reporting to such official, including immediate staff;... "
These "Departmental Offices," which are included under 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i) as set forth above, include the other designated officers or others of other offices connected to the Department of Justice such as, the "Civil Division" and the directors in charge: "Mr. James Covakas, FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Civil Division - Department of Justice" denoted above. The ATF, as noted in 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i)(S)(ii) is just one of the "Departmental Offices" under the Department of Justice. Others include the United States Secret Service, the United States Customs Service, and those indicated in the appendix to the subpart that pertains to that bureau or the head of each [that] bureau which is then authorized to substitute the official designated (Mr. Covakas) and any address that is changed or designated despite a different address as specified in the appendix to the subpart applicable to the bureau as permitted under 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1). The departmental offices, under 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1)(i) that are designated, are only those "which include," but are not limited to, those designated under that section.

There is no limitation language, nor could there be any construed, on grounds under 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1) specifically mandates that the regulations set forth in there "apply to all bureaus of the Department of Treasury," which include any FOIA request addressed to Mr. James Covakas, FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Civil Division - Department of Justice, 901 East Street, N.W., Room 808, Washington, D.C. Contrary to the position taken by the government, the request does not have to be addressed directly to the ATF but imposes on the different government (departmental agencies) to conduct a reasonable FOIA search from the date of the request (31 C.F.R. 1.5(b)(3)(f) as the "responsible official" set forth under 31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)[definitions](1)(9)(10)(11)(12) and as set forth under 31 C.F.R. Pt. 1, subpart.

App. E(3). Also, 5 U.S.C 551(1) and 5 U.S.C. 552(f). In fact, as a matter of law, the government is required to make, at least, an electronic search as amended by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act and amendments of 1996 and thereafter, which apply to "all bureaus" of the Department of Treasury, which as defined above includes, but is not limited to, the "departmental offices" and other departments under the Department of Justice, of which
the Department of Treasury has a component relationship with requiring the search. The search is to include its computer software which has been defined as "tools" by which the records are created, stored, and retrieved. Further, computer software, including source code, object code, and listings of source and object codes, regardless of the medium are not agency records.
However, "when data are embedded within the software and cannot be extracted without the software, the software may have to be treated as an agency record. Proprietary (or copyrighted) software is not an agency record." 31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(1)(5)(8)(9)(10). The reasonable official required to make the disclosure includes, but is not limited to, any authorized governmental employee to make such disclosures including a disclosure officer, head of the organizational unit having immediate custody of the records requested, or an official designated by the head of the organization's unit. 31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(12). The search to be conducted if the FOIA request is clear includes all time spent looking for the material that is responsive to the request, including page by page or line by line identification of material within the records. The searches may be done manually or by automated means (31 C.F.R. 1.1(b)(14)).

Therefore, the FOIA/Privacy Act regulations under the Code mandate Mr. James Covakas, FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Civil Rights Division - Department of Justice, to commence the search or/and submit the search request to the ATF electronically at the 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. address as set forth above. Mr. Covakas is a Liaison Public Information Officer with the Department of Justice that liaisons with the Department of Treasury, ATF, as the disclosure divisions are integrated electronically for that purpose under the Electronic Freedom of Information Act setting forth the purpose and the scope of 31 C.F.R. 1.1 pertaining to the Department of Treasury implementing the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552 as noted in 31 C.F.R. 1.1(a)(1) and 28 C.F.R. 16.1(a) which are to use multi-processing tracks as identified under the code. The only exception are requests which require expedited processing, and those requests must be submitted to the Director of Public Affairs. The government's admission (supra) that the FOIA/Privacy Act request was received by Mr. James Covakas of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice requested information which was related to any investigation of Plaintiff Schlund. Once the request submitted by Plaintiff Schlund was received by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice FOIA/Privacy Act Office, it had a mandatory obligation to refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that information to the
Department of Treasury, ATF and consult with that agency for the purpose of compliance under 28 C.F.R. 16.4(d) [Responsibility for Responding to Request; and Law Enforcement Information].

VI.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above said, Appellant Schlund respectfully requests this Court to reverse and remand this case to the United States District Court, with instructions to enter an order for the Defendants/Appellees' compliance with his FOIA/PA requests as required under the law, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Also, to reverse the Court's denial of Plaintiff Schlund's right to relief from the government's torture of Plaintiff Schlund.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2004.


Respectfully submitted,

Charles A. Schlund, III
Plaintiff in Pro Per


NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Randy D. Lang, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 and reside in Maricopa County, State of Arizona, in the central district of Arizona, within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 17, 2004 I served two copies of the Appellants Opening Brief and Excerpts and Appellants Motion by personally delivering them in the night box provided by the Government for that purpose, at the below address:


Attn:

Arthur G. Garcia, Esq.
Assistant U.S. District Attorney
U.S. Attorneys Office
2 Renaissance Square
Phoenix, Arizona 850004-4408

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Date:

By


Randy D. Lang, Declarant

homepage: homepage: http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/02/800515.shtml

I'm no lawyer.. 27.Feb.2004 06:57

dailygrind

But wouldn't it be great if we could file a class action suit against the bastards?

dailygrind 27.Feb.2004 08:13

Tony Blair's dog

Indeed!

And as the old African proverb so wisely states:

"If there's a will, there's a way."

By the way, those "Bolles Papers" that are mentioned in the article,
has anyone come across any more information on them yet?
They seem to contain pretty damning evidence against the criminal
Bush administration.

Oh! Goody!....I want to be on the Jury that tries this case, P-L-E-E-Z-E! 27.Feb.2004 08:22

Merlin

this would be the case to set in judgement on wouldn't it?

Hoping for the best 27.Feb.2004 09:07

prepared for the worst

Will this case determine whether we are a nation based on the rule of law or as it seems to be are we becoming a nation sliding into rule by criminals. The last time we relied on the courts to determine such an issue of importance, ie. ballot tampering in Florida, Bush succeeded in his coup of our government. This time the rule of law must apply to the criminals or we are no longer a nation of laws but a banana republic ruled by criminals and thugs.

With Liberty and Justice for Sale! 28.Feb.2004 13:16

Bird dog

Enough said!

Or maby it's time for another revolution!

Mariani vs Bush 20.Apr.2004 20:07

PawnX@pawnintheirgame.net PawnX@pawnintheirgame.net

You all must look at this other lawsuit against the entire cabinet, under the RICO Act.

 http://www.911forthetruth.com