Targeted Justice’s $1.3 Billion lawsuit on Behalf of TIs (Targeted Individuals) against M. Garland (AG, DOJ), DHS, FBI, C. Wray (FBI Director), A. Mayorkas (Sec. DHS), C. Kable, Jr., (FBI TSC Director), K. Wainstein (DHS Sec. Intelligence and Analysis) w/ Bullet Point Summaries & Preliminary Injunction

I. Preliminary Injunction (Feb. 5, 2023)


II. Bullet Points of Information Provided in Preliminary Injunction

1. Hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans and citizens worldwide, termed “targeted individuals” (TIs), are secretly and nonconsensually enrolled in an illegal, government-sponsored watchlist (blacklist) that results in irreparable damage to them. These “targeted individuals” are not notified of their inclusion on this list and have no mechanism to seek redress or get their name removed from the list. Hence, they are deprived of the due process of law and their Constitutional rights and subjected to nonconsensual human experimentation and torture.

2. On Sept. 16, 2001, immediately following the 9/11 false-flag state-sponsored, synthetic terrorist attacks (see my website), two things happened:

First, then President George W. Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 6, creating a policy to obtain information on individuals engaged in terrorism.

Second, then Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, Secretary of State, Colin Powell, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Director of CIA, George Tenet, announced the creation of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) “to consolidate terrorist watchlists and provide 24/7 operational support for thousands of federal screeners across the country and the world.”

3. What actually evolved was the formation of an ever-growing list of individuals whose names appear on the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB). Over 97% of the names on this list are termed Non-Investigative Subjects (NIS), or Handling Codes 3 and 4 (here termed, “the McCarthy Blacklist”), and are known NOT to be terrorists at all but rather, law abiding citizens!

4. The maintenance of this list by the FBI exceeds the authority given to it by HSPD 6.

5. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) is administered by the FBI in coordination with Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of State (DOS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

6. The TSC develops and maintains the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB), aka “the Watchlist.” The only legal authority for this TSDB list is HSPD 6. However, the McCarthy Blacklist (aka NIS/Handling Code 3 and 4) is illegal because it exceeds the authority of HSPD 6. Most of these individuals are law-abiding citizens.

7. The FBI admits that the TSDB has not prevented a single terrorist incident.

8. The TSDB (The Watchlist) has two primary components: “The Selectee List” and the “No-Fly List.”

9. The secret inclusion of law-abiding citizens on this terrorist watchlist has caused them to be stripped of their Constitutional rights, right to due process of law, and resulted in their prolonged, sustained, and organized torture. These Constitutional violations have and are causing irreparable harm to these individuals, who are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. These people are commonly referred to as “targeted individuals.”

10. The National Security Agency (NSA) confirmed that the FBI maintained 200,000 “targets” under warrantless surveillance. This amount comprises 3.6% of the NSA’s targets, or 5.5 million individuals in the TSDB.

11. There are 32 times more non-terrorists than “known and suspected terrorists” (KST) on the TSDB.

12. 2005 and 21007 audits on the TSDB carried out by US Department of Justice (DOJ) indicate only 0.29% are known and suspected terrorists (KST). Thus, the 2005 audit of the Office of the Inspector General found that 99.71% of individuals on the TSDB do NOT meet the criteria as terrorists.

13. Defendants in this case (FBI, DHS, DOJ, etc.) should be ordered to remove all NIS- Handling Code 3 and 4 (McCarthy Blacklist) names from the TSDB.

14. FBI acknowledged in Elhady V. Kable (2019 and 2021) that it shares the TSDB with 18,000 federal, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies, corporations, and individuals to whom the lists are circulated as well as 1441 non-government including private employement, background check and credit agencies.

15. Another illegality is that NIS/Handling Code 3 and 4 (McCarthy blacklisted) individuals, that is, “targeted individuals'” (TIs) names are never removed from the TSDB.

16. TIs (NIS) are not allowed to challenge or even know their status regarding the TSDB. Plaintiffs have no mechanism with which to challenge their eternal inclusion on the TSDB.

17. In 2017, Defendant FBI witness, Timothy Groh, estimated 1.1 million names on the TSDB. Based on previous litigation challenging the watchlist, there are over 6 million names on the watchlist. If US DOJ’s assessment that 99.71% of names are NOT terrorists is correct, this would translate to 5,982,600 on the list, with 300,000 being Americans.

18. These violations of the US Constitution constitute sufficient justification for the court to issue a Preliminary Injunction against the Plaintiffs (FBI, DHS, DOS, DOJ) to recall all Handling Code 3 and 4 lists throughout the world and order the immediate elimination of those components of the TSDB.

19. The Plaintiffs request that the Court prohibit the Defendants from simply transferring those names to another watchlist in secret.

III. Targeted Justice’s $1.3 Billion lawsuit Against 1) Merrick Garland (AJ, DOJ), 2) FBI, 3) DHS, 4) FBI Director, Christopher Wray, 5) DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, 6) Director of FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), Charles Kable, Jr., and 7) DHS’ Undersecretary of Intelligence and Analysis, Kenneth L. Wainstein.

6-23-cv-00003 2

Case Name: Targeted Justice, Inc. et al v. Garland et al

Case Number: 6:23-cv-00003

There are also other important cases, that are relevant for people doing research, such as ElHady v. Kable, 1:16-cv-375

6-23-cv-00003 2

201 cases that involve Targeted Individuals, including gangstalking and Directed Energy Weapons.

