|
harles August Schlund, III
8520 N. 54th Drive
Glendale, AZ 85302
(602) 670-2017
Plaintiff in Pro Per
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III Plaintiff,
vs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Defendants
(Honorable Virginia A. Mathis)
CIV 03-1590-PHX VAM
NOTICE AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
FOR PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER (14) DAYS BEFORE THE SCHEDULING
IS HELD TO DEVELOP PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN; AND, FOR ORDER
TO SET ASIDE MARCH 15, 2004 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH MRI SCANS,
CAT SCANS, X-RAYS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH EVIDENCE.
Charles A. Schlund, III ("Plaintiff Schlund") hereby requests the
Court to Order a date certain for the Scheduling Conference to be held
so that the Scheduling Order may be issued under F.R.C.P. Rule 16(b)
and as set forth in F.R.C.P. Rule 26(f). Plaintiff Schlund also
requests an order from the Court to set aside its March 15, 2004 Order
denying Plaintiff's February 10, 2004 Motion for Injunctive Relief to
Prevent Interference With MRI Scans, CAT Scans, and X-Rays of
Plaintiff Schlund which are relevant evidence pertaining to the issues
raised in Plaintiff Schlund's Complaint filed August 15, 2003.
Dated: March 22, 2004By:
Charles August Schlund, III
Plaintiff in Pro Per
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On August 15, 2003, Plaintiff's Complaint was filed. All Defendants
have been served. The Complaint has been properly verified under
penalty of perjury and subscribed and sworn on August 15, 2003 by
Candace Paxia, a notary public for Maricopa County, Arizona, whose
commission expires August 21, 2006. The Verification to the Complaint
is signed by Plaintiff Schlund and notarized by Ms. Paxia, according
to law. The Complaint is comprised of 64 pages of detailed facts
which are of the personal knowledge of Plaintiff Schlund, or to the
best of his recollection of the Government's continuous and ongoing
outrageous conduct in violation of his Constitutional and federal
rights, clearly supported under the Constitution and federal law
(hereinafter referred to as "legal support"). The Verified Complaint
sets forth in detail Plaintiff's personal knowledge of the facts
supporting the legal support for the propositions set forth in his
causes of action in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as "factual
support"). The Court is requested to take judicial notice of the
Verified Complaint under Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(a), (b),
and (c) (discussed infra) in conjunction with F.R.E. Rule 1005.
On February 10, 2004, Plaintiff Schlund filed and served his Motion
for Injunctive Relief to Prevent Interference with MRI Scans, CAT
Scans, X-rays of Plaintiff Schlund, and supporting Points and
Authority set forth therein (Doc. 9), hereafter referred to as
("Injunction Motion to Protect Evidence" or "I.M.P.E."). The I.M.P.E.
is concisely articulated with supporting facts under penalty of
perjury by the Affidavit of Plaintiff Schlund attached to the Motion,
which is incorporated into the Motion, establishing dates, time,
individuals involved, agencies involved, the nature of and their acts
and conduct relating to Plaintiff and location of activities set forth
in the Verified Complaint. Plaintiff Schlund concerning their corrupt
or other activities, and was signed and executed under penalty of
perjury on February 9, 2004 by Plaintiff Schlund. The Affidavit also
references the need for the Court to set, hold a hearing, and grant
the Motion to Prevent Interference while Plaintiff awaited for this
Court to set up a Scheduling Conference under Rule 16(a).
The I.P.M.E. requesting injunctive relief to prevent interference by
Defendants reveals the nature of the governments implant devices,
their design purposes, and capabilities and results obtained through
use of the implants. The motion cites F.R.C.P. 706, which enables the
Court to order independent experts to assist the magistrate in this
matter concerning the sophisticated scientific nature of the implants,
their design, and workable achievements. It also cites F.R.C.P. 706,
that this Court has the power to sua sponte or upon the request by
Plaintiff Schlund to retain independent experts, to have an
independent expert, magistrate, or referee be ordered by the Court to
supervise and videotape the extraction of the said implants from the
body of Plaintiff Schlund, similar to any other surgery done today,
videotaped at the patient, doctor, or hospital's request to help
prevent claims of medical malpractice. The essence of the I.P.M.E.
request is to prevent interference with the MRI scans, CAT scans, and
x-rays (evidence) obtained by Plaintiff Schlund and to prevent witness
tampering and obstruction of justice, of which the Defendants have a
long history of engaging in with relation to Plaintiff Schlund's
criminal, now civil action. Plaintiff was acquitted.
