Saturday, June 20, 2009   12:40:07 PM  -

WE APOLOGIZE; HOWEVER WE HAVE LOST OUR ACCESS TO THE INTERNET AND WILL NOT BE UPDATING OUR WEBSITE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

Notice and Disclaimer:  Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our property, and our business.  We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice.  Advanced Media Group is also a member of the media.

1) The constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their person. The Declaration of Independence asserts as self-evident that all men have certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2) As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928, “the framers of the Constitution sought "to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations." It is for this reason that they established, as against the government, the right to be let alone as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.“

3) The first principle of the Nuremberg Code states that with respect to human research, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The Nuremberg Code further asserts that such consent must be competent, informed, and comprehending.

4)There are current regulations implementing the obligations of the United States to adhere to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Forms of Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment including all terms that are Subject to any reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisions contained in the United

States Senate resolution of ratification of the Convention.

B) Purpose

To establish regulations and penalties for those who use any type of electronic frequency devices, directed energy devices, implants, surveillance technology, and directed energy weapon to purposefully cause any of the following: stalking, harassing, mental or physical harm, injury, harmful surveillance, torture, diseases, and death to any United States citizen.

Section 3. Organized Stalking

If two or more persons willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or willfully and maliciously harass another person and who make a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, they are guilty of the crime of organized stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in a federal prison.

If two or more persons violate subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, they shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

For the purposes of this section, "harass" means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, or damages his personal property or possessions and that serves no legitimate purpose. * * *

For the purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, or personal property or possessions and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family or personal property or possessions. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "credible threat."

For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices.

The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, that may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family.

For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.

Section 4. Punishment for threats

Any person or persons who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in a federal prison not to exceed one year..

For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.

"Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices

Obscene, threatening or annoying communication

(a) Every person or persons who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes constant contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or any member of his or her family, or any property or personal possessions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

(b) Every person or persons who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

(c) Every person or persons who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by imprisonment in a federal prison for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies only if one or both of the following circumstances exist:

(1) There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any other court order, or any combination of these court orders, in effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section.

(2) The person or persons makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work, totaling more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the repeated telephone calls or electronic contacts are made to the workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the person has a child or has had a dating or engagement relationship or is having a dating or engagement relationship.

(d) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed where the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed when the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.

(e) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) upon receiving the return call.

(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person or persons convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling.

(g) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices.

Section 5. Assault and battery with an electronic or directed energy weapon

Any person or persons who in the course of organized stalking and harassment, commits an assault upon the person of another with an unauthorized directed energy weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in a federal prison for two, three, or four years or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

For the purposes of this section the term directed energy weapon is defined as any device that directs a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against a person or any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means of inflicting death or injury; or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person via land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney General
Eastern District of Philadelphia
615 Chestnut Street
Suite 1250
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania    19106-4476
 
Re:    Public Corruption; Violations of Civil Rights; RICO; Civil and Criminal Conspiracy; Extortion; Etc.,
 
Defendants:  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; President Judge William Johnstone, Jr.,; Lancaster City 
Police Department; Pennsylvania State Police; Lancaster County District Attorney Office; Lancaster County 
Probation Office

For this article click here http://www.raven1.net/mcsecsta.htm
From NameBase NewsLine, No. 12, January-March 1996:

Mind Control and the Secret State

Last September the CIA confirmed the existence of a 20-year, $20 million research program in "remote viewing," a subvariety of extrasensory perception. On October 29, a Jack Anderson column added more details, and Ted Koppel of ABC's Nightline weighed in with a program on November 28, by which time many newspapers and wire services had picked up the story. By December, a number of pundits began lamenting this additional evidence of the CIA's protean power to waste taxpayers' money.

Curiously, "remote viewing" was an old story, first reported by Anderson himself on 23 April 1984. Other Anderson columns of U.S. and Soviet interest in psychic research date back to 1981. Anderson's October 29 update reported that this project, which for a time was contracted out to the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), had been scaled back and put under Pentagon sponsorship, but nevertheless continued. Although the results of these experiments were reportedly mixed, the project retains its defenders in Congress: Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI) and Rep. Charlie Rose (D-NC). By 1995, Anderson didn't have an opinion on the merits of this research, but his 1984 column was supportive. On Nightline, former CIA director Robert Gates implied that pressure from members of Congress drove the CIA's original involvement.