IV. Webmaster’s Summary of “The Program” As Bullet Points From Lawsuit:

Webmaster Comment:

The Targeted Justice lawsuit against Merrick Garland (AG, DOJ) et al. filed in January of 2023 is packed with important and detailed information regarding the targeted individual program. For those wishing a shorter elaboration of the background information about “the program” than is presented in the 543 points in the lawsuit, I am here presenting the information that I think most TI’s should be aware of in the following summary bullet points. Note that I generally use the same verbage as the lawsuit and that even this summary of this complex program and lawsuit is rather lengthy. Sorry. Still it is worth studying to better understand “the program.”

1. 17 Targeted Individuals (TIs), including Targeted Justice, Inc. (the Plaintiffs), are suing: 1) Merrick Garland (AG, Dept. of Justice), 2) the FBI, 3) Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI, 4) Charles Kable, Jr, Director of FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), 5) Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 6) Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of DHS, and 7) Kenneth Wainstein, DHS’s Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis (the Defendants) for damages in the amount of $1.3 billion for their responsibilities in subjecting these TIs to cruel, illegal, covert, nonconsensual human experimentation and persecution.

2. Plaintiffs (TIs) hold that this covert program combines elements of the CIA’s MKULTRA mind control programs (1953-1963 onward) and the FBI’s COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program; 1956-1976 onward).

3. Plaintiffs (TIs) charge that about 200,000 innocent victims in America are being targeted by this illegal, secret, government ongoing, active, nationwide rogue criminal enterprise that is active 24 hours a day within the U.S. and whose increase in scope, intensity and sophistication was made possible by the new communications and surveillance technologies. There are many millions of TIs (targeted individuals) worldwide.

4. Including a person in the FBI and DHS’ Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB; aka “The Watchlist”) constitutes the targeting of an individual within the Unites States.

a) A Targeted Individual (TI) is someone who has been selected by Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or other intelligence agencies of the federal government to unwillingly participate in an experimental torture program.

b) This program was developed under the Central Intelligence Agency’s MK-Ultra project and is designed to break down the individual and “neutralize the person,” using psychological, physical, and emotional stress.

c) On information and belief, following Defendant FBI COINTELPRO model, this program imposes unconstitutional restrictions and limitations on society through intimidation, fear, and threats. Political activists, labor union leaders, scientists, and whistle-blowers are a sampling of the main targets of the program in violation of their First Amendment rights. However, people are also randomly chosen. Familial and spousal relationships are usually destroyed, as part of this psychological torture.

d) Once an individual is on the list, the NSA unconstitutionally authorizes and/or carries out physical and electronic surveillance and stalking on them through various instrumentalities, organizations and entities such as DHS’ National Network of Fusion Centers, Infragard, citizen Watch Groups, Sheriffs and Police Departments.

e) This conduct is referred to as “Organized Stalking” or “gang-stalking” and entails the administration of terror tactics on United States citizens and lawful residents in violation of their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

5. Plaintiffs (TIs) charge that TIs are subjected to:

a) “illegal and unconstitutional phone taps, illegal re-routing of business and private phone calls for harassment purposes, surreptitious entry into home, office and vehicle, virtual surveillance in the home conducted by illegal placement of miniature remote, wireless cameras (often accessible through the internet), illegal internet spyware, illegal GPS tracking (often through their own mobile phones), regular fixed and mobile surveillance, mail misdirection, mail theft and tampering, financial and employment sabotage, slander campaigns, poisoning, assaults and murder, illegal set-ups on drug charges and other felony charges, amongst [sic] many other civil rights abuses.”

b) “the use of microwave weapons for inflicting physical and psychological torture that ends up causing them the condition known as Havana Syndrome, Remote Neural Monitoring and Voice-to-Skull Auditory Symptoms.

And that:

c) “The Targeted Individual program obtains its experimental subject roster from unconstitutional subcategories of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) (“The Watchlist”). 97% names on this blacklist are of individuals with no ties to terrorism. In the exercise of their discretion, Defendants Wray and Kable Jr. decide the fate of unsuspecting individuals such as the Plaintiffs, condemning them to a life of premeditated torture.

d) “The TSDB’s subcategory of individuals who are not “known or suspected terrorists” (KST) is also known as “Non-Investigative Subjects (“NIS”) and are listed under “Handling Codes 3 and 4”.” Over 97% of names on “The Watchlist” are in the NIS/Handling Code 3 and 4 category and have no ties to terrorism, whatsoever, but rather are innocent civilians.

e) A “consortium of governmental agencies (“the Inter-Agency”) acting under the guise of “national security” have secretly, unconstitutionally and maliciously sentenced each NIS to undergo a lifetime of covert human experimentation that targets and tortures these human beings in many instances to their death.” (Webmaster: I.e., the Plaintiffs are guilty of murder.)

6. Plaintiffs (TIs) charge that “Without sufficient grounds to link an individual to terrorism, an unwitting person’s placement on the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists is the equivalent of being indicted, tried and sentenced to a lifetime of torture and physical and psychological abuse in violation of this country’s constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.”

