Partial Transcript of Charles Schlund's Lawsuit
III. CLAIMANT SCHLUND'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:
10. Claimant Schlund makes the following allegations on his information
and belief and on those grounds, George Bush, Sr. ("Bush Sr.") who in 1976
was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"). George Bush
Sr. as the Director of the CIA in 1976, under the orders of Nelson
Rockefeller, removed from the government all of the evidence of
corruption, wrongdoing, crimes and criminal acts. All of these files and
documents sometimes referred to as "evidence" were removed from the
government to conceal the information to prevent Jimmy Carter and those he
would appoint to public office from accessing the information. This act by
Bush Sr. constitutes an act of treason. The evidence contained various
files, papers, documents, data, films, tape recordings, maps, log books
and other tangible items and things which were moved to be under Bush
Sr.'s possession and control as he was ordered by Nelson Rockefeller. The
said evidence and its contents are generally referred to as the "Don
Bolles Papers," unless denoted otherwise. The Don Bolles Papers were
placed into the possession of Evelyn Thompson, Claimant Schlund, and others
after they were stolen by a professional thief, who had been recently
released from prison and broke into a safe in a hotel located on North
Central Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona. The thief believed this large walk-in
(vault) safe contained large sums of money because it was so well-guarded.
Unfortunately for him, the cash bounty was not what was anticipated but
the Don Bolles Papers were contained therein. This information came
directly from the thief and was conveyed by him directly to Evelyn
Thompson and Claimant Schlund. Evelyn Thompson actually received the Don
Bolles Papers from the thief. Claimant Schlund no longer recalls the
thief's name because of lapse of time, sleep deprivation, torture and
other criminal acts committed against Claimant Schlund by the government
to destroy Claimant as a political witness.
11. The CIA and other files Claimant Schlund has always called the Don
Bolles Papers contained massive amounts of paperwork, films, tapes,
photos, maps and other related items and things much of which were
authenticated Defendant USA documents related to illegal, immoral,
criminal, private, corporate and government covert operations, conducted
under the highest level of control of the CIA, DEA, NSA, Justice
Department, Federal Courts and many others. These are the documents
Claimant Schlund calls the Don Bolles Papers, and it is obvious to Claimant
Schlund that these papers contained the highest levels of
private/governmental planning regarding the systematic overthrow (private
control) of the United States of America.
12. Claimant Schlund alleges on information and belief and on those
grounds that the Don Bolles Papers which included the above said files,
documents and other tangible things were removed by Bush Sr. from the
Defendant USA Government for the purpose of concealing the information
from President-Elect Jimmy Carter and those who President Carter would
appoint to the different government agencies or to other public offices
under his executive command. This was done by the Director of the CIA,
Bush Sr., while the CIA was under his direction, influence, and control.
13. The Don Bolles Papers were then moved to Phoenix, Arizona by the CIA
to one of the drug cartels that the CIA influenced, operated and
controlled known as the Dirty Dozen Motorcycle Gang ("DD") which was a
gang comprised of different organizational levels who had individuals
involved at many levels within the government in the State of Arizona. The
DD was operated and controlled by the CIA and was a drug cartel under the
CIA's and DEA's control.
14. The DD was comprised of prospects, prostitutes, thieves, bikers,
informants, private investigators, business owners, police officers,
judges, federal agents, governors, senators and congressmen, and others.
15. The Don Bolles files and papers were then taken from the DD, actually
the CIA, in a burglary resulting in the CIA losing control of these highly
sensitive documents, plans, and other criminal evidence.
16. On or about 1977, Claimant Schlund was one of the individuals of a
group of people who received the Don Bolles Papers and files who along
with these other individuals began to read and analyze them.
17. The content of the Don Bolles Papers included CIA files, documentation
and other data which revealed a plan for the systematic overthrow of the
USA using the CIA, Drug Enforcement Administration, ("DEA") and the
judicial system and its courts and others under the color of law under the
protection and direction of the Rockefeller family and Bush family which
included Bush Sr. and George W. Bush, the Department of Justice ("DOJ"),
certain members of congress and the senate and other positions inside and
outside the government. It was clearly indicated in the Bolles papers that
key positions were being obtained through the method of assassinations and
the fixing of presidential and other elections and by political
appointment to achieve the CIA's goal, of taking over and controlling key
positions in the government and private sector.
18. These files detailed George Bush Sr. and the CIA's bugging of the
White House, Camp David, Jimmy Carter's home and anyone else that could
stand in their way or could become a threat to their empire at some time
in the future. The bugging of the White House was necessary to control and
direct Jimmy Carter's presidency.
19. In these CIA and other files that George Bush Sr. illegally took from
the government, were CIA drawings of the White House revealing that one of
the rooms drops one mile down underground during times of war to protect
the president and his staff. Then the president transfers over to another
elevator and would be taken three more miles down underground to the
shelter to protect him from an enemy attack.
20. Claimant Schlund further alleges that this massive underground complex
extends in all directions to many different other complexes like the one
under the Pentagon or the one for congress and others. After Claimant had
briefed the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") of these facilities
and after the end of the cold war, some of these complexes then became
21. Through this underground complex and by other ways, the CIA monitored
[everyone] in the government from Congress to the President and even the
justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
As Claimant Schlund's has consistently said, the electronic surveillance
devices are, in fact, commonplace, so much so, that even the Honorable
Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court admitted in the
published opinion of Heutsche v. U.S., 414 U.S. 989 (1973) that, " We who
live in the District of Columbia know that electronic surveillance is
commonplace. I am indeed morally certain that the Conference Room of this
Court has been "bugged;" and President Johnson during his term in the
White House asserted to me that even his phone was tapped.. The daily
news brings fresh evidence to make a reality of Chief Justice Warren's
warnings that the fantastic advances in the field of electronic
communication constitute a great danger to the privacy of individuals."
Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 441 at p. 462 (1963) (Chief Justice
22. Claimant Schlund briefed the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI")
that the bugging devices in the White House were integrated into the
telephone lines and were invisible to the human naked eye. The telephone
wires looked like they were just copper telephone wires. Integrated into
this wire were molecular bugging devices and computers that would monitor
and collect what was said and then code and compress this information into
the monitoring clicks on the telephone line and in these clicks transmit
everything to the CIA in their underground complex. No one without the
required super computers and the required codes would be able to detect or
decode any information from these bugging devices or what they transmitted
down the telephone lines. Wires had to be used for the bugging to stop
government scans from being able to pick up radio transmissions. This
insured that the CIA would be undetected in their monitoring of the
president and the rest of the government.
23. Claimant Schlund alleges that at Camp David, the bugging devices were
built into the wiring of the new security system and at Jimmy Carter's
home the bugging devices were in the telephone wiring.
Further that, in the Don Bolles Papers were the files on the bugging of
everyone that the CIA, Rockefellers, Bush family or others considered a
threat to their plans. Many of these files were old and other people had
just come under investigation by the government.
24. Claimant Schlund alleges the following is a short list of names of
people from the government files who were categorized as a threat to the
secret government. These American citizens had been kept under constant
surveillance by the Office of Special Services ("OSS"), CIA, DEA and
others because they were considered enemies of the state for their
political, religious, moral or other legally permissible beliefs:
|1. Martin Luther King
|16. Jimmy Carter
|2. Charles Lindbergh
|17. Steve McQueen
|3. Charlie Chaplin
|18. Audie Murphy
|4. Groucho Marx
|19. Rod Serling
|5. Clark Gable
|20. Gary Hart
|6. Elizabeth Montgomery
|21. Raul Castro
|7. Ernest Hemingway
|22. Cassius Clay
|8. Buddy Holly
|23. Annette Funicello
|9. John Lennon
|24. Judge Charles Muecke
|10. Elizabeth Taylor
|25. Doris Day
|11. Karen Carpenter
|26. Jimmy Stewart
|12. Cher Bono
|27. Jerry Brown
|13. Frank Wills
|28. Bruce Lee
|14. Jackie Kennedy
|29. Shirley Temple-Black
|15. Edward Kennedy
|30. Bruce Lee
25. Claimant Schlund alleges that in the CIA and other files he had were
the files on thousands of innocent people that had been or were being kept
under constant investigation so they could be directed, controlled,
manipulated, discredited or assassinated if it became necessary to protect
the cover-up of government corruption. These created and fabricated
investigations were authorized by the surveillance court and other courts
and conducted under the cover of authority and warrant. Some of the
warrants were issued on the claims they were protecting these people from
terrorist or kidnappers and other warrants were issued after framing them
as being involved in drugs or for other alleged criminal activity. In
truth, none of these people were guilty of anything other then being good
honest Americans with political beliefs different then the secret
government that secretly runs parts of the government.
26. Claimant Schlund further alleges that in these same files Claimant
Schlund read all the files of all the CIA operatives that were or would be
involved in the systematic overthrow of America by the CIA.
