UPDATED: August 30, 2004
Re: Mr. Jesus Mendoza, guest on The Power Hour, March 3,
2004 who described his brutal admitted "monitoring"
attacks by government, using powerful electronic
signals on Mr. Mendoza AND HIS 2 AND 3 YEAR OLD
CHILDREN. A recording of his 3 year old daughter
WRITHING IN PAIN was played on the show. Electronic
measurements CONFIRM these signals.
** Go to the alphabetical index and do a Control-F
Find Text on "Mendoza" to listen to his The Power Hour
radio appearances
Here is Jesus Mendoza's contact information:
Jesus Mendoza
2202 East 28th St.
Mission, Texas 78574
956-519-7140
Jesusmm7@hotmail.com
Jesus Mendoza's two successful radiation detectors:
HF Detector, used for detecting
NON-ionizing conventional radio frequency harassing signals
Inspector, an IONIZING
radiation detector (x-rays, gamma, etc.)
(Both from http://www.lessemf.com, and courtesy of donations from
The Power Hour listeners.
Here is Jesus Mendoza's case as published
on the
web site of The Power Hour on August 27, 2004:
FOR ADDITIONAL Information contact:
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
Jesusmm7@hotmail.com
PLEASE FILE THIS COMPLAINT
My complaint of Judicial Misconduct indicates that
misconduct of federal judges Dorina Ramos and
Ricardo Hinojosa has helped perpetrators of hate
crimes and electronic aggressions. The judicial
misconduct, as evidenced by the federal record make
possible that constitutional violations continue
unaddressed and undeterred. The Complaint asks the
Chief Judge of the Court to verify and consider
whether Judge Ramos and Judge Hinojosa have displayed
a deep-seated-favoritism to corruption and a deep-
seated-antagonism to victims of constitutional
violations.
Because judicial misconduct is detrimental to the
public at large, anybody can file a Complaint of
Judicial Misconduct based on the same evidence on
the federal record. Your Complaint will help to
prevent that aggressions to our constitutional rights
continue unaddressed and undeterred.
A sample of a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct and
copy of my Complaint are attached. Please file this
complaint and ask others to do the same. If a
complaint is mailed please send a courtesy copy to
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, 2202 E. 28th St Mission,
Texas, 78574 or to Jesusmm7@hotmail.com God bless you.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
600 Camp St. Room 102,New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130
504/ 310-7688
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed for filing is a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct
Truly Yours,
________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 351(a).
CHIEF JUDGE: Now Comes ___________________________________and
respectfully files on this Court a Complaint of Judicial
Misconduct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 351(a), against the judges
named on the Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed on this
Court by Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and which indicates that
Judge Dorina Ramos and Judge Ricardo Hinojosa have engaged in
conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts.
For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the Chief Judge
of this Court that upon consideration and verifications of the
facts on the federal record submit this complaint to the Judicial
Council of this Court.
Respectfully Submitted,_______________________________________
Address___________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 351(a).
CHIEF JUDGE:
Now Comes Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and respectfully files on this
Court a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 351(a), against US
Magistrate Dorina Ramos and against US District Judge Ricardo
Hinojosa, on the ground that evidence on the record indicate
that Judge Ramos and Judge Hinojosa have engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the
business of the courts as explained herein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On February 3, of 2003, I, filed Pro-se in the US District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, a complaint seeking as relief
an order to compel the defendant, the US Attorney General, John
Ashcroft, to cease and desist from using directed electromagnetic
surveillance on my family and on myself on the ground that defendant's
malicious aggression has caused severe physical harm to my children
and to myself, on the ground that defendant's investigation of my
activities is retaliation for bringing claims of racial
discrimination and fraud of federal funds against some members of
the bar and of the judiciary, collectively called the "Cooley
defendants."
2. US District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa referred the case to US
Magistrate Judge Dorina Ramos for pretrial matters. (Jesus Mendoza
Maldonado v. John Ashcroft, Case No. M-03-038).