7. Plaintiffs (TIs) charge that: “Defendants’ (Garland, FBI, Wray, DHS, Kable, Mayorkas, Wainstein) unrestricted inclusion of NIS in the TSDB has resulted in huge swaths of the population that have nothing to do with terrorist activity included in an atrocious experiment without their consent and against their will. Consequently, an unprecedented number of people such as Plaintiffs (other TIs) have emerged to publicly expose their experiences enduring these criminal attacks that go unstopped and unpunished. The cloak of invisibility that for decades shielded the program from exposure no longer exists. I.e., the TSC (Terrorist Screening List) includes American citizens and legal residents that are not known or suspected terrorists in its terrorist database under the purview of Defendants Wray and Kable Jr. for no purpose other than secretly enlisting them in an involuntary human experimentation program that targets unsuspecting victims, divesting them of their autonomy and destroying their lives, with no recourse.

8. Plaintiffs (TIs) charge that: “Plaintiffs and TJ Members are victims and survivors of these crimes against humanity and the deprivation of their fundamental constitutional, civil and human rights. Plaintiffs come before this Court to hold Defendants jointly and severally liable for the damages they’ve sustained as a result of the outrageously vicious, illegal, and unconstitutional tortures and constitutional violations they have endured as targeted individuals.” (Estimated damages to 17 Plaintiffs is $1.3 billion.)

9. Plaintiff’s (TIs) herein expose the “Defendants’ “Inter-Agency Scheme” by which President George W. Bush’s September 16, 2003 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 (HSPD-6) “to develop, integrate, and maintain thorough, accurate, and current information about individuals known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism” has been deliberately misconstrued and misused in an unconstitutional and illegal manner in order to expand the FBI-DHS terrorist watchlist to include an overwhelming majority of innocent Americans with no ties to terrorist activities whatsoever.

10. Regarding Form FD-930, the “Standard Nomination Form”

a) “Form FD-930, also known as “Standard Nomination Form” or “Standard Nomination Tool”, is used by private individuals, corporations and the intelligence community (IC) to nominate people for the TSDB”

b) “Form FD-930 is not an official U.S. Government form since it has not been approved by the United States Office of Documents pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995”

C) Form FD-930 does not meet the requirements of the Department of Defense Forms Management Program since it does not meet the requirements of the General Services Administration, Standard and Optional Forms Management Program.

d) Form FD-930 is thus an illegal document that is used to nominate and place unsuspecting United States citizens and residents on the TSDB.

e) Form FD-930 does not provide for any due process safeguards to prevent the inclusion in the TSDB of United States citizens like the named individual Plaintiffs, those equally situated to them, and TJ Members despite an absence of links to terrorism.

f) There are no restrictions as to who can fill out and submit Form FD-930 to Defendants regardless of whether the person is a suspected terrorist or not.

g) Thus, private individuals, corporations and foreign governments can submit nominations to Defendant FBI or Defendant NSA through the TSDB nomination form.

h) The TSDB nomination by private individuals is dangerous and repugnant to the principles contained in the United States Constitution, placing in private hands the capacity to obliterate someone’s life for improper motives.

i) Individuals are placed on the TSDB for engaging in the legitimate exercise of First-Amendment protected rights, such as whistleblower or journalist activity, as is the case of Plaintiffs Karen Stewart, Plaintiff Timothy Shelley and Winter Calvert.

j) Other TIs such as Plaintiffs Timothy Shelley, Susan Olsen, Yvonne Mendez and Lindsay Penn were targeted after undergoing a contentious divorce, a child custody battle or the filing of charges against a stalking former spouse.

k) Defendant FBI doesn’t carry out the investigation on the individual nominated to the TSDB. Instead, Defendant FBI delegates this endeavor to the nominating agency or instrumentality and private companies such as the Leidos Company that has been known to corroborate NIS information.

m) A 2009 Audit Report by the USDOJ Inspector General’s Office concluded that “many of the nominations submitted directly to …were processed with little or no information explaining why [or how] the subject may have a nexus to terrorism (also known as “derogatory information”).

n) Approval of a nomination to the TSDB does not require concrete facts. The 2013 Watchlisting guidance specifically provided as follows:

o) The standard to include anyone in the TSDB and secretly submit them to a permanent life of illegal torture, persecution and surveillance is unconstitutionally vague:

p) The particularized derogatory information used to accept, reject, or modify the nomination of a person into the TSDB is supposed to contain an objective factual basis linking the individual to terrorism or terrorist activities. The particularized derogatory information standard requires that Defendant FBI have ‘articulable’ intelligence or information which, based on the totality of the facts, and taken together with rational interference from those facts, warrants a determination that the subject is known or suspected to be (or has been) knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism or terrorist activities.

q) Including in the TSDB persons that are not known or suspected terrorists is a violation to the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition on arbitrary government action contained in 5 U.S.C. § 706.

r) Despite an absence of particularized derogatory information linking Plaintiffs and TJ Members to terrorism, their names figure in the TSDB.

s) The TSDBs inclusion standards are so permissive and pliable that they violate Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’, procedural and substantive due process rights.

t) Defendant FBI subcontracts to private corporations like the Leidos corporation the task of corroborating non-investigative subjects’ personal information upon their nomination to the TSDB and/or their vetting process.

u) The TSC has no quality control procedure in place to specifically confirm that a person is a known or suspected terrorist (KST) or “Non-Investigative Subjects” (NIS) since they rely on the facts and investigation that the nominating agency provides.

v) Private corporations known as “watchlisting cells” serve as contractors to Defendant FBI and/or Defendant NSA for obtaining and corroborating the personal data on individuals to be included in the TSDB.

w) The private contractors that check the information on individuals nominated to the TSDB do not confirm whether the nominee is a known or suspected terrorist.

x) Pursuant to Defendant DHS regulations published in 81 Federal Register 19989, the categories of individuals covered by the TSDB include:

Handling Code 1 – Outstanding Arrest Warrant
Handling Code 2 – Under Active Investigation
Handling Code 3 – Individual has Possible Ties to Terrorism
Handling Code 4 – Identity Provided has Possible Ties to Terrorism. See Exhibit 2.

