Posts Tagged ‘civil rights’

The UN human rights bodies’ double standard on Canada and China’s rights records

July 8, 2015

Now, the UN human rights committee is reviewing Canada’s human rights record. This is only a show, for both the UN and Canada.

The UN human rights bodies only selectively hear human rights complainants’ voice on political considerations. An example: while vigorously hearing the human rights complaints from the Chinese against China, these UN bodies turn away human rights complaints from the same Chinese against the Western countries like USA, Canada, etc. to cover up for these countries. I know at least 3 Chinese in US and Canada who brought human rights complaints to UN against the US and Canadian governments, but all of their complaints were turned a blank eye on by the UN.

My experience with UN probably is the most dramatic. In 2004, The Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” (HCHR) of UN, then headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s various human rights bodies, and returned them to me, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. I then brought a Complaint against this HCHR and the Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt to the President of UN General Assembly. But my Complaint was transferred back to the HCHR by Secretary of the President’s Office, Tony Gallagher of the USA, without consulting with any officials of the President’s Cabinet.

When I protested to the HCHR on grounds of conflict of interests, “Secretary” of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt called me and told me that he was “assigned” to my case by the HCHR, and “you don’t expect this Office will assist you”. Please see the letters that I wrote to the HCHR for details.

Obviously the UN’s human rights bodies are not accessible to people like me, whose human rights complaints are against the Western powers and who do not belong to a politically powerful and active ethnic groups such as the African Americans. This should change. As anyone has human rights, and is entitled to be heard at international human rights bodies.

‪#‎humanrights‬ ‪#‎unitednations‬ ‪#‎un‬ ‪#‎canada‬

Advertisements

Part II. Criminalized for Disputing the theory that “beauty is a European concept” by Canada and USA

December 29, 2014

Part II

As a result of Waterhouse’s retaliation, my application to the Ph.D program was rejected by the Department. Under the University’s policy, such intentional violation of grading policy and regulations would subject Waterhouse to serious sanctions. But since I was a racial minority student, and Waterhouse a member of the White privileged class, the University of Toronto, later joined by the whole justice system and another White American professor, geared up to cover up for Waterhouse and persecute me for complaining against Waterhouse.

After I lost my Ph.D application, I began to complain against Waterhouse’ racist reprisal to the University and requested the wrongs to be corrected and apology from Waterhouse. In this process I discovered from the Department the basic facts of Waterhouse’s fraud over my grade, etc., as mentioned above . When I questioned Waterhouse in a meeting with him, he admitted: “Yes I did.” But later he asserted it was an “innocent mistake”, and denied that he retaliated against me saying I misunderstood his theory. In covering up for Waterhouse, the university administration denied my right to access to my student file to find out what Waterhouse exactly did to me, which was my right under university policy.

In the department, all Asian professors eventually withdrew from sitting at the departmental appeal committee to hear my appeal, so finally it was the only one White professor who signed the decision to reject my appeal. Then an all White professors’ University’s Appeal Committee heard my appeal. They listened to my story so tentatively, and all of them so vigorously blamed Waterhouse who also attended the meeting. Waterhouse was grossly outraged and argued with them very angrily to defend himself, saying another Asian student also alleged he was racist, and that “we” are too tolerant for “them” to play race card. So it was totally to my astonishment when I received their decision to reject my appeal.

At the time, I was a part time student, since I was also part time working to support myself and pay the tuition fees. I worked on a full time well paid summer job in the East Asian department of the Royal Ontario Museum, which is affiliated with the East Asian Studies Dept. of the U of T. Because of my well appreciated work, I had been notified that I would be the only student to be hired back for next summer. Then during my appeal process, one day Waterhouse as if very casually asked me if I had worked in the Museum. I confirmed that. Soon I received a letter from the Museum that informed me that I would not be hired back. This was obviously a reprisal from Waterhouse. I was very upset, and brought a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in 1993.