27. Further, Claimant Schlund alleges the following is a very short list
of the files or names of some of the CIA or other agents involved in the
overthrow of America. Some belonged to different groups or organizations
that the CIA ran like the Aryan Brotherhood, Crypts, Bloods, Dirty Dozen,
Masons, Italian Mob, Jewish Mob, Irish Mob, Mexican Mob and many other
secret societies, drug cartels, political actions, committees and many
other kinds of organizations.
|1. Nelson Rockefeller
|16. Spiro T. Agnew
|2. David Rockefeller
|17. Gerald R. Ford
|3. Ronald Reagan
|18. Ted Koppel
|4. Charlton Heston
|19. G. Gordon Liddy
|5. Ralph Nader
|20. John Poindexter
|6. Pat Robertson
|21. Colin Powell
|7. Pat Buchanan
|22. Edwin Meese
|8. Jerry Falwell
|23. Henry Fonda
|9. Malcolm Forbes
|24. Jane Fonda
|10. Bruce Babbitt
|25. Abigail Van Buren
|11. Ross Perot
|26. Amanda Blake
|12. Dr. Robert Schuller
|27. Bob Dole
|13. Dick Cheney
|28. Joe Arpaio
|14. Dan Quayle
|29. Phillip Jordan
|15. Richard Nixon
|30. Lyndon Johnson
28. Claimant Schlund alleges the Rockefeller and the Bush families were
too important to have files on them. What Claimant Schlund did have in the
Don Bolles papers were orders and memos and other papers from Nelson
Rockefeller and George Bush Sr. to and from the CIA and others. Some of
these orders were to the CIA to direct and train George Bush Sr.'s sons so
they would be prepared to take their rightful places in the CIA or other
secret societies that the CIA or others secretly ran or controlled.
Claimant had orders which allowed George W. Bush to marry even though it
was not an arranged or pre-planned marriage. George Bush Sr. thought this
might straighten George W. Bush out by allowing him to marry and take some
responsibility. George Bush Sr. had hoped that this would help control
George W. Bush's cocaine use. In these files it was customary for the
eldest son to take over the power of the family when the time came.
29. Claimant Schlund also alleges that in order to prepare George W. Bush
for his future positions in these secret societies it would be necessary
to get him to except his place as one of the elite and to do this required
the emotionless ability to order the killings or assassinations of those
that are considered inferior or threatening to the empire. To achieve this
George Bush Sr. had some of his men trick George W. Bush into authorizing
the killing of a man that George W. Bush despised. After this person was
assassinated George W. Bush was surprised and upset at what he
unintentionally had a hand in. The next authorization was easier for
George W. Bush and the next even more easy.
30. Further, Claimant Schlund alleges that in these CIA and other files
George W. Bush would never need to be taught how to physically kill
people. All that was required in the political positions he would be
appointed or elected to was to give the orders for the killings or
assassinations. George W. Bush demonstrated his training well, in this
regard, by his signing of the many execution orders in Texas as governor.
31. Claimant Schlund also had George Bush Sr.'s orders to the CIA to get
his eldest son to authorize the killing of some women and children because
this would be required for him to take his rightful place in these secret
societies. This would emotionally condition him to allow him to authorize
the killings or executions of men, women or even children as required in
the performance of his duties. These killings had not yet taken place.
Claimant Schlund has no knowledge that they ever took place. These were
orders that had not yet been fulfilled.
32. Claimant Schlund alleges that according to these CIA files George Bush
Sr. controlled through the CIA and others the states of Florida, Texas and
Arizona. These states were more important to control then other states in
order to protect the incoming drug shipments. These states were where the
CIA ran their drugs into the United States. The illegal drugs were the
common denominator that held the gangs together. These gangs furnished the
children, girls and boys for sex for the different corrupt judges and
politicians and the drugs authorized many of the investigations against
political witnesses and dissidents. The gangs and drugs created the crimes
needed to authorize all the new laws as America became more and more
conservative and more totalitarian. The drugs were the catalyst that held
everything together and the proceeds from the drugs financed many of the
covert operations like the building of large expensive churches and the
funding of the religious channels on TV and many other illegal covert CIA
operations that were involved in the systematic overthrow of the United
States of America by the CIA.
33. On information and belief and on those grounds, Claimant Schlund
alleges that the CIA plans in the Bolles Papers were simple for the
overthrow of America. The overthrow would be done under the color and
cover of law and by covertly influencing the voters until the CIA had
enough votes to place their people in the needed key positions.
Individuals who were threats that could not be successfully attacked and
removed like John F. Kennedy Jr. would be assassinated like the CIA had
assassinated his uncle, Robert F. Kennedy and his father, John F. Kennedy
In 1992, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI when the CIA planned on
assassinating John F. Kennedy Jr. He then died during the time frame in which
Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI.
34. Claimant Schlund alleges the CIA runs candidates for third and
fourth political parties to split the vote as needed to assure that their
candidates got elected.
35. Further, Claimant Schlund alleges the CIA would use their TV stations,
radio stations, newspapers, and magazines to attack any opposing candidates
and to support their candidates. Claimant alleges they had all the CIA
files on all the TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and
other organizations that they covertly owned, influenced, or controlled.
36. Claimant Schlund also alleges that in 1991 after Claimant Schlund
understood what was happening and how he was being controlled, used and
set up by the CIA, DEA and others, Claimant Schlund went to the FBI and
asked them to monitor him. Claimant Schlund asked the FBI to monitor him
without need of warrant. Claimant was only able to do this because he was
already under surveillance from the FBI in their attempt at obtaining what
information he had on other related crimes.
37. Claimant Schlund asserts that he knew that if he told the FBI what he
really knew that they would think he was crazy and Claimant knew that they
were bugged just like other law enforcement was. Claimant also alleges he
knew that he had to give the FBI all the information in a way that they
could not be accused of interfering in the presidential elections of the
United States. Claimant Schlund knew from reading the CIA and other files
that the FBI was not a political organization like the CIA and DEA were.
The FBI was a law enforcement agency that had been infiltrated by the CIA
with many of the FBI's men still being loyal to the American People and
the American Constitution.
38. Claimant alleges that to do the above said he decided it would be best
to set up everything and prove that it was true before he told the FBI
what this is about. To do this, Claimant offered to allow the FBI without
a warrant to monitor him in whatever way they felt was necessary as long
as they did not torture him, make him sick, or interfere with his sleep
using the bugging devices.
39. In 1992, Claimant offered to the FBI to be the bait for them to set up
the DEA. He would set up the DEA for the FBI to prove that the DEA was in
reality a covert operation of the CIA. This would allow the FBI to then
tell who the corrupt agents were from the non-corrupt by monitoring those
that would attack Claimant. Claimant told the FBI that he would not sell
drugs, he would not hurt people, and he would not steal and that those
attacking him would be corrupt and would plant everything needed to frame
Claimant. Further, that all the FBI had to do was watch and learn how
political witnesses are systematically removed under the cover and color
of law. Claimant agreed to set up everything that the FBI needed to learn
so they could understand how America was being systematically overthrown
by the CIA and others under their direction and control.
40. Claimant briefed the FBI that the CIA and DEA had to remove him as a
political witness at any cost and would do everything and anything
required to remove Claimant as a political witness.
41. Claimant then proceeded to accomplish his job setting up the CIA, DEA,
and others. Claimant informed the FBI that he would not accept any money
from them and that he did not want to be in any witness protection
programs which are not any safer then walking the street. Claimant Schlund
briefed the FBI that those attacking him are cowards and that he does not
fear them. Such attackers only murder, rape, and torture under the color
and cover of law and they are traitors to the American People and the
American Constitution. They are cowards working for the government. They
have joined these protected secret organizations because they are cowards
only able to function under the protection of law under false pretenses
using fantastic National Security Agency ("NSA") and CIA technologies.
42. Further, as Claimant Schlund alleges, he set up the corrupt federal
and state judges and DEA and other agents for the FBI. While setting up
the corrupt people in the government, Claimant briefed the FBI on the
information Claimant had including the plans for the systematic overthrow
of the United States by the CIA, DEA and others.
43. As Claimant would brief the FBI and others, the CIA, DEA, and others
would use those that secretly worked for the CIA in the DEA, FBI and in
other agencies under the CIA's control to attack Claimant and try to
assassinate him. During this entire time the legitimate and good agents of
the FBI, IRS, and other agencies and police defended Claimant and protected
him stopping many assassination attempts.
44. Claimant Schlund alleges that under the United States Supreme Court
decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court held
that the "President of the United States of America, like other officials,
is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens of the United
States of America. No one is above the law." Claimant Schlund's case is
provable in trial before a fair and honest tribunal while the Clinton v.
Jones case was not. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that the Bush Family
is above all laws of the United States.
THE FOLLOWING IS A SMALL PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT CLAIMANT SCHLUND
WAS SUPPLYING TO THE FBI AND OTHER AGENCIES.
45. Claimant Schlund alleges that in 1992, after testing the FBI and
assuring it would act honorably to enforce the American Constitution and
the laws of America, Claimant Schlund began to supply them with Nelson
Rockefeller's and George Bush Sr.'s plans to retake the presidency back from
Jimmy Carter. In 1992 Claimant Schlund began to supply the FBI with the
CIA plans to fix all future presidential elections of the United States.
Claimant Schlund had called the FBI in 1977 and at other later dates in
the 1980's with this same information. It appears that these telephone
calls were intercepted by the DEA impersonating the FBI. Claimant Schlund
alleges that the following is from the CIA files Claimant read and is the
information he was briefing the FBI on.