The first two categories are commonly referred to as “Known and Suspected Terrorists” (KSt) and include the ‘Selectee’, and ‘No Fly Lists’. Inclusion on the first two subcategories of the TSDB, the No Fly or Selectee Lists requires additional substantive derogatory criteria.

y) The Selectee List comprises the names of suspected terrorists under active investigation.

z) A “suspected terrorist” is “an individual who is reasonably suspected to be engaging in, has engaged in, or intends to engage in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism and/or terrorist activities.”

a’) There is another category of individuals included the TSDB: that of persons who do not meet the “substantive derogatory criteria”. They are grouped into “Handling Codes 3 and 4”. Handling Code 3 is also known as the ‘Expanded Selectee’ list. According to Defendant FBI, Handling Code 3 comprises Individuals with ‘Possible Ties to Terrorism’.

b’) Pursuant to the FBI Handling Code 4 comprises people whose “Identity Provided has Possible Ties to Terrorism’.

c’) On information and belief, the individuals included in the TSDB who “are not considered ‘known or suspected terrorists’ and are not screened as such” are also referred to as NIS are grouped in the categories labeled as “Handling Code 3” or “Handling Code 4”.

d’) Informing TIs of their inclusion in the TSDB would grant them the mechanism of seeking redress to remove of their names from it.

e’) On information and belief, the only information required to include a NIS in the TSDB is his or her first and last name and “ANY” date of birth.

f’) Based on Defendant FBI’S own statistics, NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT (97%) of the persons listed on Defendant FBI’s TSDB are not terrorists. Exhibit 5.

g’) Only the first two components of the TSDB – Handling Code 1 and Handling Code 2 make up the “Watchlist” that contains the names of the KST.

h’). When intervening with a non-investigative subject during a routine situation, law enforcement officials are forbidden from telling the individual they are on the list.

i’) The TSC includes within the National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) database the “Watchlist” subset of the TSDB comprised of KST included in the “No Fly” and “Selectee” list.

j’) NIS are not included in the “Watchlist” or the NCIC.

k’). The NCIC is a compilation of 14 person files or categories. To wit: 1) KST File, (the Known or Suspected Terrorist (“KST”) File, which is populated with a subset of TSDB information; 2) Supervised Release; 3) National Sex Offender Registry; 4) Foreign Fugitive; 5) Immigration Violator; 6) Missing Person; 7) Protection Order; 8) Unidentified Person; 9) Protective Interest; 10) Gang; 11) Wanted Person; 12) Identity Theft; 13) Violent Person; and 14) NICS Denied Transaction.

l’) The NCIC does not include the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists because the people listed in them don’t constitute a terrorist threat.

m’) United States citizens included under “Handling Code 3 / 4” or “Non- investigative subjects” have no available mechanism or formal procedure to challenge their secret inclusion on the TSDB because they are prohibited from discovering their status.

n’) Those included in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists are unwilling participants in an experimentation and torture program and are known as “Targets”. or a “Targeted Individual.”

o’) Once an individual has been placed on the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists, his or her name lingers on it indefinitely and/or permanently.

p’) A person’s permanent inclusion in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists is equivalent of an unconstitutionally perennial designation as a “person of interest”, depriving them of their presumption of innocence and right to procedural and substantive due process.

q’) NIS have no means of redress to remove their names from the TSDB’s Handling Codes 3 /4 categories.

r’) The inclusion of the individuals in the TSDB constitutes the kind of government stigmatization that broadly precludes individuals or corporations from a chosen trade or business and also deprives them of liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause. Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia, 314 F.3d 641, 644 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

s’) Once a NIS is listed in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists and in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Defendants order and/or facilitate state, tribal and federal agencies to constantly track and carry out his or her physical and electronic surveillance and psychological torture.

t’) In violation of such policies, Defendant FBI and TSC distribute the TSDB to at least 18,000 state, local, county, city, university and college, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies and approximately 533 private entities through its National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) system.

u’) The list is also shared with more than 60 foreign governments and private entities such as the following: private correctional facilities, private security services for governmental facilities and hospitals, companies providing criminal justice dispatching services or data processing/information services providing services to governmental criminal justice agencies, private probation and pretrial services companies, private city attorneys, a private police department for an airport, a private police department for a transportation authority, private police departments for two private incorporated communities, an inmate transport service, an entity that provides forensic services to detect and identify criminals, court constable services, and animal shelters.

v’) In 2019, Defendant FBI publicly acknowledged it shares the TSDB with 1441 non-government agencies. These include private employement, background check, and credit agencies.

w’) Defendants widely disseminate the TSDB among citizen policing organizations such as Infragard and Citizen Corps that perpetrate illegal/rogue vigilante conduct against NIS under the pretense that they are KST.

x’). Defendant Majorkas is responsible for the enactment and implementation of highly unconstitutional operating procedures throughout the National Network of Fusion Centers that have carried out the illegal surveillance, organized stalking and psychological torture of Plaintiffs and TJ Members.