In the meantime I had been working for years on a part counter help time job in a university cafeteria on campus. As my complaint continued at the OHRC, I was fired by the university from this job without any explanation or notice. I lost all my income sources all together and could not find another job, since it was in a time of the most serious economic recession in Canada in its recent history. Without income I had to drop out of the school, and faced with question of survival.

I then rushed back to the OHRC to continue my Complaint, which I had already basically stopped pursuing after filing it with the Commission. The Commission then became the only hope of survival to me, and initially it did give me a lot of help and support.

However, in my back the Commission already began to conspire with the U of T to suppress my Complaint.

As I later discovered, the U of T and the Commission were already exchanging drafts of an agreement regarding “the final result” of my case in my back. During the investigation process, the OHRC obtained my academic file at the U of T, but declined to disclose to me the info in my file regarding what had transpired at U of T about the grade etc. Also, although the OHRC had conducted a series of investigative interviews with key witnesses of the fake grade at the university – the then department Chair, Graduate Coordinator, etc., it refused to disclose to me any interview results.

So until now, what Waterhouse did to me in his reprisal is still a secret, only partially known to me based on the materials available to me.

How I was criminalized for thought by the racist justice system

November 30, 2014

I believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully shot, because I know from my own experience that the criminal justice system is racist and brutal. How many racial minorities have been the victims of the American and Canadian justice systems? So many of the innocent minorities have been shot dead or turned into criminals.

I, for one, was criminalized when I was a graduate student at University of Toronto. My alleged crime of threats to a White professor was my words: “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too.” which was my testimony before the Ontario Human Right Commission. To my argument that this was conditional and my right to self-defence, judge Knazan who convicted me said conditional threat was still a threat. I argued I never mentioned the U of T White professor David Waterhouse’s name, Knazan said he could “guess” that I “meant” Waterhouse in my mind. So I became a criminal just for my thoughts in my mind, and on basis of a judge’s guess. I further contested that my testimony was at the Commission, in reply to its questioning, and the Commission forced me to testify initially when I rejected, so under Canadian Charter of Rights, I have the right against self-incrimination, not to be prosecuted for my testimony. But Knazan said that law could not apply to my case, no reason provided as to why.

All of these happened to me only because I had academically proved to the White professor Waterhouse that the concept of beauty was not only a “European concept” in history as in his view point, but Asians and other people of colors all had it, and complained to a human rights tribunal against the professor’s unlawful retaliations.

US court’s conspiracy to create “procedural defects” through fraud and deceit to dismiss my civil rights case

April 18, 2009

 

On June 4, 2008, I filed a civil rights case against 23 Defendants, who are all US federal and California state officials, including former US Attorney Generals, US Department of Justice “Civil Rights Division” officials, US Congressman Smith, former forepersons of California Indictment Grand Jury, San Francisco Police Department, CNN, youtube, etc., alleging that they violated my right to equal protect by criminal law and my right to free speech, etc.

 

On March 11, 2009, Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed my Complaint with prejudice against 19 Defendants of the case for reason of “lack of service”. Yet this “lack of service” was caused by fraud, deceit, etc. that were conspired by the court with the Defendants of my case.

 

For instance: at first, the court e-filing system officially informed me that Deputy Attorney General of California Kay Yu filed an official court document for Defendant former Attorney General Ashcroft; following the then presiding judge Armstrong’s explicit confirmation on Ashcroft’s appearance before the court in a court order. And then, the court clerk altered the filing record to that Kay Yu filed the document for herself in stead of Ashcroft (Yu is also a Defendant to the case) without my knowledge. As a result of my unawareness of this change, I skipped to serve Ashcroft with summons and Complaint (as by law, defendants who appeared before the court voluntarily without being served need not be served with the process). Then Judge Hamilton dismissed my case against Ashcroft “with prejudice” (so that I cannot re-file this case again) for reason I did not serve on Ashcroft.