46. Some of the following information is how the Rockefeller family, Bush
family and the CIA, DEA, and others planned on ensuring they would win in
all future presidential elections.
47. George Bush Sr. and the CIA under the directions of Nelson and David
Rockefeller had planned on using third and fourth parties to split the
vote when it became necessary to do so to win the presidential elections
of the United States. Starting in 1992, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI
on the CIA files of the people that would run these political parties for
the CIA. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that he had read Ross Perot's
CIA file and that Ross Perot worked for the Bush family and the CIA and
was in the presidential election to split the vote. Claimant Schlund
believes he stopped this and caused Ross Perot to drop out of the race by
hand delivering a letter to the FBI in New Orleans, Louisiana. Claimant
Schlund believes that the letter was dated June 24, 1992. Soon after, Ross
Perot dropped out of the presidential race. Claimant Schlund believes that
Ross Perot's paranoia then prevented him from fulfilling his job of
splitting the vote and fixing the presidential election of the United
States. This resulted in the people electing William Clinton to the
presidency of the United States.
48. Claimant Schlund in 1992 briefed the FBI on Ralph Nader's CIA file and
how Ralph Nader worked for the CIA and had broken up AT&T for the CIA. In
the CIA files Claimant had AT&T was a publicly owned corporation
controlled by the Rockefeller family and the CIA. The break-up of AT&T was
done to hide the profits and to create new corporations that could
advertise against each other to fund the CIA's and Rockefeller families TV
stations, radio stations, magazines, newspapers and other media businesses
and corporations. Ralph Nader also runs the Consumer Advocacy and
Information Group which was used to protect the Rockefeller empire while
attacking competing unprotected corporations.
49. Claimant Schlund, in 1992, briefed the FBI that he also read the CIA
file on Pat Buchanan and that he also worked for the CIA, Rockefeller and
50. In 1992, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on Ronald Reagan's CIA file
and how he had been selected to be the actor to play the part of the
President of the United States of America for the Director of the CIA
George Bush, in the systematic overthrow of the United States by the CIA.
Claimant Schlund also briefed the FBI on how Ronald Reagan had ran
California for the CIA as governor and how he had worked for the Office of
Special Services ("OSS") and later the CIA throughout his life. Ronald
Reagan was an FBI informant for the CIA so he could feed the FBI incorrect
information along with real information that the FBI would know was true.
The CIA always does it this way to make their operatives believable when
they are really only supplying false unverifiable facts to covertly miss
direct those that could be a threat to them.
51. In 1992, Claimant Schlund alleges he briefed the FBI on Bruce Babbit's
CIA file. This included how Babbitt worked for George Bush, Sr. and the
CIA and had run the drug cartel known as the Dirty Dozen for George Bush,
Sr. This included information on when he was Attorney General of Arizona
and Governor of Arizona for the CIA. Claimant Schlund strongly protested
his appointment by President Clinton to the FBI.
52. In 1992, Claimant Schlund also alleges he briefed the FBI on Bob
Dole's CIA file and how the CIA would not run him for president unless
something went wrong and no one else was in position to run. Claimant also
briefed the FBI that the CIA had concluded that Bob Dole would not be
electable and he would not be elected if he ran. Claimant briefed the FBI
on Dole's affair and how it was too public to cover up and how later he
married his wife, who also worked for the CIA, and how she would run the
American Red Cross for the CIA.
53. In 1992, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on that he had read the
files of the entire Bush family and that the power always passes to the
eldest son. Claimant also briefed the FBI that the three drug cartels that
the Bush family ran through the CIA, DEA and others were Arizona, Florida,
and Texas and that these states were under their control. Claimant later
confirmed that George W. Bush had a serious drug problem with cocaine.
Claimant Schlund also briefed the FBI that all witnesses against the Bush
family are electronically tortured and murdered or forced under torture to
commit suicide. As we all know, the person that wrote the book the
Fortunate Son and exposed George W. Bush's drug use recently committed
54. In 1992 and forward, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that he also had
read Dan Quayle's CIA file and how Quayle's family ran newspapers for the
Rockefeller family and the CIA. Claimant Schlund also briefed the FBI of
Dan Quayle's drug use and later of how the newspaper reporter Don Bolles
was assassinated with a car bomb to cover up his investigation into Dan
Quayle's drug use. This was not the only reason that Don Bolles was
assassinated. In the CIA files Claimant had were the orders for the
assassination of Don Bolles. They had came from George Bush Sr. at the CIA
down through the DEA to Bruce Babbit then to Kemper Marley who at the time
was Arizona's only billionaire. From Kemper Marley the orders went to the
Dirty Dozen who then set up Adamson to be the fall guy. These kinds of
political assassinations always have to be solved and someone is always
set up to be the fall guy.
55. In 1992, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on Pat Robertson's CIA file.
Pat Robertson and his TV programming and news were designed and planned by
the CIA and were in part funded with drug proceeds and other stolen or
misappropriated moneys. I briefed the FBI on how Pat Robertson liked the
girls too much in his CIA file. George Bush, Sr. believed that this could
damage his credibility as a TV evangelist so George Bush, Sr. had the CIA
make some new pills to look like the pills Pat Robertson took each
morning. These new pills would curtail his sex life during the day and
would wear off by night so Pat Robertson could have a normal sex life
after work but no sex during work. Pat Robertson covertly told Christians
who God's presidential candidate was which was used to influence the
presidential elections of the United States. These acts by the CIA
amounted to treason.
56. In 1992 I briefed the FBI on Jerry Farewell's CIA file. He also worked
for the CIA and his ministry was not really what it appeared to be. He was
not moral or the majority. Later the IRS went after his tax exempt status
because he was really just CIA and the Christian Coalition was really just
to control voters and others to direct future public elections and
political objectives. Then the Congress went after the IRS to stop the IRS
from interfering in George Bush Sr.'s. plans for the overthrow of the
United States by the CIA.
57. In 1992 I briefed the FBI on Malcolm Forbes CIA file. He was one of
many people working with the CIA that used their combined influence to
direct the American people. Their goal was to fix the public elections in
America by convincing the American people who was moral, Christian, and
good. The people they presented to the American people as moral and good
were really evil and corrupt and they secretly worked for the overthrow of
America. In other words they were traitors to the American people and the
Continue with Part 2
Charles Schlund Lawsuit, Part 2
58. In 1992, I briefed the FBI on how the CIA would use the Electoral
College to fix the presidential elections if the elections could not be
fixed by splitting the vote using a third and fourth political party. The
Electoral College would only be used if all other methods failed and was
only the way of last resort to put their people in power. I briefed the
FBI in great detail of how the Electoral College would be used as a way of
fixing the presidential elections. This method of fixing the presidential
elections would only be used if splitting the vote using third and fourth
parties failed to split the vote enough to insure that their candidate
would be elected.
59. In 1992, at the request of the FBI, Claimant Schlund began to supply
the FBI with the names of the Supreme Court judges that worked for the CIA
and the Bush and Rockefeller families. Claimant Schlund supplied the FBI
with five United States Supreme Court Justices names from the CIA files
Claimant Schlund had read and from other information Claimant Schlund had
and these five judges were the five United States Supreme Court Judges
that seven or eight years later appointed George W. Bush to the presidency
of the United States of America. During these briefings to the FBI
Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI of what was in 3 of these judges CIA
files including all the details of their corruption and crimes and why the
CIA had picked them to be appointed as Supreme Court Justices on the
United States Supreme Court.
60. In May or June of 1992 Claimant Schlund went to Washington DC to set
up the Washington Post for the FBI. While in Washington, DC the CIA, DEA
or others controlled Claimant Schlund's motel phone lines. Claimant
Schlund then tried to call the FBI and the CIA, DEA or others intercepted
the call with a recording that the FBI's phone lines were not in service.
Claimant Schlund then called the phone company operator and told her that
this was an emergency and that he needed her to dial the FBI for Claimant
Schlund. This call went through and the FBI answered and immediately sent
out a phone truck to switch the phone lines in the telephone company
pedestal in front of the motel to stop the CIA's control of Claimant's
phone lines. The FBI then called back and said to go ahead. Claimant
Schlund then called the Washington Post to prove to the FBI how the
Washington Post working for the CIA had covered up Watergate and how they
would be used to cover up the information Claimant Schlund was trying to
supply the FBI with. Claimant Schlund later also briefed the FBI that the
Miami Herald was also one of their newspapers and was under their control
and that the Bush family and others controlled what they printed to a
large degree. The Miami Herald did the recount confirming the results of
the presidential elections in Florida and the Washington Post confirmed
the Miami Harold's findings. In other words the CIA covertly confirmed the
61. Claimant Schlund also briefed the FBI on the new electronic implants
that the CIA had designed and were being mass produced in 1977 by the NSA.