y’) United States NIS in the TSDB aren’t afforded a procedure to contest or challenge their nomination because it doesn’t exist.

z’) Defendants have deliberately concealed Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ inclusion in the TSDB’s “Handling Code 3” or “Non-investigative subjects” categories.

a”) Defendants’ lack of notice to Plaintiffs and TJ Members of their inclusion in the TSDB prevented them from discovering that they had sustained an injury susceptible to redress.

b”) The legal provisions available to individuals in the Watchlist to seek redress from their inclusion in the TSDB are not available to those in the NIS/Handling Code 3 / 4 lists. TSDB’s Unconstitutional Bloating: The Numbers Do Not Add Up

c”) Defendant FBI and NSA’s statistics regarding the number of records in the TSDB actual hundreds of thousands of individuals that: a) are not KST; b) were nonetheless secretly and perpetually included in the TSDB; and c) have no legal recourse for their name’s removal therefrom.

11. How Many TIs Are There At Home and Abroad? Fudging the Numbers

a) The Department of Justice’s Office of The Inspector General’s May, 2009 Audit Report 09-25 “The Federal Bureau Of Investigation’s Terrorist TSDB Nomination Practices” found that 35% of the nominations to the lists were outdated, many people were not removed in a timely manner, and tens of thousands of names were placed on the list without an adequate factual basis.

b) In 2008, Rick Kopel, principal deputy director of defendant FBI Terrorist Screening Center, appeared before the House Homeland Security Sub Committee on Transportation Security and stated that the TSDB contained approximately one million records relating to 400,000 individuals of whom 3% (12,000) were U.S. persons. (U.S. Persons, as defined in Executive Order 12333, are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.)

c) Conversely, eight years later, the Vice-Chair woman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Diane Feinstein, ascertained in 2016 that there were over one million records in the TSDB but only 5,000 ( 0.5 percent or one two-hundredth) of them were Americans.6

d) On September 2014, Transportation Safety Administration’s Christopher Piehota testified before the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Transportation Security that by 2013 the TSDB had 500,000 records and in 2014 the list contained 800,000 identities.

e) Mr. Piehota’s testimony confirmed that an estimated 300,000 additional records were included in the first 9 months of 2014 for an average of 33,333 new individuals added per month.

f) Former Deputy FBI Director Timothy P. Groh stated under penalty of perjury in Elhady v. Piehota, 303 F.Supp.3d 453 (2017) that there were approximately 1.16 million persons in the TSDB and that only approximately 0.5% (fewer than 5,000) of those were US persons. including-number-of-americans-included/

g). A 2007 GAO report found that TSC rejects only approximately one percent (1%) of all nominations to the TSDB.

h) However, in the discovery under penalty of perjury produced in the Elhady case, Defendants submitted the table below including the data regarding nominations, acceptances and rejections. When subtracting the ‘additions’ and ‘rejections’ to the number of nominations, there is a large number that remains unaccounted for.

i) TSC Audits of Defendant FBI produced additional information asserting that approximately 3% of the TSDB is designated as Handling Code 1 or 2. The remaining 97% is designated as Handling Code 3 or 4.

j) On March 11, 2019, Mr. Groh declared under Penalty of Perjury that US persons (citizens and lawful permanent residents) make up less than .5 percent (i.e., one two-hundredth) of the identities in the TSDB. Exhibit 5.

k) The vertiginous increase in the number of people included in the TSDB reflects Defendant Wray’s and Defendant Kable’s and their predecessors’ failure to adhere to constitutional precepts, the law and Defendant FBI’s own standards and procedures.

l) FBI’s reckless, unconstitutional and illicit approval of nominations to the TSDB results in the inclusion of an estimated 98.9% of the people nominated to it.

m) A 2007 United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Oversight, Reduce Vulnerabilities in Agency Screening Processes, and Expand Use of the List”, found that TSC rejects only approximately one percent (1%) of all nominations to the TSDB.

n) In the Elhady v. Kable case, Customs and Border Protection admitted it has never publicly identified an act of terrorism that the TSDB helped prevent. Defendant FBI representatives in the Elhady v. Kable case admitted that they were unaware of a single act of terrorism halted due to the TSDB.

o) The 2007 GAO Report determined that 45% of the TSDB records related to redress complaints reflected that the information on the individuals used to include them on the list was inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, and/or that they had been incorrectly included.

p) In 2019, the New York Times published an article confirming that in only two years, the TSDB had increased to 5.5 million records of which 200,000 or 3.6% of them are United States citizens classified as “targets” while the NSA acknowledged that during that same year it was spying on 200,000 ‘targets’ on US Soil.

q) On October 21, 2021, the USDOJ Office of Inspector General released an Audit Report denouncing Defendant FBI’s “was widespread non-compliance” with the factual accuracy review procedures (“Woods Procedures”) required for applications under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), Section 702 (50 USC 1804(a)(4) and 50 USC 1801(h)), to carry out electronic surveillance of U.S. Persons.

12. An October 3, 2012, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a report after a two-year investigation that led the Commission to conclude that:

a) Fusion Centers “have too often wasted money and stepped on Americans’ civil liberties.”8

b) Defendant DHS intelligence officers assigned to state and local fusion centers produced intelligence of “uneven quality – oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism.

c) “The panel includes several examples of costly and time-consuming investigations undertaken by Fusion Centers employees, all which emphasize what appear to be the DHS’ relentless attempts to enter anyone and everyone into a system of suspicious persons. ”

d) Defendants Mayorkas and Wainstein create and mandate the policies and standard operating procedures implemented in the National Fusion Center Network that carry out the unconstitutional organized stalking against Plaintiffs, TJ Members and others equally situated to them.