 

After I discovered this fraud, I requested investigation by the court and alleged that this docket record change is unlawful that violated the federal procedural rules, since by the rule, the change can only be done by Kay Yu, the original filer, through re-filing, and upon the re-filing, I as a party, would be automatically notified by email message about the change. Judge Hamilton only briefly mentioned the change of the docket record in a footnote of her Order to dismiss my Complaint, saying Yu made a “mistake”, the court’s Office of Clerk “corrected” it. She never answered my questions such as “Even if this change was what Ashcroft and Yu intended, how did the court know their intention and would act on their behalf to do so for her? Does that mean the court is in fact an agent of the Defendants to this case?”

 

I filed a Second Motion for Discovery Investigation for the court to answer my questions, and I also filed a Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal by Hamilton for reason of the fraud, and other deceit committed by the court in its orders, such as faking California service rules, faking a never-existed claim for my Complaint against CNN, and dismissed my action on basis of such fraud. I further alleged that the court does not have the authority to dismiss my case “with prejudice” under law, and to do so to me is a naked discrimination on basis of my civil rights case and my race for I am treated differently from other litigants.

 

On April 16, 2009, Judge Hamilton issued an order denying all my requests, including my motion to disqualify her. Again, she avoided addressing the questions I put before the court, and still assert the change of the docket was a “clerical mistake”. Obviously the court is not able to answer my questions, which can only mean that there are some secrets over this matter that can never be told. So the alteration could only be a covered operation, a fraud, and it was a conspiracy against me participated by the court and the Defendants of this case. They needed this conspiracy since if Yu did the “correction” in means provided by the Rules, the E-filing system would automatically serve the “correction” filing on me; yet if the court did so with its internal privilege to access and manage the court’s e-filing system, the “correction” could be done without my knowledge. 

 

Through such conspiracy and fraud, the court and the Defendants created “procedural defects” to dismiss my case. They needed to dismiss my case on procedural grounds, because a denial on the merits of my complaint can only be a denial of all the most fundamental legal principles that a “democratic society” is based on so that the hypocrisy of the so called American democracy will be revealed.  Yet when dismissing my Complaint on “procedural defects” grounds, especially for “lack of service”, the Defendants can completely avoid addressing the issues of racism in American criminal justices system and so on raised in my Complaint, since they now do not even need to file a motion to dismiss my Complaint on merits. And the dismissal is “with prejudice”, so only with some trivial and frivolous “defects” caused solely by the conspiracy, the Defendants and the court conveniently barred me from seeking redress against the racism in American criminal justice system for my human rights.

 

More details on the court’s other fraud, discrimination and violation of rules can be found here in my motion for relief from Hamilton’s Orders, and my motion to disqualify Hamilton.

 

Click hereto read my First Amended Complaint; here for motion to dismiss by CNN; Smith; Armstrong, and Yu. Click here for my Opposition to CNN’s motion to dismiss; here for my Motion to Disqualify judge Hamilton;

 

Click here for Hamilton’s Order of Dismissal of my Complaint for lack of service; here for Order granting CNN’s motion to dismiss; here for issues regarding e-filing. Click here for my motion for relief  from order of dismissal; herefor Hamilton’s Order denying my motion for relief and motion to disqualify.

Congressman Chris Smith sued for racism in his global human rights advocacy

January 16, 2009

On December 23, 2008, I filed my First Amended Complaint, in which I edited my claims against CNN, and added parties – Judge Saundra Armstrong  and US Congressman Chris Smith.  This is excerpt of my complaint against Smith:

 

In February 2006, I was very excited to learn that the Congress, the highest law making authority of the US, had launched a campaign to intervene those major US based Internet private companies’ conducts to restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet communications in China. Mr. Christopher Smith, Chairman of

 

 

 

In the Complaint I also brought in other issues such as that American government agent colluded with the former Supreme Court of Canada judge, High Commissioner for Human Rights at UN Louis Arbor to cover up for US and Canadian governments, seized all my complaints sent to the UN’s international human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint rules, and the death threat I received on Yahoo’s message board while posting my story, etc.