These electronic implants could be used to fix ball games, horse races, and
dog races or to fix presidential or local elections. They were being
injected into large numbers of people in investigations and used to
monitor and control targeted people to cover up the massive corruption in
the government. They could not make Republicans vote for Democrats and
they could not make Democrats vote for Republicans but they could stop
them from voting if needed. These electronic devices or implants could
also influence who independent voters would vote for George Bush Sr., and
the CIA planed on using these electronic devices whenever possible to fix
future presidential elections of the United States and other countries
around the world. The fixing of the American presidential elections with
these electronic devices was not only possible but easy when used in
conjunction with other covert operations. George Bush and the CIA had
planned on trying to fix all future presidential elections using these
electronic devices and implants controlled by super computers. This
process was simple and the devices would be used to make the implanted
person feel bad and sick anytime they heard the name of the person they
were not to vote for and they would make the injected person feel good and
have a feeling of great joy and well being anytime the injected person
heard who they were suppose to vote for. This did not change the minds of
everyone but it did work well enough to alter the elections to in favor of
who the CIA was trying to get elected. A presidential election can be
fixed by influencing a very small percentage of the voters.
62. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI in 1992, 1993 and forward on George
Bush Sr's, Nelson Rockefeller's, and the CIA's plans to put their corrupt
people in key positions in the Federal and State courts. This process had
already been going on for many years with many of these corrupt judges
already being on the bench. These corrupt and evil judges were making
their legal rulings based on corruption and evil not on law or the
Constitution. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI of how some of these judges
would assume their positions 20 years after being selected for these
positions. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that he had read through 100's
of files of corrupt federal judges or future corrupt federal judges.
Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that some of these judges were pedophiles
and others were murders or drug dealers and others were just evil or
corrupt. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on some of these files and on
what he could remember. Each of these files had a list of people that
could be possible witnesses against these corrupt and evil judges. In each
file was who the CIA, DEA, or others was to assassinate and who was to be
imprisoned, tortured, or given different illnesses to remove them as
potential witnesses. The Bush family could appoint these corrupt and evil
people to the federal bench pretending that they were Christians and moral
people with all the witnesses against them being dead or discredited and
63. Right to protect privacy and remove implants: Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S.
113 (1973). In 1992 and 1993, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on George
Bush Sr. and Nelson Rockefeller's plans to overturn in part Roe v Wade.
The Roe v Wade case was a threat to the empire. The United States Justice
Department had briefed George Bush Sr. and Nelson Rockefeller that Roe v
Wade could be interpreted as a human rights ruling giving the people the
right to their own bodies. If American citizens had a right to their own
body's electronic implants would be illegal. The ruling of Roe v Wade
could be used in court to make the use of the governments electronic
implants illegal so George Bush Sr. planned on conducting the CIA covert
operation of overturning Roe v Wade in part to make an exception so the
use of electronic implants could still be done under the cover and color
of law. George Bush Sr. did not want to stop abortion. All he wanted was
to make an exception to the ruling so that implants could be legally used
against political witnesses and dissidents so his corrupt public officials
and judges could be protected using the cover of investigations which
would use implants to monitor, torture, and murder political witnesses. The
wording from the Justice Department to George Bush Sr. was as follows. If
it is illegal to interfere in the body of a citizen to save the life of an
unborn child how can it be legal to inject implants into that same persons
body when the ruling of Roe v Wade says that the government has no right
interfering in the bodies of its citizens. George Bush Sr. was going to
make his campaign against abortion look like he was a Christian fighting
for children when in truth he could have cared less about the life of any
child. His only interest was in more power and control over those he would
Claimant Schlund claims he has a right to be free from implants used for
torture and/or surveillance, violating his body privacy and other privacy
rights within expected orbits and zones of privacy. The government's
forcible placing bugging device into Claimant Schlund's body violates
rights to privacy under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and the holding of Roe v.
Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
In order to succeed in George W. Bush's schemes and efforts to overthrow
the United States, part of the systematic plan would require the
elimination of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
To eliminate this decision achieves the result of eliminating the
inalienable [right] of a person's [right] to personal privacy and all
other connected privacies as well. Such is being accomplished by
electronic intrusions at present.
64. In 1992 Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on George Bush Sr.'s plans
for the Gulf War. Claimant Schlund read these CIA files in 1977. This war
had nothing to do with freedom, liberty or justice, or potential threats
against the United States. Any weapons of mass destruction Iraq might get
or build would be done covertly with the consent and knowledge of the CIA.
What this war had to do with was the five trillion dollars in oil that
lies under Iraq's surface. The Rockefeller family, Cheney family and the
Bush family are oil men and oil controls the world's economies. Oil is
black gold. In these files the CIA and Rockefeller family owned Saudi
Arabia and controlled everything Saudi Arabia did outside its borders.
Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI in great detail about the CIA plans for
the Gulf War and how these plans were made in the 1970's. When William
Clinton got elected he got in the way of the CIA which resulted in
delaying the rest of the war until now. Claimant Schlund does not like the
leader of Iraq any better then he likes George W. Bush. They are both
murders and dictators. Iraq will be developed after the war and things
will improve for the people of Iraq after the end of the embargo and war.
This will not make the Iraqi people free but it will improve their lives
as the Bush and Rockefeller families develop and control Iraq's natural
resources. This will be done privately and deniably by major international
corporations that the Rockefeller Family, Bush Family and other control.
The economic development of Iraq after the war will bring prosperity to
the people of Iraq. The prosperity would be called freedom.
65. In 1992 and 1993 Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on the implants that
would be injected into the American troops for the Gulf War with their
vaccination shots. These implants would allow the CIA to monitor, control,
and direct the war from anywhere. The troops would get ill from their
bodies' auto immune responses to these implants and would suffer a wide
range of illnesses and medical conditions. George Bush Sr. knew that the
troops would suffer horribly from these injected implants but had decided
that the troops were expendable as long as they could still fight in
combat. The CIA had concluded that adrenalin would overcome the
electronic implant caused illnesses in the heat of battle. The implants
were designed so that they could not be turned off in case an enemy found
out about them. In these files the CIA and George Bush Sr. had not yet
decided how long to make the implants transmit. In the CIA files they were
talking about the range of 9 to 15 years but some were arguing that the
implants should last for the rest of the troop's lives so they could be
monitored later in civilian life. In these files George Bush Sr. had
assured everyone that he controlled the federal courts and that the courts
would not allow anyone to go to trial over the use of the implantable
devices, and the government would deny their use of the implants under the
protection of their corrupt Attorney Generals and their corrupt federal
judges. Claimant Schlund has no knowledge that these devices were used and
only read the plans for their use.
66. In about 1992 or 1993 or as soon as Janet Reno was publicly named for
possible appointment as Attorney General of the United States, Claimant
Schlund demanded to the FBI that they go to President William Clinton and
tell the president that Claimant Schlund said Janet Reno is corrupt and
that she should not be appointed to Attorney General of the United States.
The FBI delayed briefing President Clinton until after the FBI's
investigation was completed which allowed Janet Reno to be appointed as
the Attorney General of the United States. Then when President Clinton and
the FBI later tried to have the DEA abolished to stop some of the
corruption in the government, Janet Reno blocked the FBI and President
Clinton to protect the corruption and to protect the CIA, DEA, Bush and
Rockefeller families. Janet Reno's appointment then allowed the Bush
family and the CIA to control the Justice Department continually for
decades. After Janet Reno was appointed, she continually conducted
investigations into the Democrats which made Janet Reno's firing
impossible because the CIA would have made it look similar to when Richard
Nixon fired Archibald Cox.
67. In 1991, 1992, and 1993, Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that he had
read the CIA files on Watergate and other similar CIA covert operations
which were all part of the systematic overthrow of the United States by
the CIA. Claimant Schlund then briefed the FBI that he had read the CIA
files on the formation of the DEA and how it was framed as a covert
operation of the CIA. The CIA had gotten into a lot of trouble bugging the
Democrats at Watergate and if they were caught again the CIA could be
destroyed by congress. The bugging of the Democrats at Watergate by the
CIA had been done to collect information to be used in the next
presidential election to embarrass the Democrat's to fix the election to
in favor of the Republican's. To protect the CIA from further
embarrassment if they were exposed conducting such illegal covert
operations, Nelson Rockefeller ordered Richard Nixon to form the DEA as a
covert operation of the CIA. This new Federal agency could conduct
investigations using the cover and color of law. Investigations could be
done against any American after involving them or framing them as being
involved in the drug trade. This new agency would get all the drug
investigation records from the FBI allowing them to know everything that
the FBI knew. The DEA could then run the drugs as sting operations and
could plant and frame anyone that was a political threat to the empire.
All of their crimes would be done under the cover of warrants and under
the protection of the Justice Department. There would never be another
Watergate because all such future investigations would be done under the
protection of a warrant and under the protection of the law. These acts of
racketeering, false pretenses, fraud, and violation of the individual's
oath of office constitutes a despicable combination of unethical acts and
conduct which have the effect of governmental treason against the American
People which continue to this day.
68. Claimant Schlund starting in 1991 briefed the FBI on how the DEA had
people murdered in front of Claimant's wife to threaten her and to force
her to work for the DEA against Claimant Schlund. These murders were being
done under the orders and protection and direction of the DEA, police,
Justice Department, and the courts. These murders could then be blamed on
Claimant Schlund and if Claimant's wife refused to aid the DEA in their
crimes her children would be murdered. The police refused to take or allow
murder reports and refused to allow any of the witnesses to testify to
them or before any juries. The police and the DEA then injected all the
known witnesses with electronic implants and then proceeded to monitor,
torture and control them with these implants to threaten them anytime the
witnesses said anything that those involved in these government murders
did not like. This obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering continues
until this day with the Justice Department continuing to threaten the
lives of the witnesses.
