CI,F'rtt ,R1f C'uur7" SUI^F^E MUH10 TABLE of CONTENTS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Hanan S. Rashada Case No.: 09-- 1 15.9L POB 14211 Cleveland, OH 44114 Judges: (216) 704-9399 Relator, ORIGINAL ACTION vs. The Ohio Secretary of State Borden Building 180 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215-3707 (877) 767-6446 Respondent. Please also serve: Ohio Attorney General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3428 (877) 244-6446 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20535-0000 (800) 869-4499 The United States Congress The Clerk of the House United States Capitol Building, Room H154 Washington, D.C. 20515-6601 (202) 225-7000 COMPLAINT FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION Hanan S. Rashada POB 14211 Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 704-9399 (fi PRO SE LITIGANT CI,F'Rtt ,r1F C'UUR7" SUI^f^E MUH10 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .. ................................................................................... STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 24 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 29 FOOTNOTES ............................................................................................................ 33 PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................................................... APPENDIX Appx. Page Appendix A .............................................................................................. 1 Appendix B .............................................................................................. 4 Appendix C .............................................................................................. 6 Appendix D .............................................................................................. 9 Appendix E .............................................................................................. 10 Appendix F ............................................................................................... 11 Appendix G .............................................................................................. 14 Appendix H .............................................................................................. 16 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ...................................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS; STATUTES ............................................ USA Patriot Act of 2001, Section 223(2)(f) ............................................ 1 Ohio Constitution, Section 2, Article IV ................................................. 1 S.Ct.Prac.R. X, §§ 1-4 .............................................................................. 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CAS ES : ................................................................................................................ CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS; STATUTES : .......................................... 1 USA Patriot Act of 2001, Section 223(2)(f) ............................................ 1 Ohio Constitution, Section 2, Article IV ................................................. 1 i STATEMENT OF FACTS Hanan S. Rashada, the only relator in this action, pursuant to Article IV, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution and S.Ct.Prac.R. X§§ 1-4, governing original actions, asks this Court to issue a writ of prohibition preventing the State (and other offices of government and civilians acting with it), (hereinafter collectively referred to as "relator") from inducing mind control espionage, engaging sexual assault, battery, harassment, and stealing hard files and computer generated documents from both her home computer and she uses at public libraries; and from bullying her by wielding electronic surveillance, intelligence technologies and other instrumentation, from implanting devices into her and conducting medical procedures and surgeries without her awareness, permission and consent. 1. Back gr ound. The relator was being assaulted and harassed since the time she lived in Washington, D.C. during the 1980s. This was long before the horrific events of September 11, 2001 and the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. It was after September 11, 2001 and the enactment of the USA Patriot Act that assaults on her worsened. Commencing in early 1996 through 2009 (in Cleveland, Ohio alone), the relator submitted numerous complaints to several offices of government concerning assault and harassment. A list of those offices of govemment is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Appendix A. At the time of the signing of this motion, however, no responses were forthcoming from any of those offices concerning her complaints. An Affidavit in Support is attached. All footnotes are listed on page 33 of this Complaint. Respondent has no probable cause for assaulting and harassing the relator and is clearly acting against her for reasons unrelated to a watch for terrorist activities. Therefore, pursuant to Section 223(2)(f) of the USA Patriot Act, as stated immediately below, respondent is in default: "Administrative Discipline. If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United Sates acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination." 2. Mind Control Espionage. a. Parallel. During early 1999, relator began drafting a small business plan for a company she named Parallel. This business would provide a service for analyzing research and discovery on a metaphysical curve. In the spring of 2005, relator sent a proposal outline of her new business concept to respondent via of "Signature Mail". The package however failed to reach respondent's office because respondent, having learned of the proposal while censoring her, intercepted it. In fact, respondent was very much in the way of intercepting relator's mails and other materials for several years. Complaints that the relator submitted to offices of government often included her new business technique for compiling theories about what was happening to her. During the time relator was submitting her complaints, she was not yet fully aware that it was Respondent that was already monitoring her via intelligence technologies. She believed the parties who assaulted and harassed her were civilians recruited for terrorist watch programs. Nevertheless, when her proposal outline failed to reach respondent's office that cinched it. Relator then realized that more than civilians were involved as they would be hard put to walk into a post office and take possession of State office mails. Frustrated by all this, relator put away her work 2 on Parallel. The respondent, however, having realized the commercial potential of relator's new business technique, moved in for the kill. As far as it was concerned, if it could not take possession of relator's new business, it would take possession of the mind that could produce the business by using electronic surveillance, MICs, and intelligence technologies. Before it could fully take possession of the relator, however, respondent needed to complete the operations it already had in effect. The USA Patriot Act designated the total amount of SIX HUNDRED MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($600,000,000.00) for the FBI technical support center. Relator believes the mainframe technology that catalogs and monitors her brainwave activity is located inside this center and that PC (personal computers) or PT (personal technology) can be mobilized anywhere to download from it or input information to it concerning the relator. b. New Age Curriculum. Commencing in 1998 and continuing until early 2002, the relator drafted several study courses (approx. 22) that she encapsulated into the heading, New Age Curriculum. Relator anticipated the courses would be taught on-line until an actual university campus was built. In March 2002, when she left Cleveland to visit Atlanta, Georgia, she deposited the preliminary New Age Curriculum in a locked suitcase in the basement of a relative's home. Six months later when she returned to Cleveland, she discovered the New Age Curriculum had been stolen. When she went to report the theft to the Cleveland Police Department (5th District), the officer who assisted her, spoke sincerely in telling her that he understood she had mental problems and that her report would not be considered competent. It was at this point that relator started becoming fully aware that false accusations concerning her mental health were circulating in very important places although she was not yet aware of where they originated. 3 3. MKUltra Instrumentation. Research