 

I claimed in this Complaint:

 

 

 

    “I have this standing to bring this complaint, as the Congress of United States has been known as most adamantly committed to human rights cause of the whole world, takingon the individual human rights abuse complaints from over the wold for hearing and public condemnation. Particularly notable is that numerable individual human rights complainants from China have been invited to speak before the Congress, alleging a wide range of human rights abuses in China. I am a Chinese and my human rights complaintinvolves the same and even more brutal abuses, as compared to those abuses cited for Chinese government in the 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report (Report) issued by the US Department of State. And most crucially, my human rights complaintis not against China, but your own US government, and the government of your political ally Canada. I trust it is accepted by every person with common sense that you do nothave the right and the standing to demand other nations to do things that you yourself refuse to do. Therefore, I believe that the Congress will treat my complaint not only same as those from China and other nations, but also give it priority for investigative hearing.”However, I never received any response from Smith. Defendant Smith’s silence on my complaint can only mean that my arguments are indisputable – that the human rights abuses committed by US and Canadian governments on me are even more serious compared to those cited for Chinese government in the US 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report.

And compared to his leading role in vigorously criticizing the Chinese and other governments for the same kind (and less serious than that in US) of human rights abuses as the Chairman of the US Congress human rights caucus, Defendant Smith had no any justifiable reason not to investigate my complaint. Therefore, the silence of Defendant Smith on my complaint can only mean that he condones and endorses the gross human rights abuses committed by his own US government and Canadian government.

Such a discrepancy in Defendant Smith’s human rights practice towards different nations reveals the hypocrisy of the “global human rights cause” that he has been advocating, and the racism nature of this “global human rights cause”. Because if Smith has no interest to support and protect me, this Chinese, for my human rights, what is his purpose to protect and support human rights for those Chinese in China? It can only mean that what he really concerned is not whether the Chinese enjoys human rights or not, but rather to claim the “moral supremacy” of the American and Western nations for purpose of maintaining their racial/political hegemony. And once a Chinese person exercises this same right but against his own and other Western nations’ governments, he supports the prosecution on this Chinese much more brutally than the Chinese government does to its people.

 

For reasons stated above, Defendant Christopher Smith is hereby sued in his official capacity, for a declaratory judgment for violations of 14th Amendment of United States Constitution – equal protection clause, and

 

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

 

 

 

the 109th Congress Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, held an investigative hearing and publicly condemned the conducts of those companies, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc., who had helped the Chinese government restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet. Further, the Congress was in a process to make laws to regulate these companies’ conducts in China to comply with US’s values on human rights, particularly, freedom of expression, and study the possibility of bringing down the “Great Firewall of China” that censors the Chinese Internet.

US Supreme Court Joined The Cover Up Of The Racist Injustice By Unlawful And Fraudulent Means

December 18, 2007

Now finally it is the turn of the highest court of the US, the Supreme Court of the United States, to show the true face of “American justice”. It used the same kind of unlawful and fraudulent means like that employed by the lower courts to deny my access to court:              

On September 17, 2007, I sent a Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari and motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the US Supreme Court (SCT). The court refused to file my petition and returned it to me with a Letter on Sept. 25, 2007 , for reason “The petition is out-of-time.” The letter from the Clerk faked a “fact” that my petition was received by the Clerk’s Office on September 25, 2007, and reasoned that “the petition was due on or before September 23, 2007”.      

On October 12, 2007, I sent a letter to SCT clerk to clarify the facts: 

My petition was received by your office on September 24, 2007, not as you said on September 25, 2007. This is confirmed by Xpresspost USA of Canada Post that delivered the package for me (Attachments – the delivery confirmation certificate, the tracking records and the customer receipt). By Rules of the Supreme Court, the last day of the 90 calendar days for me to file the petition was September 23, however, that was a Sunday. Then the deadline was the next Monday, which was September 24, 2007. This is because the Rules of the Supreme Court stipulates:  Rule 30. Computation and Extension of Time  1. In the computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, by order of the Court, or by an appli- cable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period begins to run is not included. The last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a Satur- day, Sunday, federal legal holiday listed in 5 U. S. C. § 6103, or day on which the Court building is closed by order of the Court or the Chief Justice, in which event the period shall extend until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, federal legal holiday, or day on which the Court building is closed. (Emphasis added)  So the last day of this 90 day period shall be September 24, not September 23.   And Rule 29 provides that  “A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk within the time specified for filing”.  Therefore when your office received my petition on September 24, 2007, it was filed, and was timely.              My petition was timely filed also because it was deposited in express mail, postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, showing that the document was mailed on September 18, 2007, (see the attachment) which was before the last day of filing  – September 24, 2007. Rule 29 provides: 

Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special          Notifications; Corporate Listing    2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerkwithin the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerkthrough the United States Postal Service by first-class mail(including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, andbears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meterlabel, showing that the document was mailed on or beforethe last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before thelast day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier fordelivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days. If submittedby an inmate confined in an institution, a document is timelyfiled if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail systemon or before the last day for filing and is accompanied by anotarized statement or declaration in compliance with 28U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the date of deposit and stating thatfirst-class postage has been prepaid. If the postmark ismissing or not legible, or if the third-party commercial carrierdoes not provide the date the document was received bythe carrier, the Clerk will require the person who sent the document to submit a notarized statement or declaration incompliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the details ofthe filing and stating that the filing took place on a particulardate within the permitted time. (Emphasis added) 

  I sent the same letter again on October 19, 2007. Since there was no response to my letters, I called the clerk, Gail Johnson twice but all my messages were never returned. I re-sent my petition with a declaration on mailing date for my Petition to the SCT, but on Nov. 27, 2007, it was returned to me again “for the reasons stated in prior correspondence from this office”.  Apparently, the issues that I presented in my petition are so significant in revealing the racist nature of the “justice” in US towards racial minorities, the Supreme Court of US prefers to hid its endorsement of all the injustice in this case, even by such shameful ways. This American justice system and this American government, from the very top to bottom, have no sense of decency in oppressing racial minorities by any means possible.   Here, by denying my petition, the highest court of US endorsed all the unlawful acts by the federal District Court, which have been outlined in my petition.

A Chinese proof: racial inequality in justice system

September 29, 2007

This is a Chinese proof of the racial inequality in US and Canadian justice systems.

I am a Chinese in Canada, but I am having experience with criminal justice similar to that of Jena 6 in both Canada and US – I challenged the White supremacy in an university, being retaliated against, complaints dismissed, got set up for criminal prosecution, convicted by a judge, and meanwhile all the American and Canadian Whites and their accomplices who committed true crimes against me got away Scott free from their criminal liabilities.

The Jena 6’s case and my case together have provided a live example of racial inequality in criminal justice. Just pick the issue on crime of “threats” from the both cases:

When a White person gets mad at a colored person, in public, to his face, calls to lynch him or to make him disappear, the government says it is not a crime, because either the White person did not have any violent acts, or he should have his right to free speech. But when it is the other way around, a colored person gets mad at a White person, and says “Then I’m going to die, and not only me, die”, in a government guaranteed secrecy, in reply to the government’s inquiry, the government finds him guilty for crime of threat, because, although you didn’t specify any person, you must have had that White person on your mind, so you meant to threaten him. And the government now does not hold out the “no violence” test or the “free speech” test. Clearly, there are two sets of laws, and the difference is based on color. Personally, I have never seen a White got charged and convicted for making “threats” to a colored person, although there have been quite few well-known cases in Chinese community of Canada where the Whites made death threats to the Chinese. In all these cases, the law enforcement authorities have been always only “investigating” those threats, not even one charge ever been issued.

