Viceland: Meet The Targeted Individual Community

French Bread Spiked With LSD In CIA Experiments In France In 1950s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html

 

An American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD

Henry Samuel in Paris

A 50-year mystery over the ‘cursed bread’ of Pont-Saint-Esprit, which left residents suffering hallucinations, has been solved after a writer discovered the US had spiked the bread with LSD as part of an experiment.

In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.

For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War.

The mystery of Le Pain Maudit (Cursed Bread) still haunts the inhabitants of Pont-Saint-Esprit, in the Gard, southeast France.

On August 16, 1951, the inhabitants were suddenly racked with frightful hallucinations of terrifying beasts and fire.

One man tried to drown himself, screaming that his belly was being eaten by snakes. An 11-year-old tried to strangle his grandmother. Another man shouted: “I am a plane”, before jumping out of a second-floor window, breaking his legs. He then got up and carried on for 50 yards. Another saw his heart escaping through his feet and begged a doctor to put it back. Many were taken to the local asylum in strait jackets.

ADVERTISEMENT

Time magazine wrote at the time: “Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds, screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to molten lead.”

Eventually, it was determined that the best-known local baker had unwittingly contaminated his flour with ergot, a hallucinogenic mould that infects rye grain. Another theory was the bread had been poisoned with organic mercury.

However, H P Albarelli Jr., an investigative journalist, claims the outbreak resulted from a covert experiment directed by the CIA and the US Army’s top-secret Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

The scientists who produced both alternative explanations, he writes, worked for the Swiss-based Sandoz Pharmaceutical Company, which was then secretly supplying both the Army and CIA with LSD.

Mr Albarelli came across CIA documents while investigating the suspicious suicide of Frank Olson, a biochemist working for the SOD who fell from a 13th floor window two years after the Cursed Bread incident. One note transcribes a conversation between a CIA agent and a Sandoz official who mentions the “secret of Pont-Saint-Esprit” and explains that it was not “at all” caused by mould but by diethylamide, the D in LSD.

While compiling his book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, Mr Albarelli spoke to former colleagues of Mr Olson, two of whom told him that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was part of a mind control experiment run by the CIA and US army.

After the Korean War the Americans launched a vast research programme into the mental manipulation of prisoners and enemy troops.

Scientists at Fort Detrick told him that agents had sprayed LSD into the air and also contaminated “local foot products”.

Mr Albarelli said the real “smoking gun” was a White House document sent to members of the Rockefeller Commission formed in 1975 to investigate CIA abuses. It contained the names of a number of French nationals who had been secretly employed by the CIA and made direct reference to the “Pont St. Esprit incident.” In its quest to research LSD as an offensive weapon, Mr Albarelli claims, the US army also drugged over 5,700 unwitting American servicemen between 1953 and 1965.

None of his sources would indicate whether the French secret services were aware of the alleged operation. According to US news reports, French intelligence chiefs have demanded the CIA explain itself following the book’s revelations. French intelligence officially denies this.

Locals in Pont-Saint-Esprit still want to know why they were hit by such apocalyptic scenes. “At the time people brought up the theory of an experiment aimed at controlling a popular revolt,” said Charles Granjoh, 71.

“I almost kicked the bucket,” he told the weekly French magazine Les Inrockuptibles. “I’d like to know why.”

My Story

My targeting started back in 1996 in California. I told of illegal activities that was going on in the Marine Corps. They then, believed I was involved and blackballed me. I started to notice people following me and investigating by doing street theater. They were putting drugs in my food everywhere. A voice came to me and said they were the NCIS and are doing a new suicidal hypnotherapeutic program. They seemed to act like they were helping me but they were really hurting and helping the Marine Corps.

                      I came back to Maryland, and the targeting took off. I started to notice people making signals around me, cameras flashing a lot, etc. The voices were becoming unbearable. They started to use the directed energy weapon more. I finally realized I was a Targeted Individual in 2008.

                        Since then I have started to become more involved in activism for our cause. I have networked with groups of people that want to come together and investigate these abuses. People that want to seek legislation, foster awareness, and educate the public of the ever increasing threats to our personal freedoms of these highly advanced surveillance military technologies.