69. Starting in 1977 and continuing until the present, Claimant Schlund
has called and written the police, federal agencies, the Justice Department, and
the President of the United States about the Obstruction of Justice and
Witness Tampering. Each time Claimant Schlund called or written the police,
federal agencies or the Justice Department corrupt agents under the
protection of corrupt judges would authorize more warrants against
Claimant Schlund to frame him for some crime to authorize them to continue
to refuse to do their jobs and protect Claimant Schlund and his witnesses.
These acts of evil have continued since 1977 on a daily basis to the
present time and still continue today. After first trying to expose these
crimes in 1977 Claimant Schlund was then set-up, arrested and prosecuted
as being a purported drug manufacture. During this trial the DEA and
Sheriffs office went to Claimant Schlund's first witness and threatened to
murder his wife and children while he was on the witness stand if he dared
say anything other then to take the 5th amendment while on the witness
stand. These threats against Claimant Schlund's witnesses continue to this
day with the Justice Department and police now committing their crimes
remotely using electronic implants. These evil crimes are being committed
under the cover and color of law in the name of justice and are being done
remotely and electronically after performing secret medical procedures on
Claimant Schlund and all of his witnesses. After Claimant Schlund's
acquittal on all charges the threats and harassment by the government
continued until the present with the Justice Department and other
continuing to threaten Claimant Schlund and his witnesses with death if
they dared to continue to speak the truth and continue to refuse to sell
drugs or refuse to commit other crimes needed by the Justice Department to
continue their investigations.
70. Claimant Schlund alleges that anytime he writes or says anything about
how George W. Bush fixed the presidential elections of the United States
he is tortured and his children are threatened or harassed with the
government continuing to threaten his ex-wife with the death of her
children and grandchildren if she says anything. These Nazi like acts by
the Justice Department under the direction of George W. Bush, the President
of the United States, are outrageous conduct of the United States of
America and such conduct is widespread under the direction of political
appointees from the Bush family. None of the witnesses can testify freely
before the implants are removed from them and their children. To do so
would mean the torture or death of their families or children by the
Justice Department. The only thing surreal or fantastic about any of this
is the Justice Departments and the court's refusal to remove the implants
and then interview the witnesses while they are no longer under torture or
the threat of death. The removal of the implants has nothing to do with
stopping the government's investigations.
71. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI eight years in advance before the
presidential elections were held with the names of every presidential
candidate and the correct details of how the elections would be fixed.
Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI on how the Electoral College would be
used and which would be the key states eight years in advance of the
presidential elections. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI of who the five
Supreme Court Justices were that worked for the Bush Family seven and
eight years in advance of the elections. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI
on how the public vote would be split using third and fourth political
parties to allow the Republicans to win. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI
on how the CIA and Bush Family would try to buy the election by giving tax
cuts to buy support which would damage the economy of the United States
and in time will lead to the destruction of our form of government. All of
this was briefed to the FBI seven and eight years in advance of the
elections. Claimant Schlund did much more than what is listed in this
claim and briefed the FBI on some of the most secret things and everything
asserted in advance to the FBI by Claimant Schlund was confirmed true by
the test of time as Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI that it would.
Claimant Schlund now asks the courts to stop protecting the Bush family
and to stop the cover up of the fixing of the presidential elections and
to start to, at least, appear to be representing the American people.
72. Claimant Schlund in 1992 briefed the FBI on the CIA's plans to build
Star Wars. In 1976 when these CIA files were removed from the CIA the
budget to build Star Wars in its most limited form at time of deployment
after inflation in real dollars was 100 billions dollars. This system
would not be able to defend American cities and was not designed to stop
terrorists. Star Wars was designed to protect a couple key military and
production installations from Russian attacks.
73. Claimant Schlund in 1992 briefed the FBI on George Bush Sr. and the
CIA's plans to do terrorist attacks against the United States. These
attacks would only be done to authorize the needed new laws and budgets
required in the systematic overthrow of the United States by the CIA.
Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI and other federal agencies about how the
CIA had planned on doing a terrorist attack against America if they were
unable to get Star Wars approved and funded. The terrorist attack would
then authorize Star Wars to be built in preparation for other future wars.
Claimant Schlund also briefed the FBI that a missile defense system to
protect all American cities would cost trillions of dollars to build and
was not practical. During these briefings Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI
that a third world country would not use missiles to attack the United
States they would use airliners or ships, and if missiles were used they
would be launched from ships. Claimant Schlund wishes to make it perfectly
clear that he did not brief the FBI on the specific plans for the attacks
against the World Trade Centers. The CIA files on plans for terrorist
attacks Claimant Schlund read in 1977 were just memos and arguments of how
such covert operations would be done if they became necessary for the Bush
and Rockefeller families to authorize their seizure of power and the
passing of new laws. If the World Trade Center attacks were part of this
conspiracy then Claimant Schlund has no knowledge of it.
74. Claimant Schlund alleges that George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush used
the Justice Department for their private investigations of political
witnesses and dissidents to cover up murder and treason by the Bush family
and that this continues even today on a large scale. Claimant Schlund read
the CIA, DEA, Justice Department, and other files on the use of the Justice
Department and its agencies to conduct investigations for the purpose of
destroying the lives of political witnesses and discrediting them.
Claimant Schlund is such a political witness.
75. Claimant Schlund further alleges he read the CIA files on funneling
100's of billions of dollars out of the government into the hands of
private corporations. While working with the FBI Claimant Schlund supplied
the FBI with such information. One of these money funneling operations was
the building of the Super Collider. Claimant Schlund briefed the FBI of
this covert operation. The FBI then briefed the President William Clinton
who stopped funding and killed the building of the Super Collider. in
George Bush Sr.'s CIA files were many such plunders of the treasury of the
76. Claimant Schlund further alleges that the government did use
electronic implants to disable Claimant Schlund's attorney for the purpose
of limiting, controlling and stopping this lawsuit.
77. Claimant Schlund alleges that his life was threatened and that he was
tortured by the government threatening to murder him in retaliation for
working on and preparing this lawsuit. Claimant Schlund's daughter Mindee
Schlund was tortured and threatened with death if Claimant continued to
proceed with this lawsuit. These threats were done remotely and
electronically so they could and would be denied by the government and the
corrupt judges that protect President George W. Bush and the corrupt
agents that work under his direction of his appointees. This outrageous
conduct of the United States Government continues even today. George W.
Bush uses the words freedom and liberty in almost every sentence he speaks
and then uses torture and repression secretly to destroy the lives of
witnesses against him and the evil and corrupt people he appoints. These
acts are evil and outrageous conduct of the United States as similarly
previous factually determined by Federal Judge Lacey. Further, Claimant
Schlund alleges Justice Martone and Justice Broomfield were utilized by
the Bush Family for the purpose of covering up their crimes of government
and other corruption and of the aforesaid Bush family and also relating to
the fixing of presidential and other elections.
78. As a direct and proximate cause of Claimant's loss of trust in the
federal government, loss of earning capacity, and continuous mental and
physical torture sustained by him. Claimant Schlund has been deprived of
and has lost the expectancy of the ability to support his family at a
standard of living desired by him; lead a happy and satisfying family life
and marriage; and his privacy, due process, peace, and right of
association provided by Claimant Schlund's family and his friends. He has
been further deprived of and lost the benefit of his family's and friends'
love, affection, companionship, comfort, sex, guidance, economic
stability, security, and trust in the government; and further, Claimant
Schlund has incurred medical and other personal and business expenses, on
information and belief and on those grounds, in the approximate amount of
$20 million dollars continuously thereafter to present.
79. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants, and each of
their aforesaid activities, Claimant Schlund has experienced pain and
suffering and will continue to suffer, physiologically, psychologically
and emotionally, sustaining other general and compensatory damages for
which he is entitled to fair and just compensation in the amount, on
information and belief and on those grounds, the sum of not less than $5
million or according to proof.
80. As a further direct and proximate cause of the acts and conduct of
Defendants, while engaging in their collective conspiracy to violate
Claimant Schlund's constitutional rights as aforesaid, Claimant has been
forced to incur attorney, paralegal, investigation, expert, and other
related fees and costs to pursue his claims against the Defendants, in an
amount which is continuous and ongoing and is not yet ascertained.
81. Claimant Schlund, on information and belief and on those grounds,
alleges the United States of America, through its President George W.
Bush, departments, divisions, agencies and employees, failed to exercise
reasonable care and was reckless and negligent in its selection, hiring,
training and continued employment of the aforesaid officers, employees,
and agents as special agents, police officers, informants, and others of
said departments, agencies and divisions. The United States of America
reckless and negligent selection, hiring, training and continued
employment of said special agents, police officers and employees, led to a
life threatening situation, abuse of legal process, and gross violation of
Claimant Schlund's federal and state constitutional rights.