Please visit my site for my story: http://www.wliao.150m.com

The following is an except of my Web page:

LIAO’S HUMAN RIGHTS CASEIN CANADA AND USA:
A RACIAL MINORITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINANT BEING PERSECUTED WITH FASCIST WHITE TERROR

WANXIA LIAO

(Revised on Sept. 29, 2007)

HIGHLIGHTS:

[I] The selective prosecution on grounds of race by the Canadian and American criminal justice systems that convicted me for a bogus crime yet refuse to prosecute the Whites and their accomplices for their felony crimes committed against me.
[II ]The conspiracy of Ontario government human rights commission, the University of Toronto and a University of California professor to set me up for prosecution on the fabricated crime to suppress my pursuit of my human rights complaint at the commission.
[ III ] The infringement of my right to academic freedom by the White professor’s racial reprisal harassment for my challenge against his White supremacy theory and by the racial persecution on me to cover up for him by the US and Canadian governments.
[IV] I am completely barred from access to court in Canada by court order and partly in California of US for my civil rights cases against the both governments and the courts denied all my due process rights.
[V ] Canadian and US governments’s cover up these gross human rights abuses at United Nations.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS:

 The racial persecution on me started because I challenged an academic theory of a White professor, David Waterhouse of the University of Toronto (U of T) that “the concept of beauty” is a “European concept”. After Waterhouse acknowledged his loss of argument to me, he retaliated against me with fraud on my grades, etc. When I complained, another White professor, James Cahill of the University of California at Berkeley and the Canadian government came in his aid to cover up the fraud and his racial prejudice in his theory for him. Together they conspired a criminal prosecution on me in that I was set up by en entrapment for a bogus charge of “uttering death threat” to threaten Waterhouse at the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). It was a fabricated crime plotted by an entrapment using the “confidentiality rule” of the OHRC, and despite that the Canadian Charter of Rights provides that testimonies before a tribunal cannot be used as evidence to incriminate any one, I was incriminated and finally convicted by a judge.

In the meantime, all the American and Canadian White perpetrators and their accomplices who committed felony crimes against me got away Scott Free from their criminal liabilities. These crimes include: in US – perjuries committed by Cahill in a US federal court where I had a civil rights action against him; forgery of court document committed by a California Superior Court Supervisor Maura Ramirez; and death threats, threats of forced disappearance on Internet Yahoo newsgroups against me by an American, and in Canada, perjuries committed by the OHRC officer Alan Strojin at my criminal trial, etc. Despite that all these crimes are all proven on written documents, and all the facts so accurately match the descriptions of these offenses by the criminal laws of the US and Canada, the FBI and the US Department of Justice, the California San Francisco Police Department, the District Attorney, all refused to investigate my complaints. In California, even the Grand Jury is in the tight control of the government, in that the Foreman was picked by the court, and the foreman controls what the other Grand Jurors would know, (in violation of California and US constitutions that provide a grand jury can only decide on a complaint as a whole by votes), and so the Foreman just simply made a personal decision not to investigate my complaint.

The same with the California state court and US federal court, there is NO LAW for me. Some of my claims were simply dismissed without even ever being an adjudicated on, and others were dismissed on blatant violations of laws. In Canada, I have already been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order, and all my due process rights were literally denied by courts, in that I was not even allowed to oppose the defendants of my civil rights cases – to argue with them in anyway the law provides. I have to publish my story on the Internet since virtually all Canadian and U.S. main stream media declined to publish my story, and all those so-called “human rights groups” such as the “Human Rights Watch”, etc. ignored my request for investigation.Further more, the cover ups for Canada and US have expanded to the United Nations so that my access to international human rights community has also been blocked by Canada and US. As the Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. It is a best illustration of hypocrisy of the “Western democracy and freedom”.

To find the most recent events of my criminal cases in US, follow these links (scanned evidences of the crimes against me can be found on my Website):

Click here to read my complaint to the FBI. Click here to read FBI’s reply.Click here to read my letter to inquire about FBI’s reply.
Click here , here, here , and here to read the US Department of Justice’s responses to my complaints (basically same as the complaint I sent to FBI). Click here , and here to read my administrative appeals against the FBI and the DOJ to US Attorney General, (no response so far).
Click here to read my complaint to San Francisco Police Dept. Click here for San Francisco Police Department’s reply.Click here to read the Foreman of San Francisco Grand Jury’s reply to my complaint (basically same as the complaint I sent to SF police).
Click here to read my appeal to the US Supreme Court for a summary of the most recent events in the the federal civil court.

This page is under construction.