3. On April 4, 2003, Judge Ramos reset hearing on my application for
injunctive relief for April 15, 2003, impairing my ability to present
testimony of lay and expert witnesses in support of my applications
for immediate injunctive relief.
4. On April 7, 2003, I filed a motion to recuse judge Ramos on the
ground that Judge Ramos had displayed a deep-seated favoritism, and
a deep-seated antagonism while hearing a case of racial
discrimination, fraud and retaliation against the Cooley defendants.
(Docket No. 13).
5. During the litigation against the Cooley defendants Judge Ramos
ignored conclusive evidence of the Cooley defendants' fraudulent
activities within the Southern District of Texas; ignored conclusive
evidence of Cooley defendants' fraudulent statements to defraud of
venue Judge Ramos' court; ordered me not to file motions on the
matter; severed the case when the live complaint states the elements
of the conspiracy among the defendants; recommended transferring the
case against the Cooley defendants to the state of Michigan without
considering evidence of my inability to travel long distances;
struck from the record my motion to stay the proceedings and
evidence of the injuries caused by the Cooley defendants after the
case had been physically transferred to Michigan; and recommended
dismissal of the complaint against the remaining defendants after
Judge Ramos found lacking the elements of the conspiracy among the
severed defendants. (Docket No. 36 at 5) (Maldonado v the
Thomas M. Cooley Law School case # M-99-77 dockets 66, 67, 69, 70,
73, 74, 85, 88, 97, and 99).
6. Judge Ramos recused herself from the case, and referred the
motion to another judge. (Docket No. 18)
7. On April 28, Judge Hinojosa denied the motion to recuse the
Magistrate Judge and reassigned Judge Ramos for pretrial matters in
violation of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3) which divests Judge Hinojosa of
the power to assign a Magistrate judge any duty inconsistent with
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. (Docket
No. 24).
8. On May 15, 2003, my wife, my oldest daughter, and my brother,
gave testimony before Judge Ramos' court. My wife testified as to
the swelling pain and suffering caused on me by exposure to
electricity, and how this has affected our daily life. My wife
testified to the suffering of my children when they are exposed to
electromagnetic radiation inside our home. My wife testified as
to how high readings on radiation meters inside our home decrease
when I attempt to record the occurrence in a video camera. My
brother, testified as to the pain and suffering, experienced by
other persons after I moved into their place. My daughter, my wife,
and my brother testified to my mental stability, and to my
law-abiding conduct. (Docket No 29).
9. Without a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Ramos
issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 15, 2003, which finds
irrelevant the testimony presented in support of immediate
injunctive relief, modifies the testimony given by my wife, and
recommends dismissal of my applications for injunctive relief.
(Docket No. 32).
10. My wife testified as to how high readings on radiation meters
inside our home decrease when I attempt to record the occurrence
on a video camera. The Report and Recommendation modified my
wife's testimony into:
"Silvia Mendoza, who is Plaintiff's wife, testified that
Plaintiff's has trouble breathing, among other things. She also
testified that Plaintiff's difficulty seems to subside when he
operates a camera." (Docket No. 32, at 5, Statement of Evidence,
and my wife's affidavit denying giving that testimony, Docket
No. 40).
2. On July 25, 2003, I filed objections to Judge Ramos' alteration
of evidence, and objections to Judge's Ramos impartiality. (Docket
No. 33).
3. On the Report and Recommendation to dismiss my case, Judge Ramos'
claims reading pertinent documents from the litigation in the Western
District of Michigan, and on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. (Docket No. 8 at 2, and Docket No. 32 at 3). The Report and
Recommendation states, "The Sixth Circuit panel noted that there is
simply no doubt that Maldonado's discovery defaults have been willful
and in bad faith." (Docket No. 32 at 3).
Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of
Michigan include uncontroverted evidence showing that the US
district court in Michigan relied on the Cooley defendants'
fraudulent statements, and declined to consider my timely motion
seeking protection from defendants attempts to take advantage of my
disability. Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western
District of Michigan show that without a hearing, the district court
dismissed my claims against the Cooley defendants after my health
condition prevented me from attending depositions. (Maldonado v,
The Thomas M Cooley Law School et al, Case No. 5: 01 cv 93 Dockets
162, 163 179, 180, 184, and 185).
4. Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of
Michigan and in th US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit include
uncontroverted evidence of Cooley defendants' false statements to
defraud of venue Judge Ramos court; evidence of the Cooley
defendants' scheme that operates to defraud more than seventy-
percent of minority law students of their federal loans while giving
away law degrees to their affiliates, evidence of fraud of student
money committed by the president of the law school and former Chief
Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, acting in concert with a law
school board member and judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals;
evidence of the Cooley defendants' participation on a federal
investigation of my activities; evidence showing that the abusive
active electronic aggression caused me severe physical harm;
evidence in support of the legitimacy of the injuries caused by the
aggression; and evidence of my mental stability. The evidence became
conclusive as a mater of law when the US district court in Michigan
denied Cooley defendants' motion for summary judgement and
admonished the Cooley defendants for failing to engage claims and
evidence of their wrongdoing, and when the Cooley defendants failed
to engage specific claims of their fraudulent statements to the
federal courts on their Appellee's Brief, and on their response to
my Appellant's Motion for Sanctions. (Maldonado v Ashcroft, Case No.
M-03 -038, docket No. 13 and Affidavit; docket No. 33 at 6-8; docket
No. 36 at 5). (Maldonado v, The Thomas M Cooley Law School et al,
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Case
No. 5: 01 cv 93, Docket No. 131, 139,and 142).
(Docket No. 2, Exhibit C4, Docket 27, Exhibit D1). (Maldonado v the
Thomas M. Cooley Law School, US Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, Case No. 02-2095).
5. At several times relevant to this case, Judge Ramos indicated on
court documents that the Thomas M. Cooley Law School may be visited
on the world wide web. (Docket No. 8 at 1; Docket No. 13; Docket
No. 14, and Docket No. 32 at 2).
6. On July 31, 2003, Judge Hinojosa adopted the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation to dismiss my claims. (Dockets No. 34, 35).
7. I filed a timely motion urging judge Hinojosa to reconsider the
evidence in support of my claims of Judge Ramos' misconduct.
(Docket No. 36).
8. On an Order dated November 17, 2003, Judge Hinojosa denied my
motion for reconsideration. (Docket No. 37).
9. On January 15, 2004, I filed on the district court a timely
notice of appeal. (Docket No. 38)
10. The appeal is based on the ground that Judge Ramos did not have
jurisdiction to refer a motion to recuse after she had recused
herself; on the ground that Judge Hinojosa did not have jurisdiction
to deny or reverse a voluntary recusal; and on the ground that
Judge Hinojosa did not have jurisdiction to adopt a Report and
Recommendation to dismiss my claims when the judicial misconduct of
Judge Ramos has been established as matter of law.
11. On January 23, I served on defendant and filed on the district
court a Statement of the Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(c),
including my wife's affidavit. My wife's affidavit denies testifying
before Judge Ramos that my breathing difficulty seems to subside
when I operate a camera. (Docket No. 40).
12. On February 2, 2004, my appeal was docketed in this Court. Jesus
Mendoza Maldonado v. John Ashcroft, US Attorney General, Case No.
04-40095. 40). The appeal is pending before this Court.
13. The evidence in support of this complaint remains uncontroverted,
while the judicial misconduct stated herein has allowed hate crimes
against my children, myself, and others to continue undeterred.
RELIEF
For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the Chief Judge of
this Court that upon consideration and verifications of the facts on
the federal record submit this complaint to the Judicial Council of
this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________________
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Complainant.
2202 E. 28th St., Mission, Texas 78574
(956) 519-7140
August 1, 2004