82. The United States of America and George W. Bush had a duty to protect
and prevent the violation of Claimant's federal and state constitutional
rights and further to protect Claimant Schlund from the dangers of
inadequately trained, educated, and skilled agents, police officers,
informants, and the negligent acts of the aforesaid.
83. The United States of America and George W. Bush had a common law and
statutory duty to protect Claimant Schlund pursuant to the Constitution of
the United States of America and the federal statutes, including 28 U.S.C.
§2674 and regulations pertaining to law enforcement and its related
investigation activities and the management of its special agents, police
officers, informants in conducting such investigations.
84. In addition to liability imposed on the United States of America due
to its respective breach of both common law and statutory duties, and
violation of Claimant Schlund's federal and Constitutional rights to
protect him. The United States of America and George W. Bush is also
liable to Claimant by virtue of respondent superior due to the wrongful
and torturous acts said Defendant George W. Bush and the respective
agents, police officers and informants, individually.
85. The United States of America was reckless and negligent and failed to
exercise reasonable care in both its common law and statutory duty to
protect Claimant Schlund's constitutional rights under federal laws.
86. From January 2001 and continuing thereafter to present, the Defendant
USA, and its respective agents, police officers, and informants had no
reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity to warrant the
surveillance, fabrication of evidence, or the gross violation of
Claimant's Constitutional Rights. The United States of America, and each
of its respective agents and police officers, fabricated probable cause to
effect the obtainment of a warrant used to intrude upon Claimant's
premises and violate Claimant Constitutional Rights. Said President George
W. Bush, officers, agents, and employees placed Claimant under illegal
surveillance, and violated Claimant's Constitutional Rights.
87. From January 2001 and continuing thereafter to present, the United
States of America, and their respective agents, police officers, employees
and informants had a duty under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to properly provide adequate protections
so as not to violate Claimant Schlund's due process rights. Each and all
of the aforesaid Defendants did not provide such adequate protection and
violated Claimant Schlund's First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution.
88. From January 2001 and continuing thereafter to present, Defendants and
each of them used improper, excessive, and illegal surveillance activities,
fabrication of evidence, abuse of process, and implanted torturing devices
in Claimant Schlund's body, which has caused Claimant to sustain life
threatening physiological and psychological injuries, pain, and suffering.
They have failed to remove the torture devices from Claimant's body or to
provide adequate medical care to claimant by negligently failing to
monitor Claimant's psychological and physical condition which has resulted
in extreme mental and physical distress.
Continued in Part 3
Charles Schlun's Lawsuit, Part 3
89. The United States of America, and each and all of the Defendants
individually, are directly liable for the deprivation and violations of
Claimant's civil rights on grounds the United States of America has, and
continues to violate such rights, with deliberate indifference and with a
conscious disregard for Claimant's Constitutional, personal rights, and
safety of the public guaranteed under the federal rules and regulations
pertaining to the lawful use of surveillance, force, medical needs, and
provisions of care to Claimant, who has been psychologically and
physically injured from such unlawful conduct, thereby creating within
the government an atmosphere of lawlessness in which the President,
agents, police officers, informants, and employees employ excessive and
illegal activities, violence which results in the denial and violation of
Claimant's and other persons rights within its jurisdiction, protection
of their federal and state constitutional rights or/and basic medical
care for serious injuries or illnesses caused by the torture in the
belief that such wrongful acts will be condoned and justified by the
United States of America, George W. Bush and the governmental officers,
officials and the superior officers of each of the agents, police
officers, and informants.
90. As a further direct and proximate result of violation of Claimant's
rights to privacy, violation of Claimant's rights to due process,
Claimant has and will continue to suffer significant grief, sorrow,
shock, depression, pain and suffering, both psychological and emotional,
humiliation and other general damages for which he is entitled to a fair
and just compensation in an amount of $20 million or according to proof
91. The actions of the Defendants deprived Claimant Schlund of the
following rights under the Constitution of the United States of America,
including the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and
Fourteenth amendments: (a) freedom from the use of unreasonable and
excessive force; (b) freedom from the deprivation of life and liberty
without due process; (c) freedom to be secure in his person; (d) freedom
from the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and suffering; (e)
freedom from the deliberate indifference to his serious medical and
psychological needs due to torture; (f) equal protection under the law;
and (g) freedom of his personal papers, effects and things from
governmental intrusion and (h) freedom to have rights to privacy.
92. As a result of the aforesaid actions of the United States of America
and its respective agents, officers and informants being a citizen of
the United States of America and a resident of the State of Arizona,
Claimant was and continues to be deprived of his rights and inalienable
rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the
United States of America; Claimant's personal liberty has been violated,
he has and continues to suffer physical, mental, and emotional harm,
anxiety, duress, fear and humiliation, torture and general pain and
suffering in, on and upon Claimant's body in an amount according to
proof at time of trial. Claimant Schlund leaves here to amend same when
93. Claimant Schlund is entitled to all costs of suit, including
reasonable attorney fees, secretarial fees, investigation and other fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, however not limited thereto, under the
federal Private Attorney General Act in an amount according to proof;
94. To the extent available under federal law, Claimant Schlund is
entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
the individual(s) and Defendant USA in order to deter similar despicable
conduct in the future in an amount according to proof under Federal law
and/or applying state law pursuant to Thompson.Bettor-Bit Aluminum Prod.
Co. 171 Ariz. 550 (1992) and Lithicum v. Nationwide Life Ins., 150 Ariz.
326 (1986). Claimant leaves here to amend this paragraph according to
Dioxin Carcinogens causes cancer.
Especially breast cancer. Don't freeze your plastic water bottles with water as this also releases dioxin in the plastic. Dr. Edward Fujimoto from Castle hospital was on a TV program explaining this health hazard. (He is the manager of the Wellness Program at the hospital.) He was talking about dioxin and how bad they are for us.
He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Dioxin are carcinogens and highly toxic to the cells of our bodies.
Instead, he recommends using glass, Corning Ware, or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results...without the dioxin.
So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups , etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else.
Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. Just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc.
He said we might remember when some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.
To add to this: Saran wrap placed over foods as they are nuked, with the high heat, actually drips poisonous toxins into the food, use paper towels.
Depo Provera, ostensibly a birth control device, causes birth defects. Here
is what happened to a woman who was on this birth control who bore a child
even though she was on the device:
In the Supreme Court of the United States
STERLING DREW, ET AL., PETITIONERS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Acting Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
STUART E. SCHIFFER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT S. GREENSPAN
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Whether the government has an obligation, when an administrative claim filed
under the Federal Tort Claims Act is based on a false factual predicate, to
develop alternative factual scenarios that might support a different claim
not raised in the administrative claim.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
STERLING DREW, ET AL., PETITIONERS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
The vacated opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-33a) is reported
at 217 F.3d 193. The en banc order of the court of appeals affirming the
judgment of the district court by an equally divided vote (Pet. App.
34a-35a) is reported at 231 F.3d 937. The order of the district court (Pet.
App. 38a-41a) is unreported.
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on November 17, 2000. The
petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on February 15, 2001. The
jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
1. Sterling Drew was born on December 30, 1995, to Martha Drew and Jebediah
Drew, an enlisted serviceman in the Air Force. Sterling was delivered with
several birth defects. Pet. App. 4a.
Petitioners filed an administrative claim with the Air Force seeking $15
million in damages and describing the basis of their claim as follows:
Spontaneous delivery of male infant with imperforated anus, ventricular
septal defect, left facial palsy, umbilical hernia and inguinal hernia at
Shaw Air Force Base Hospital.
Depo-Provera injection given to claimant in early pregnancy.
Id. at 148a. The administrative claim said nothing about the advice and
counseling given Ms. Drew about risks relating to Depo-Provera, a
birth-control medication, and there were no supporting materials included
with the administrative claim.
During the Air Force's investigation of this claim, Ms. Drew, accompanied by
counsel, told investigators that her last injection of Depo-Provera was on
February 1 or 2, 1995. C.A. Pet. for Reh'g 2 & n.1. Because this was a few
days short of eleven months before Sterling was born, the Air Force
concluded that the injection could not have been given in early pregnancy.1
On December 23, 1997, the Air Force denied the claim. Pet. App. 5a.
2. Petitioners then filed a complaint in district court alleging that
Sterling had suffered birth defects because the medical staff at Shaw AFB
had negligently administered Depo-Provera to Ms. Drew while she was pregnant
with Sterling. Pet. App. 83a-89a.
Along with their complaint, petitioners supplied interrogatory answers
pursuant to local district court rule. These answers explained that
petitioners were claiming that "malpractice was committed in the
administration of this Depo-Provera, in that it was in fact given to [Ms.
Drew] when she was pregnant with the minor child, Sterling Drew." C.A. App.
The government took a pre-answer deposition of Ms. Drew. At her deposition,
Ms. Drew renounced the factual basis for her claim. Asked when she had
received a Depo-Provera injection while pregnant with Sterling, Ms. Drew
I didn't. No. My complaint was not that I received it while I was pregnant,
but that I in fact got pregnant while I had it in my system.
Pet. App. 130a. That is, Ms. Drew was now complaining that she "became
pregnant when [she] should not have because [she was] using Depo-Provera."