13) Individual Plaintiffs and TJ Members were included in the TSDB in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights to practice their religion, exercising their freedom of speech, their right to peaceably assemble, and/or to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

a) The named individual Plaintiffs and/or some of TJ Members have submitted Privacy Act requests to Defendants requesting them to provide the TSDB with their records and to remove their names from it.

b) Defendants’ failure to meaningfully reply and refusal to acknowledge their petition for removal from the TSDB prompted the filing of this complaint.

c) Defendants’ actions constitute a violation to Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution inasmuch as they: a) deprived them of their right to receive notice about their nomination to the TSDB; b) deprived them of a formal, open explanation of charges and c) deprived them of a meaningful opportunity to challenge and disprove them prior to their inclusion on the list.

d) Prior to including the named individual Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’, Defendant FBI did not carry out a constitutionally-mandated investigation observing its own procedures nor did they oblige the minimum due process requirements and adhere to the standard of proof required for their inclusion.

e) Defendants included the named individual Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ names to the TSDB without any of the required “actual basis linking an individual to terrorism or terrorist activities, also known as particularized derogatory information.

f) By denying Plaintiffs and TJ Members an adequate process or mechanism to remove their names from the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Code 3 / 4 categories, Defendants Wray, Kable, Mayorkas, and Wainstein are personally liable to each individual Plaintiff violating their constitutional rights protected under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

g) By denying TJ Members residing in the United States and throughout the world a process or mechanism to remove their names from the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 categories despite the absence of “particularized derogatory information” and/or a “reasonable suspicion” that they are KSTs, Defendants Wray and Kable, have facilitated and enabled physical and psychological torture to Plaintiffs’ in violation of the “United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”.

14. As a result of their unfounded and unconstitutional inclusion in the TSDB, the named individual Plaintiffs and TJ Members are victims of Directed Energy Weapons (“DEW”) attacks and other unidentified remote weaponry and instruments of harm.

a) the DEW attacks that the named individual Plaintiffs and TJ Members have suffered have caused them to develop or are in the way of developing the condition known as “Havana Syndrome”.

b) the use of other unidentified remote weaponry and instruments of harm have caused harm and/or destroyed and/or unlawfully taken property, health and life.

c) The Department of Defense’s Joint Publication 3–13 Electronic Warfare, defines “Directed Energy” (“DE”) as:

“[A]n umbrella term covering technologies that produce a beam of concentrated
electromagnetic energy or atomic or subatomic particles. Directed Energy
Weapons (“DEW”) is a system using DE primarily as a direct means to disable,
damage or destroy adversary equipment, facilities, and personnel. DE warfare is
military action involving the use of DE weapons, devices, and countermeasures to
either cause direct damage or destruction of adversary equipment, facilities, and
personnel, or to determine, exploit, reduce, or prevent hostile use of the
electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) through damage, destruction, and disruption.”

e) DE weapons include high-energy lasers, high-power radio frequency or microwave devices, and charged or neutral particle beam weapons. Microwaves and lasers are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes light energy and radio waves. The distinction between them is the wavelengths/frequency of the energy. While they are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum, laser and microwave weapons operate very differently and have very different effects.

personnel-and-their-families-at-overseas-embassies.National Defense University, Prism, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2019)

f) The burns in some of the Plaintiffs are caused by microwave weapons.

g) Cellular towers and satellites have the energy capacity to fire DEW– approximately the same amount of energy required to run 3,000 homes.

h). The required electric capacity of a microwave weapon far exceeds the electrical energy available in any household.

i) In 2020, the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”), Engineering and Medicine, which was commissioned by the U.S. State Department to investigate the matter, issued a report stating that the attack from “radio frequency waves” or DEW should be the most plausible explanation for the “Havana Syndrome” illness that US State Department employees at the Cuban Embassy began to experience.

j) The NAS found that for the Cuban Embassy employees, Havana Syndrome began with the sudden onset of a loud noise, perceived to have directional features, and accompanied by pain in one or both ears or across a broad region of the head, and in some cases, a sensation of head pressure or vibration, dizziness, followed in some cases by tinnitus, visual problems, vertigo, and cognitive difficulties.

k) CIA Director William Burns admitted that it is “unlikely [that Havana Syndrome cases] have been caused by the use of a ‘secret weapon’ by a hostile state”. (Webmaster: I.e., the US military-intelligence-corporate complex is responsible.)

l) Target program victims show Havana Syndrome symptoms and impairment. Plaintiffs Deborah Mahangor, her daughter and Plaintiff Ber have been diagnosed with Havana Syndrome.

m) On January 20, 2022, the Central Intelligence Agency stated that the over 1,000 Havana Syndrome cases were caused by DEW attacks on United States citizens stationed in foreign nations could not be traced to a foreign adversary. It concluded that there was no sustained global campaign by a hostile power like Russia or China harassing United States with an untraceable weapon.

n) The DEW attacks on NIS, United States citizens who have been unconstitutionally included in TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists have caused them to develop symptoms similar to Havana Syndrome.