More Bullshit Responses From The Dept. Of The Injustice

Jones Vs. NATO

Positive
As of: May 2, 2017 8:54 PM Z
Jones v. NATO
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
March 20, 1998, Decided ; March 23, 1998, Filed, Entered
CIVIL ACTION No. 98-1185
Reporter
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3569 *
IRVING COURTLEY JONES v. NORTH ATLANTIC
TREATY ORGANIZATION
Disposition: [*1] Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis GRANTED. Action
DISMISSED.
Core Terms
frivolous, in forma pauperis, legal theory, Indisputably,
allegations, meritless, possesses, baseless, statement
of reasons, color of state law, factual contention, leave
to proceed, person acting, unable to pay,
commencement, erroneously, incredible, irrational,
deprived, harassed, includes, revised, rights
Case Summary
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S.
§ 1983 against defendant North American Treaty
Organization (NATO). Plaintiff alleged that he was a
member of NATO until he left military service and
claimed that he underwent cruel and unfair harassment
while he was in the service.
Overview
Plaintiff alleged that he had been subjected to numerous
violations of his civil rights by at least two member
states of the North American Treaty Organization, that
he was denied suitable employment and housing, that
his head was “picked” and his thoughts and mumblings
publicly aired, that he was erroneously identified as a
member of the Republican Party, that he was besieged
by older women, that he was discharged from the U.S.
Army Reserves and was refused a National Guard
position, and that he was erroneously identified as being
of Hispanic or Germanic origin and as being biracial and
bisexual. As relief, plaintiff sought damages and
cessation of the ongoing slander. The court found that
the legal theory under which plaintiff brought his action
was indisputably meritless because he had not alleged
that a person acting under color of state law had
deprived him of any right. The court found that dismissal
of plaintiff’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)
was appropriate because the facts alleged rose to the
level of the irrational or wholly incredible.
Outcome
The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous.
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Parties > Pro Se Litigants > General
Overview
Civil Rights Law > … > Prisoner Rights > Prison Litigation
Reform Act > Filing Fees
Criminal Law & Procedure > Appeals > Procedural
Matters > Costs & Attorney Fees
HN1[ ] 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(a)(1) provides that, subject
to § 1915(b), any court of the United States may
authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense
of any suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal, or
appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that
includes a statement of all assets such prisoner
possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the
nature of the action, defense or appeal, and the affiant’s
belief that the person is entitled to redress.
Civil Procedure > … > Pleadings > In Forma
Pauperis > General Overview

Page 2 of 4
Civil Procedure > Dismissal > Involuntary
Dismissals > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > … > Prisoner Rights > Prison Litigation
Reform Act > Claim Dismissals
HN2[ ] Dismissal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e) is
appropriate both when the action is based on an
indisputable meritless legal theory and when it posits
factual contentions that are clearly baseless.
Civil Rights Law > … > Elements > Color of State
Law > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > … > Section 1983
Actions > Elements > Protected Classes
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983
Actions > Scope
HN3[ ] In a civil rights action brought pursuant 42
U.S.C.S. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person
acting under color of state law deprived him of a right
secured by the United States Constitution or federal law.
Civil Procedure > Pleading &
Practice > Pleadings > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Dismissal > Involuntary
Dismissals > General Overview
Business & Corporate Compliance > … > Air & Space
Transportation > US Federal Aviation
Administration > Notices & Orders
HN4[ ] The “clearly baseless” category under 28
U.S.C.S. § 1915(e) includes factual allegations which
describe “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional” scenarios.
A complaint is factually frivolous if the facts alleged rise
to the level of irrational or wholly incredible.
Civil Procedure > Pleading &
Practice > Pleadings > General Overview
Civil Procedure > … > Pleadings > In Forma
Pauperis > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Dismissal > Involuntary
Dismissals > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > … > Prisoner Rights > Prison Litigation
Reform Act > Claim Dismissals
HN5[ ] In making a determination pursuant to 28
U.S.C.S. § 1915(e), the court is not bound to accept
without question the truth of a plaintiff’s allegations
simply because they cannot be rebutted by judicially
noticeable facts. The in forma pauperis statute’s
instruction that an action may be dismissed if the court
is satisfied that it is frivolous indicates that frivolousness
is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the court.
Dismissal of a lawsuit pursuant to § 1915(e) is
appropriate if the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or wholly incredible.
Counsel: IRVING COURTLEY JONES, PLAINTIFF,
Pro se, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Judges: JOHN R. PADOVA, J.
Opinion by: JOHN R. PADOVA
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Padova, J.
March 20, 1998
Plaintiff has filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 against the North American Treaty
Organization (“NATO”). Plaintiff alleges that he was “a
member of NATO from 1982 thru [sic] 1985,” when he
left military service. Plaintiff claims that he “underwent
cruel and unfair harassment” while he was in the
service. Since 1985, he has been subjected to
numerous violations of his civil rights by “at least two
member states of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.” Plaintiff claims that he was denied
suitable employment and housing; his head was
“‘picked’ and his thoughts and mumblings publicly
aired;” he was erroneously identified as a member of the
Republican Party; he was “besieged by older women;”
he was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserves and
was refused a National Guard position’ and he was
erroneously identified as being of Hispanic or Germanic
origin and as being biracial and bisexual. As relief, [*2]
plaintiff seeks damages and cessation of the “ongoing
slander.”
With his Complaint, plaintiff filed a request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. As it appears he is unable to
pay the cost of commencing this action, leave to
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3569, *1