Id. at 131a.2
The government moved to dismiss the complaint based on Ms. Drew's admission
that she did not receive an injection of Depo-Provera while pregnant.
Shortly thereafter, petitioners moved for leave to amend their complaint "to
conform the Complaint" to her testimony. C.A. App. 109. The court granted
the motion without addressing the government's argument that the court
lacked jurisdiction because petitioners had not filed an administrative
claim alleging that Ms. Drew became pregnant while on Depo-Provera. Pet.
App. 82a & n.4. The amended complaint alleged that Ms. Drew had been falsely
told before using Depo-Provera that the drug was "100% effective in
preventing live births," and that while she was using Depo-Provera as her
sole method of birth control, she became pregnant with Sterling. Id. at 75a.
It also alleged that Sterling was born with birth defects. Id. at 76a.
The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, observing that petitioners had expressly based their
administrative claim on the allegation that the Air Force had improperly
administered Depo-Provera while Ms. Drew was pregnant, and that petitioners
had filed their lawsuit based on that same allegation. Pet. App. 40a-41a.
The court noted that the allegation "has now been discredited by Martha's
own testimony." Id. at 41a. It was only after Ms. Drew's testimony that
petitioners "first raise[d], or even appear[ed] to be aware of, their
informed consent claim." Ibid. While "they believed as late as the time they
filed this lawsuit that their claims were based on Martha receiving a
Depo[-]Provera injection while she was pregnant," they were now "argu[ing]
that despite their own lack of knowledge, the United States was placed on
notice of the true nature of their claims earlier when they filed the
administrative claim." Ibid. Accordingly, the court held that it lacked
jurisdiction, because the administrative claim was not sufficient to put the
government on notice of that informed consent claim. Ibid.
3. Over a dissent, a panel of the court of appeals vacated and remanded.
Pet. App. 1a-33a. The panel majority first hypothesized an administrative
claim just like the one actually filed here but without the words "in early
pregnancy." Id. at 11a-12a. Had this hypothetical claim been filed, the
panel majority stated, it would have implied not just negligence but a
failure to obtain informed consent. Relying on Frantz v. United States, 29
F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 1994), the panel majority concluded that an informed
consent claim is by its very nature included within a general allegation of
negligent care and treatment and that the hypothetical administrative claim
would have required the government to investigate the possibility of an
informed consent claim. Pet. App. 12a-16a.
The panel majority then dismissed the three words "in early pregnancy" as "a
minor factual inaccuracy," Pet. App. 20a, that did not "so narrow the
scope of a reasonable investigation" that the government could be "excused
from failing to discover the essence of [petitioners'] claim." Id. at 16a,
20a. Seizing upon the Air Force's letter denying the administrative claim, a
letter first placed in the record after argument in the court of appeals,
id. at 18a-19a n.8, the panel majority concluded that the government knew
that "[Ms.] Drew could not have been given Depo-Provera during her
pregnancy," id. at 17a, and that it therefore had an obligation to
investigate fully "by asking the right questions." Id. at 19a. The panel
majority recognized that its holding was "in some tension" with Murrey v.
United States, 73 F.3d 1448 (7th Cir. 1996), Pet. App. 21a, but it disagreed
with that decision to the extent that the decision required "a more detailed
exposition" in the administrative claim. Id. at 22a.
The dissent concluded that petitioners were not simply asserting a different
legal theory but instead were "creat[ing], essentially from thin air, a
factual predicate entirely different than that originally asserted and
investigated." Pet. App. 26a. It rejected the notion that "in early
pregnancy" was a "minor factual inaccuracy," explaining that it could be
considered minor only by measuring the number, not the meaning, of the
words. Id. at 30a-31a n.5. The dissent reasoned further that not every
malpractice claim necessarily includes within it an informed consent claim,
id. at 27a-28a, and that indeed, the facts alleged in this administrative
claim were actually inconsistent with an informed consent claim, because the
duty of informed consent would have arisen months before Ms. Drew's
pregnancy. Id. at 30a. The dissent pointed out that petitioners' counsel, an
experienced malpractice lawyer, failed to make an informed consent claim
based on the facts stated in the administrative claim. Id. at 31a. It also
noted that the medical records available to the government tended to refute
an informed consent claim because Ms. Drew continued to use Depo-Provera
after Sterling was born. Id. at 31a-32a.
4. On the government's petition, the court of appeals vacated the panel
opinion and ordered rehearing en banc. Pet. App. 36a-37a. Following
argument, the en banc court of appeals issued an order affirming the
judgment of the district court by an equally divided vote. Id. at 34a-35a.
Petitioners incorrectly contend that there is a circuit split on the
question whether an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) must be
dismissed if the administrative claim did not include sufficient factual
detail. There is no such circuit split. Although there is a more limited
circuit split on the question whether an administrative claim alleging
medical negligence necessarily implies an informed consent claim, that
limited circuit split is not presented in this case. Even if petitioners
were correct that an informed consent claim is necessarily included in every
medical malpractice claim, they could not benefit from that rule, because
the relevant malpractice claim was not exhausted. The medical malpractice
claim they exhausted sought damages regarding an injection of Depo-Provera
"in early pregnancy," but Ms. Drew subsequently admitted that there was no
such injection. Only after her deposition did she claim that she had become
pregnant while using Depo-Provera. Thus the medical malpractice claim that
assertedly includes by implication the informed consent claim was itself
never raised in the administrative process.
Other than the panel of the court of appeals, whose decision was vacated en
banc, no court has ever held that the government, when presented with
demonstrably false factual assertions in the administrative claim, has an
obligation to determine whether the true history suggests a different claim.
Further review is therefore not warranted.
1. Contrary to petitioners' contention (Pet. 7-21), the circuits are in full
agreement regarding the requirements for alleging facts in an administrative
claim under the FTCA.
The FTCA requires that a claimant exhaust his administrative remedies by
"first present[ing] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency." 28 U.S.C.
2675(a). The purpose of this provision is "to encourage prompt settlement of
claims and to ensure fairness to FTCA litigants." Burchfield v. United
States, 168 F.3d 1252, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999). A district court has
jurisdiction over a lawsuit under the FTCA only if (1) the claimant has
presented his claim to the agency in accordance with Section 2675(a), McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993), and (2) the agency either has
denied the claim or has failed to grant or deny it within six months of the
To present a claim to an agency, a claimant files a Standard Form 95 that
includes the specifics required by the form's instructions. Such an
administrative claim is adequate for exhaustion purposes "if the notice (1)
is sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places a 'sum
certain' value on [the] claim." Ahmed v. United States, 30 F.3d 514, 517
(4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). To suffice to enable the
agency to investigate, the claim must allege facts describing the incident,
which must be "sufficiently detailed so that the United States can evaluate
its exposure as far as liability is concerned." Pet. App. 10a (internal
quotation marks omitted); 28 C.F.R. 14.4(b) (listing evidence or information
that "the [personal injury] claimant may be required to submit"). The
claimant is not, however, required to plead legal theories; an
administrative claim "encompasses any cause of action fairly implicit in the
facts." Murrey, 73 F.3d at 1452. But "a plaintiff cannot 'present one claim
to the agency and then maintain suit on the basis of a different set of
facts.'" Deloria v. Veterans Admin., 927 F.2d 1009, 1012 (7th Cir. 1991)
(quoting Dundon v. United States, 559 F. Supp. 469, 476 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)).
There is no dispute about these general principles. Every circuit has agreed
on the general requirement that the administrative claim provide sufficient
factual detail to provide notice to the government sufficient to allow it to
investigate.3 There is no reason for further review on the issue and it
would be impractical for this Court to try to parse just how specific the
facts alleged in an administrative claim must be.
2. There is, however, a narrow conflict in the circuits on the question
whether general allegations of medical negligence put an agency on notice of
a possible informed consent claim. Of the circuits that have addressed this
issue, only a single circuit has agreed with the position taken by
petitioners here. Compare Frantz, 29 F.3d at 224 ("[b]y its very nature, the
informed consent claim is included in the Frantzes' allegation of negligence
in their administrative claim," so the administrative claim based on
"negligence in surgery" sufficed to exhaust an informed consent claim), with
Pet. App. 35a (affirming judgment of district court, Pet. App. 38a-41a);
Murrey, 73 F.3d at 1453 ("the administrative claim must narrate facts from
which a legally trained reader would infer a failure to obtain informed
consent" but an allegation that physicians assured him and his family that
surgery was the only available therapy and would extend his life by 15 years
was enough);4 Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 495 (11th Cir. 1983)
("Neither the claim nor the attached medical evaluation contained any
challenge to the consent form signed by Mr. Bush prior to surgery.")
(footnote omitted). See also Butler v. United States, No. 97-5081, 1998 WL
314317, at *2 (10th Cir. June 2, 1998), 149 F.3d 1190 (Table) ("As far as we
can tell, no language in Butler's administrative claim would alert the
reader thereof that one aspect of Butler's claim of negligence was lack of
The divided panel opinion lacks any precedential force and so does not
contribute to the split of authority. More important, this case does not
present an opportunity to resolve this narrow conflict because petitioners
cannot succeed here even under the Frantz rule that an informed consent
claim is necessarily included in any claim of medical negligence. The unique
and salient feature of the present case is that, in her deposition, Ms. Drew
flatly renounced the factual predicate of the administrative claim
petitioners had filed and claimed a wholly new factual predicate that had
never been put before the Air Force. When she was asked the date on which
she had received a Depo-Provera injection while pregnant with Sterling, Ms.