o) Plaintiffs’ DEW attacks on NIS result from their unconstitutional inclusion in that take weeks to heal and look like these:

15) Regarding Voice-to-Skull
(V2K aka microwave hearing aka the Frey Effect, etc.)

a) As a result of the inclusion in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists, about two thirds of the named individual Plaintiffs and TJ Members suffer from another kind of remote/directed energy attack known as “Pulse-Modulated Voice Signature” or “Microwave Auditory Effect”, commonly known as Voice-to-Skull.

b) This torture tactic is documented under United States’ Patent Office patent 4,877,027 for Hearing System dated June 6, 1988. No civilian has the equipment required to produce a microwave beam that carries a voice signal and produce Voice-to-Skull effect.

c) This patent consists of a hearing system for human beings in which high- frequency electromagnetic energy is projected through the air in a microwave beam of an intensity less than 3.3 kilowatts per square centimeter to the head of a human being and the electromagnetic energy is modulated to create signals that can be discerned by the human being regardless of the hearing ability of the person..

d) This microwave auditory effect produces in most of the named individual Plaintiffs and TJ Members a torture known as “voice-to-skull” that mimics the hearing of voices or “microwave auditory effect”.

e) V2K is an extremely debilitating condition as it operates twenty-four hours a day in a continuous flow of computer-generated derogatory verbiage to obliterate the person’s psyche such as: “You’re stupid”; “You’re fat”; “Why don’t you kill yourself?” Approximately two thirds of Plaintiffs and TJ Members have the condition known as V2K.

Webmaster coment: Dr. Ewen Cameron, a CIA psychiatrist, pioneered the re-programming of human brains during his CIA experiments in Canada in the 1960s. He developed a process where in “de-patterning” or actually, erasure, of the brain (through drugs, induced comas, sleep deprivation, ECT (electric convulsive therapy, etc.) is followed by “psychic driving” to re-program the individual. The incessant negative messages that TIs “hear” are identical to those that Cameron developed in his “psychic driving” experiments.

f) Plaintiffs and TJ Members suffer from 1) sleep deprivation and the anxiety it produces caused by remote DEW attacks as well as 2) artificial tinnitus triggered by the constant location tracking inherent to the Targeting program.

g) No private organization has the capacity to inflict widespread V2K, DEW or artificial tinnitus on the civilian population of the United States.

16) Regarding Unconstitutional Interference with Electronic Communications,

a). experience constant hacking of computers, emails, accounts and interference with phone and electronic communications constituting suspicionless seizure and searching of internet traffic on U.S. soil.

b) In the course of this surveillance, United States’ communications are seized indiscriminately while they are in transit, in violation of Article III and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

17. National Fusion Centers’
Organized Stalking of TSDB-listed Individuals

a) The National Network of Fusion Centers (“Fusion Centers”) is under the purview of the DHS as a mechanism for counteracting terrorism. Although the Fusion Centers are deemed “state-owned and operated”, Defendant FBI and Defendant DHS employees are assigned to work in them.

b) The Fusion Centers Network have become the Stasi arm of Defendant DHS. They conduct surveillance, stalking, cyberstalking, and other clandestine and illegal operations against everyone in the TSDB: from KST to NIS.

c) Defendant DHS controls and funds 100% of the Fusion Center Network operations.

d) Defendants Mayorkas and Wainstein are responsible for the determinations regarding funding, creation and implementation of the policies, Standard Operating Procedures and tactics implemented at the Fusion Centers throughout the nation.

e) Defendant FBI employees under the supervision and control of Defendant Wray and/or Kable directly work at Defendant DHS’ Regional Fusion Center Network to implement and witness the unconstitutional, rogue and illegal organized stalking carried out against people listed in the TSDB.

f) Defendant DHS’ Fusion Centers’ personnel and contractors have carried out illegal surveillance, search and seizures and organized stalking of Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ due to their inclusion on the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 category in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

g) DHS’ Fusion Centers’ personnel and contractors have inflicted psychological torture on Plaintiffs and TJ Members in violation of their constitutional right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and against unreasonable searches and seizures enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

h) Defendants Mayorkas and Wainstein create and mandate the unconstitutional policies and Standard Operating Procedures that the Fusion Centers implement to carry out Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ organized stalking. As such, they are personally liable for the illegal stalking and torture of the named individual Plaintiffs and TJ Members included in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists, in violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects persons and their things from illegal searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that prohibits the imposition of a sentence on a person without due process of law, the Eighth Amendment that prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments and the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees the equal protection under the law.

i) As a result of being unfounded and unconstitutionally included in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 lists, Plaintiffs and TJ Members experience constant harassment known as gang stalking, organized stalking, or overt harassment (OH) that includes the use of organized stalkers to carry out the vandalizing of personal property; surreptitious entries into domicile; tampering with postal mail, computer, and telephone; spreading false and defamatory rumors about the individual in the neighborhood and work place to attain their virtual ostracizing from society.

j) The illegal and unconstitutional organized/gang-stalking that Fusion Centers carry out against TIs occurs pursuant to Defendant Mayorkas’ and Wainstein’s orders, authorization and/or supervision. These psychological operations follow the FBI manual crafted for the program’s predecessor, COINTELPRO. The guiding policy of the program is the (illegal) actions they carry out agaisnt the “target” be “plausibly deniable”.