The Defendants were found to be engaged in witness tampering,
obstruction of justice, perjury, and other illegal acts and conduct.
The court is also well aware that such electronic implantable devices
exist and are widely used in the pets of people that are placed under
investigation by the government. Plaintiff Schlund knows that the use
of implantable electronic devices in people since the 1970's has been
hidden from many judges to cover up the resulting torture and
sometimes the resulting deaths of these people at the hands of the
courts and the government. In a free and open country like America
such information is suppose to be openly available to the public.
Plaintiff hopes that America has not yet become Nazi Germany. The
presumption of innocents is still the law in America. Plaintiff
Schlund is innocent of the crimes he is being investigated for and is
being tortured to cover up his innocents.
The Motion to Prevent Interference also cites the controlling law,
including but not limited to Siderman DeBlake v. Republic of
Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992), a fairly recent case binding
the courts in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to accept the fact that
technology, as it advances, is used for intrusion, surveillance, and
torture by the government which results in, including but not limited
to, obstruction of justice. The case also establishes all
[governments] torture their citizens and always deny it as a matter of
factual and legal reality, and such is acknowledged by the courts as a
legal reality supported by such facts. Those same facts are set forth
sufficiently at this stage of the proceedings as set forth in
Plaintiff Schlund's Motion for Injunctive Relief to stop such
interference concerning the MRI scans, CAT scans, and x-rays of
Plaintiff Schlund. This Court has also been requested under F.R.
|
| |
| |
Mr. Schlund should spend his time seeking psychiatric help instead of
wasting the court's time and providing comic relief to lawyers and judges.
|
| |
| |
On 24 Mar 2004 11:15:26 -0800, abemarf@aol.com (Martin F. Abernathy)
wrote:
<snip>
On February 10, 2004, Plaintiff Schlund filed and served his Motion
for Injunctive Relief to Prevent Interference with MRI Scans, CAT
Scans, X-rays of Plaintiff
<snip>
The I.P.M.E. requesting injunctive relief to prevent interference by
Defendants reveals the nature of the governments implant devices,
their design purposes
And you wonder why no one takes lunatic leftwing kooks - aka, "you" -
seriously.
--
After Kerry returned from Vietnam he became an antiwar
activist. But was he really? In 1972 he threw his
medals away to protest the war. Years later it turned
out that he had thrown someone ELSE'S medals away and
kept his.
Ask yourself this: Would Patricia Ireland burn someone
else's bra? Then doesn't this make Kerry a fraud?
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:20:06 -0800, "LegalBeagle"
<palomino_law@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Schlund should spend his time seeking psychiatric help instead of
wasting the court's time and providing comic relief to lawyers and judges.
It's only comic relief the first 15-20 times they see something like
this. After a couple hundred it gets REAL old. In the Good Old Days
the Judge could have ordered Schund locked up for 48 hours psychiatric
observation after reading this #@($: Now he has to wait until the guy
throws off his clothes and climbs the White House fence with a bomb.
--
After Kerry returned from Vietnam he became an antiwar
activist. But was he really? In 1972 he threw his
medals away to protest the war. Years later it turned
out that he had thrown someone ELSE'S medals away and
kept his.
Ask yourself this: Would Patricia Ireland burn someone
else's bra? Then doesn't this make Kerry a fraud?
|
| |
| |
OrionCA wrote:
On 24 Mar 2004 11:15:26 -0800, abemarf@aol.com (Martin F. Abernathy)
wrote:
And you wonder why no one takes lunatic leftwing kooks - aka, "you" -
seriously.
We take kooks on both sides with a pillar of salt, except that one of
those sick religious nutters now has his finger poised on the button.
John "Crisco" Aschroft is Osama in a business suit.
|
| |
| |
Mr. Schlund should spend his time seeking psychiatric help instead of
wasting the court's time and providing comic relief to lawyers and judges.
That would work, if not for the collaboration of the drug companies with the
monitors.
A couple of MRIs, CAT scans and X-rays never hurt anyone.
|
| |
| |
|