I didn't. No. My complaint was not that I received it while I was pregnant,
but that I in fact got pregnant while I had it in my system.
Pet. App. 130a.5
Accordingly, to discern petitioner's amended federal court complaint from
the administrative claim, the Air Force would not only have needed to infer
an absent informed consent claim, but somehow surmise that the relevant
informed consent problem occurred during a different time frame, which
involved different risks. In other words, the Air Force first would have had
to take a leap from the medical negligence actually alleged in the
administrative claim (Depo-Provera was given "in early pregnancy") to
surmise that Ms. Drew may have been complaining about a basically different
incident with different attendant risks (the administration of the drug
before pregnancy) based on facts that conflicted with the claim actually
presented. See id. at 30a (panel dissent) ("the facts as alleged in the
administrative [claim] are inconsistent with [an informed consent] claim
because the duty of informed consent, as now alleged, would have arisen
months before Ms. Drew's pregnancy"). Second, only after taking that first
leap, would the Air Force have had to take a further leap to infer an
informed consent claim regarding that factually conflicting incident.
There is simply no basis for requiring the Air Force to make the first
surmise. Accordingly, this case does not present an appropriate vehicle to
resolve the narrow circuit conflict about whether a claim of medical
negligence necessarily includes an informed consent claim, and further
review is not warranted.6
3. Furthermore, both the district court's holding that the government cannot
be deemed on notice of an informed consent claim of which petitioners
themselves lacked knowledge, Pet. App. 41a, and the en banc decision of the
court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court, were correct.
The en banc court of appeals properly vacated the panel decision, which
imposed an unprecedented duty on the government, when an administrative
claim is based on a false factual predicate, to develop alternative factual
scenarios that might support a valid claim.
When a factually false administrative claim is presented, as here, the
proper course for the government to take is to deny the claim and in an
egregious case to refer the matter for possible prosecution, not to try to
invent and investigate potential claims based on facts that conflict with
those alleged in the administrative claim. If the government were obligated
to investigate these hypothetical claims, it would be far more difficult to
conclude the agency's investigation of the claim within the six months
provided by Section 2675(a), and it thus would increase the likelihood that
plaintiffs will sue before the agency has had the opportunity to evaluate
fully the merits of the claim and to decide whether settlement is desirable.
It would force agencies to deplete their limited resources by pursuing
investigations of potential claims based on facts that are inconsistent with
the facts actually alleged in the administrative claim. It also would
encourage claimants to evade the limits of Section 2675(a) by setting forth
vague and even factually baseless claims in the hope that the agency will
figure out what their claim should be by "asking the right questions." Pet.
The vacated panel decision was the only authority for imposition of such an
obligation. Because it has been vacated, no further review is warranted.
4. Finally, petitioners contend that their administrative claim was
sufficient regardless of which side of the circuit conflict is accepted
because under South Carolina law every medical negligence claim includes an
informed consent claim. Pet. 21-26. If that were true, it would be another
reason for declining further review of the case, because petitioners thus
essentially would be asserting an error in applying South Carolina law and
the case would not present an opportunity to resolve the circuit split that
they assert is present (but which is not, in fact, implicated by their
case). But it is false. The South Carolina decision they rely on does not
hold that every medical negligence claim includes an implicit informed
consent claim; rather, it establishes that an informed consent claim exists
under South Carolina law and sounds in negligence (as opposed to battery).
Hook v. Rothstein, 316 S.E.2d 690, 695, 700 (S.C. Ct. App.), cert. denied,
320 S.E.2d 35 (S.C. 1984).
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Acting Solicitor General
STUART E. SCHIFFER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT S. GREENSPAN
1 Ms. Drew's medical records include no record of an injection in February
1995; the last recorded injection prior to Ms. Drew's pregnancy with
Sterling was on October 24, 1994. Pet. App. 145a.
2 Ms. Drew also testified that she was informed about the risk of birth
defects before she was given her first injection of Depo-Provera in July
1994; at that time, Capt. Miller, an Air Force nurse, told her that if she
wanted to get pregnant after having received an injection, she should take
another form of birth control for a year before trying to get pregnant. Pet.
App. 131a-133a. The reason, Miller told her, was that "if you got pregnant
while you had Depo-Provera in your system * * * it could cause birth defects
in the baby." Id. at 133a. Ms. Drew understood the information that Miller
gave her about birth defects. Id. at 139a. She also claimed that Miller had
told her that there was only a 0.1% chance of getting pregnant while on
Depo-Provera and that, if she did, it was certain she would miscarry. Id. at
3 Corte-Real v. United States, 949 F.2d 484, 486 (1st Cir. 1991) ("The
purpose of the administrative claim presentment requirements in Section
2675(b) and the applicable regulations is to give notice to the Government
sufficient to allow it to investigate the alleged negligent episode to
determine if settlement would be in the best interests of all.") (internal
quotation marks omitted); Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836, 842
(2d Cir. 1983) (Section 2675 "requires that the Notice of Claim provide
sufficient information both to permit an investigation and to estimate the
claim's worth."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (1984); Tucker v. United States
Postal Serv., 676 F.2d 954 (3d Cir. 1982) (claim sufficient without itemized
medical bills); Ahmed, 30 F.3d at 517 (claim satisfies statute "if the
notice (1) is sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places
a 'sum certain' value on [the] claim") (internal quotation marks omitted);
Transco Leasing Corp. v. United States, 896 F.2d 1435, 1442, amended, 905
F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1990) ("A claim is properly presented within the meaning
of § 2675(a) when the agency is given sufficient written notice to commence
investigation and the claimant places a value on the claim."); Glarner v.
United States, 30 F.3d 697, 700 (6th Cir. 1994) ("In order for a person to
file a tort claim under the FTCA, it is required that he 1) give written
notice of a claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate the claim
and 2) place a value (or 'sum certain') on the claim."); Charlton v. United
States, 743 F.2d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1984) (Section 2675 requires "giving of
sufficient notice to enable the agency to investigate the claim and the
setting of a 'sum certain.'"); Farmers State Sav. Bank v. Farmers Home
Admin., 866 F.2d 276, 277 (8th Cir. 1989) ("a claimant satisfies the notice
requirement of section 2675 if he provides in writing (1) sufficient
information for the agency to investigate the claims, and (2) the amount of
damages sought") (citations omitted); Warren v. United States Dep't of the
Interior, 724 F.2d 776, 779 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (Section 2675
"requires claimants to (1) give an agency sufficient written notice to
commence investigation and (2) place a value on the claim."); Cizek v.
United States, 953 F.2d 1232, 1233 (10th Cir. 1992) (Section 2675 "requires
claimants to present their claims to the appropriate federal agency before
suing the United States by filing (1) a written statement sufficiently
describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation,
and (2) a sum certain damages claim.") (internal quotation marks omitted);
Orlando Helicopter Airways v. United States, 75 F.3d 622, 625 (11th Cir.
1996) ("Section 2675(a) is satisfied if the claimant (1) gave the
appropriate agency written notice of the tort claim to enable the agency to
investigate; and (2) stated a sum certain as to the value of the claim.");
GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 919 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("Section
2675(a) requires a claimant to file (1) a written statement sufficiently
describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation,
and (2) a sum-certain damages claim."). See also 28 C.F.R. 14.2(a) ("[A]
claim shall be deemed to have been presented when a Federal agency receives
from a claimant, his duly authorized agent or legal representative, an
executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident,
accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain for injury to or
loss of property, personal injury, or death alleged to have occurred by
reason of the incident; and the title or legal capacity of the person
signing, and is accompanied by evidence of his authority to present a claim
on behalf of the claimant as agent, executor, administrator, parent,
guardian, or other representative.").
4 The significance of an injection of Depo-Provera "in early pregnancy" is
that the manufacturer of the drug warns against administering the drug to
pregnant women, and the Air Force's practice is to test women for pregnancy
before they are allowed to have the injection. Despite the significance of
this issue, the petition glosses over Ms. Drew's renunciation of her claim,
the central event that led to dismissal of the lawsuit. For example, the
petition states merely that after filing suit petitioners "moved to amend
their Complaint to restate their claim for medical negligence, as one based
upon a lack of a informed consent," Pet. 4, as if this amendment were not
the result of Ms. Drew's about-face at her deposition.
5 Even if this conflict were presented here, the court of appeals properly
refused to adopt the holding of Frantz. An informed consent claim is
conceptually distinct from general medical negligence or even negligence
with respect to surgery or medication. Moreover, if it were true that an
informed consent claim is "a specific subset of the larger universe of
'medical malpractice actions,'" Pet. App. 15a, it would logically follow
that some claims in the larger universe of medical negligence do not include
informed consent. Medical negligence takes a large number of different
forms, only one of which is a failure to obtain informed consent.