k) When complaining to law enforcement agencies or physicians about the events and symptoms resulting their status as a TI, some of the individual Plaintiffs and most of TJ Members have been illegally detained for “mental health observation” in deprivation of their liberty without due process, in violation of their rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

l) As an example of the above, last year Plaintiff Hopson called Defendant FBI’s offices to denounce the gang-stalking and DEW attacks she was suffering from. The first dispatcher hung up on her when she reported the crimes of gang stalking and DEW attacks. Upon calling a second time, a different dispatcher also dismissed her, told her she needed to “take her medication” and said “You people are all crazy”. At this juncture, Plaintiff Hopson asked the dispatcher if she received any such calls frequently, she replied: “All the time”.

m) Prior to being included in the TSDB, none of the individually named Plaintiffs or TJ Members experienced any of the events described above unless they were victims of the MK-ULTRA or COINTELPRO programs.

n) An estimated 200,000 individuals in the United States included in the TSDB’s Handling Codes 3 / 4 categories every day undergo various forms of torture including DEW attacks, V2K and organized stalking in violation of the “Convention Against Torture ratified by the United States of America in 1994. All of it paid for with taxpayer’s money.

18) FISA Court Violations

a) Under Section 702 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, defendant FBI can apply for the interception and Upstream Surveillance of Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ electronic communications without the need for any court to review or approve the individual targets of the surveillance based on their secret, unconstitutional inclusion in the TSDB’s NIS/Handling Code 3 /4 categories.

b) Defendant FBI has relied on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq., to carry out illegal surveillance on Plaintiffs, TJ Members, TIs, and other equally-situated NIS’ electronic communications.

c) Defendant FBI effortlessly obtains wiretap/surveillance warrants through the FISA Court since the procedure does not require the “probable cause” standard that Article III Courts demand in 18 USC 2518(3)(a) applications.

d) FISA Court acknowledges it approves 99% of all wiretap applications.

e) In November, 2021, the presiding judge of the FISA Court, James Boasberg, issued a ruling concluding that Defendant FBI “has been seriously and systematically abusing its warrantless electronic surveillance authority.”

f) A prior 2019 audit report had revealed that Defendant FBI had engaged in a “pattern of abuses and deficiencies in the FBI FISA process.” “FISA orders can be used to surveil U.S. persons; and in some cases, the surveillance will foreseeably collect information about the individual’s constitutionally protected activities.”

g) Unlike warrants granted under 18 USC 2518(8)(d) where the government must inform the person object of the warrant that his or her communications were collected, FISA Court-issued warrants don’t require Defendant FBI to ever notify the subject that his or her communications were collected unless government proceeding is brought against the person.

h) As part of the 97% of individuals on the TSDB’s grouped under the NIS/Handling Codes 3 / 4 categories who have no ties to terrorism, Plaintiffs have a right to know how many FISA warrants has the FBI obtained to listen in to their conversations and communications.

i) Any FISA warrant for the surveillance, search and/or seizure of Plaintiffs’ communications and/or property that Defendant FBI obtained was done so in violation of law since the agency knows Plaintiffs have no ties to terrorism.

j) Any “Sneak and Peek” warrant that Defendant FBI has obtained and executed against Plaintiffs and TJ Members under Section 213 of the Patriot Act, is in violation of law since its agents know that Plaintiffs have no ties to terrorism.

k) For years and devoid of probable cause that meets the Fourth Amendment’s mandates, Defendant FBI has illegally intercepted, recorded, listened in, stolen electronic communications and files from Plaintiffs and TJ Members under the pretext that their names appear in the TSDB.

l) All warrants obtained and carried out against Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ electronic surveillance and secret searches and seizures are contrary to law and in open violation of their privacy rights. Defendants FBI and DHS are jointly liable for the damages the execution of any such illicit warrant caused Plaintiffs.

19. Discrimination Against Women and the Poor: TJ’s data demonstrates that the illegal targeted individual program discriminates against single women who compose 66.6% of the TI community and the poor.

TJ’s statistics obtained within its membership reflect the following:

a) 14% are homeless (National average is 0.5%);

b) 35% are living with a relative or friend because they cannot afford to pay rent;

c) 67% are unemployed (National average is 3.7%);

d) 40% were indigent – having less than $100.00 in their possession. (Substantially below the poverty line).

20. Violation of TIs Constitutional Rights

a) The TSDB violates the First, Fourth (illegal searches and siezures), Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments (deprivation of personal property and freedom without due process of law), Eighth (prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment), and rights to privacy guaranteed in Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

b) Holding Defendants jointly liable for the enabling and implementing of an ongoing “crime against humanity” of a highly illegal targeting program that preys on, tortures and prompts the death of innocent civilians throughout the world included under TSDB’s NIS/Handling Code 3 / 4 categories and the consequences thereof, in violation of the United Nations’ Convention 1753 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States of America in 1994.

c) The human experimentation program on Targeted Individuals is repugnant to the United States Constitution as it violates the following:

a) First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Amendments of the Constitution of the United States by punishing its victims for the exercise of Free Speech, conducting illegal searches and seizures of their person and things, and depriving them of property and liberty without due process;

b) Eighth Amendment as it constitutes totalitarian cruel and unusual punishment;

c) Fourteenth Amendment as the experimentation program disproportionately targets women and conservatives; and

d) The United Nations’ Convention 1753 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States of America in 1994.

313. Plaintiffs’ and TJ Members’ inclusion in the TSDB and the consequences thereof violate their fundamental rights to privacy embodied in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.