Page 3 of 4
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 1
However,
for the reasons which follow, the Complaint will be
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §
1915(e).
[*3] I. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
The standard under which a district court may dismiss
an action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)
was clarified by the Supreme Court in Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct.
1827 (1989). HN2[ ] Dismissal under § 1915(e) is
appropriate both when the action is “based on an
indisputable meritless legal theory” and when it posits
“factual contentions [that] are clearly baseless.” Id. at
327.
B. Indisputably Meritless Legal Theory
HN3[ ] In a civil rights action brought pursuant § 1983,
the plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color
of state law deprived him of a right secured by the
1 Language in the revised in forma pauperis statute is unclear
as to whether individuals who are not prisoners may bring a
case without the payment of filing fees. HN1[ ] Title 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides:
Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States
may authorize the commencement, prosecution or
defense of any sit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal,
or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that
includes a statement of all assets such prisoner
possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature
of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant’s belief
that the person is entitled to redress.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
noted, the question is whether Congress intended to restrict
the application of the statute to prisoners when it used the
phrase “such prisoner possesses.” Floyd v. United States
Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274, 275 (6th Cir. 1997). After it
“reviewed the legislative history . . . , applied the basic axioms
of statutory interpretation, and used a little common sense,” id.
at 275, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the word “prisoner” in
the phrase was a typographical error and that Congress
actually intended the phrase to be “such person possesses.”
This Court agrees and will apply the revised statute to the
nonprisoner litigant in this case. See Harrison v. Shapiro, 1997
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5293, No. 97-2133, 1997 WL 197950 (E.D.
Pa. 1997) (reaching same conclusion).
constitution or federal law. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1
F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 1993) (listing elements of a §
1983 claim). Because Plaintiff has not alleged that a
person acting under color of state law has deprived him
of any right, the legal theory under which plaintiff brings
this action against NATO is “indisputably meritless.”
C. Clearly Baseless Factual Contentions
In Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 118 L. Ed.
2d 340, 112 S. Ct. 1728 (1992), the Supreme Court held
that HN4[ ] the [*4] “clearly baseless” category
includes factual allegations which describe “fanciful,”
“fantastic,” or “delusional” scenarios. A complaint is
factually frivolous if “the facts alleged rise to the level of
irrational or wholly incredible.” Id.; see, e.g., Savacool v.
Federal Aviation Administration, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
6371, No. 92-2318, 1992 WL 109016 (E.D. Pa. May 11,
1992) (plaintiff alleged that she was being harassed and
intimidated by aircraft “buzzing” her); Turner v. United
States Navy, 793 F. Supp. 679 (E.D. Va. 1992) (plaintiff
alleged that he had not been compensated for inventing
the Space Shuttle).
HN5[ ] In making its § 1915(e) determination, the
Court is not bound to accept without question the truth
of Plaintiff’s allegations simply because they cannot be
rebutted by judicially noticeable facts. Denton, 504 U.S.
at 32. The in forma pauperis “statute’s instruction that
an action may be dismissed if the court is ‘satisfied’ that
it is frivolous . . . indicates that frivolousness is a
decision entrusted to the discretion of the court.” Id. at
32. Dismissal of this lawsuit pursuant to § 1915(e) is
appropriate because the facts alleged rise to the level of
the irrational or [*5] wholly incredible.
II. CONCLUSION
For reasons stated above, dismissal of this action as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) is
appropriate.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 1998, upon
consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;
and
2. This action is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 1915(e), for reasons stated in the
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3569, *2

Page 4 of 4
accompanying Memorandum.
BY THE COURT:
JOHN R. PADOVA, J.
End of Document
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3569, *5

Eddy Vs. United States

As of: Jan 29, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT WAYNE EDDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-50627

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32618

November 23, 1992, ** Submitted

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

December 1, 1992, Filed
NOTICE: [*1] THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported as Table Case at 980 F.2d 739, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 36075.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CR-90-049-KN-1. David V. Kenyon, District Judge, Presiding

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant challenged his conviction by the United States District Court for the Central District of California for three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2113(a), (d), where evidence of defendant’s duress defense was precluded.

OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2113(a) and (d). At trial, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion in limine to preclude evidence in support of defendant’s duress defense. Defendant sought review, and the court affirmed. The court held that, although it was for the jury to determine if defendant was under duress, the court could have determined a lack of duress as a matter of law if the evidence offered by defendant accepted as true did not establish all the elements of duress. Defendant presented no objective or reliable evidence of duress, and, therefore, he failed to establish the elements of the defense. The trial court properly precluded evidence of duress as a matter of law.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court properly precluded evidence of his duress defense because defendant presented no objective or reliable evidence in support of the defense.

CORE TERMS: duress, electronic, limine, vague, shocks, matter of law, prima facie evidence, minimum standard, well-grounded, psychiatric, proffered, implanted, painful, pancreas, surgery, implant, wave, rob, competent to stand trial
JUDGES: Before: SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM
Robert Wayne Eddy appeals his conviction following a jury trial for three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). Eddy contends that the district court erred by granting the prosecution’s motion in limine to preclude evidence supporting a duress defense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Whether a defendant has made a threshold showing of each element of the duress defense is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1383, 1388 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869 (1986); United States v. Charmley, 764 F.2d 675, 676 (9th Cir. 1985). Although factfinding is within the purview of the jury, if [*2] the evidence proffered by a defendant, accepted as true, does not establish all of the elements of a defense, then as a matter of law the trial judge may exclude it. United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir. 1985); see Charmley, 764 F.2d at 675-76.
To establish a duress defense, the defendant must show prima facie evidence that: (1) the threat was immediate and involved death or serious bodily injury; (2) the fear it caused was well-grounded; (3) there was no reasonable opportunity to avoid or escape the threatened harm; and (4) the defendant submitted to proper authorities after reaching a position of safety. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d 1391, 1395 (9th Cir. 1990); see Charmley, 764 F.2d at 675. The testimony given or proffered must meet a minimum standard as to each element of the defense. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 415 (1980) (defendants’ vague and self-serving statements and ambiguous conduct do not support finding of fourth element of duress defense); see United States v. Hernandez, 608 F.2d 741, 750 (9th Cir. 1979) [*3] (testimony that defendant was depressed and nervous, told his wife that their family was in danger, and possessed a note containing vague threats failed to establish present danger or well-grounded fear).
Eddy contends that there was sufficient evidence to support a prima facie duress defense and that the district court erred by excluding it from the jury. At the hearing on the motion in limine, Eddy offered to testify that the CIA and the FBI forced him to rob three banks by transmitting painful electronic waves, shocks and threatening messages to him by means of two receiving devices which were implanted in his nose and pancreas during a previous imprisonment. Eddy offered to support this testimony by showing a burn mark on his ankle caused by the electronic shocks and hundreds of letters addressed to high-ranking government officials, including President Bush, complaining of this abuse. He also demanded that the district court subpoena two or three thousand unspecified witnesses to testify concerning his alleged mistreatment, the surgery to implant the devices, and CIA-funded electronic mind control experiments at Stanford University Medical Center and other places.
[*4] Nonetheless, Eddy provided no objective or reliable evidence in support of his duress defense. He offered inconsistent accounts of when and where the operations to implant the electronic devices took place, and at another point suggested that he might be receiving the wave lengths in the absence of any implantations. Although medical records indicated that Eddy’s spleen and part of his pancreas were removed during surgery for a traumatic injury in 1981, neither the records, examinations by several physicians nor metal detectors in prison substantiated his claims regarding the implanted devices. At the hearing on the motion in limine, Eddy failed to identify specifically any of the witnesses to be subpoenaed and did not provide any reason to believe that their testimony would confirm the truth of his allegations. Further, Eddy’s letters and testimony, while perhaps probative of his beliefs and fear regarding the electronically induced shocks, do not establish the existence of an actual threat or show the fear to be well-founded. In fact, a psychiatric report conducted prior to the hearing concluded that Eddy was suffering from “a Paranoid Disorder characterized by a well-capsulized [*5] and consistent delusional system.” 1 Eddy’s vague and unsubstantiated statements that the CIA and FBI forced him to rob banks by means of painful electronic signals fails to meet even a minimum standard as to the elements of the duress defense. See Bailey, 444 U.S. at 415; Hernandez, 608 F.2d at 750. Accordingly, the district court did not err when it concluded that Eddy had not shown prima facie evidence of duress and excluded that defense as a matter of law. See Charmley, 764 F.2d at 675-76.

1 The report determined that Eddy was competent to stand trial, indicating that, apart from his delusions, Eddy’s reasoning was unimpaired. The report also noted that a psychiatric examination conducted during Eddy’s previous incarceration found that he manipulated his symptoms to get improved conditions for himself. Eddy stipulated at the pre-trial hearing that he was competent to stand trial and did not desire to raise an insanity defense.
[*6] AFFIRMED.