Another of Ted Koppel's CIA guests, identified only as "Norm," was a technical advisor for CIA deputy director John McMahon and, until 1984, a coordinator for the SRI tests. "Norm" did mention the "eight-martini" results from some experiments; this was an in-house term for remote-viewing results so uncannily successful that observers needed eight martinis to recover. Still, the general impression from Koppel's show was dismissive. Only about "fifteen percent" of the experiments, panelists repeated, produced accurate results. Gates argued that such research, if undertaken at all, belongs in the academy.

Not for the first time, however, there's more to this story than Ted Koppel acknowledges.

Ingo Swann, who was involved in the SRI project from 1972-1988, is upset with the media's droll treatment of this revived story. Swann points out that the original motivation behind the "remote viewing" project was the fear that the Soviets were investing significant resources in applied psychic research, and might be making advances. At the time, at least, such a rationale would have been considered a plausible one to justify such a small expenditure of intelligence money. Nevertheless, almost all mention of this element of the story, which had figured prominently in the first wave of stories on "remote viewing," was dropped in 1995.

Furthermore, Swann claims, the "fifteen percent" figure, established early in the SRI project, represented the baseline accuracy for non-gifted and untrained persons. U.S. intelligence wanted sixty-five percent accuracy, and in the later stages of the project, Swann claims, "this accuracy level was achieved and often consistently exceeded." According to Swann, the key players in the project, and the docu-mentation supporting the real story, remain under the strictest security constraints.
 
However this may be, Anderson's October 29 story reminds us that ESP is very much alive as an object of intelligence-community interest. In addition to "remote viewing" (seeing people, places, and events at a distance in space and time), another area of interest is the supposed power of "micro psycho- kinesis" or "Micro-PK" -- the ability to affect small objects, such as electrical systems, by using the mind. Micro-PK is one step away from outright telekinesis, and its supposed power has obvious attractions for the CIA. Imagine being able to erase a computer tape from a block away, or interfere with the avionics of a jet fighter, or detonate a warhead.

Based on the evidence that's on the public record, the dream of harnessing such power, or even of establishing its existence, may be somewhat optimistic.

But this fact hasn't stopped a strange band of specialists, many of whom have government connections, from staking out careers at the intersection of, so to speak, ESP, the Pentagon, and the CIA: where people interested in parapsychology work with those inter-ested in weapons research and mind control. These would-be psi-spooks turn up occasionally on talk shows and at conferences on "nonlethal defense." Their ranks include companies like PSI- TECH in Albuquerque, founded by Maj. Edward A. Dames, and figures such as Col. John B. Alexander of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who was featured in the February 1995 issue of Wired magazine. Dames and Alexander and a dozen more blend in with spookier types who shun publicity but who show up at UFO and New Age gatherings. One is ex-Naval Intelligence officer C.B. Scott Jones, a former aide to Sen. Claiborne Pell.

Once again, it's likely that Ted Koppel doesn't have the whole story. It's also likely that he wouldn't be cleared to report it if he did. Still, the piddling pool of dollars so far devoted to this research strongly implies that, if the figure is accurate, intelligence-funded parapsychological research has been a bust.

The uncounted millions the CIA has spent on mind control suggest just the opposite. As with "remote viewing," the attraction of a successful mind control program to the CIA is obvious, and has long been explicitly acknow- ledged as such. The "Manchurian Candidate" scenario -- in which a programmed zombie-assassin responds to a post-hypnotic trigger, performs the act, and does not remember it later -- is one ideal type of successful mind control. A reliable truth serum, long the object of a CIA quest, would be another. Both of these are operational uses of mind control, its so-called "second front."
 
This term comes from former CIA director Allen Dulles. In 1953, Dulles, speaking before a national meeting of Princeton alumni, distinguished two fronts in the then-current "battle for men's minds": a "first front" of mass indoctrination through censorship and propaganda, and a "second front" of individual "brainwashing" and "brain changing." Before an audience of fellow Ivy Leaguers, Dulles skipped the usual pieties about democracy. The same year, Dulles approved the CIA's notorious MKULTRA project, and exempted it from normal CIA financial controls.

The distinction between Dulles's "two fronts" eventually becomes diffi-cult to sustain, like the distinction between, say, sociology and psychology. Still, this distinction can be useful in roughing out a spectrum of known mind- control techniques.
 
For example, one powerful tool for inducing ideological and behavioral change is social pressure in a controlled environment. The "brainwashing" employed during the Korean War did not involve the use drugs or hypnosis. The Chinese merely used the same techniques that they employed on the population at large, but with more intensity, greater control, and additional rewards and punishments such as food and sleep deprivation. Yet this frighteningly simple program was enough to crank up the brainwashing scare in the U.S. Some researchers now suspect that this hysterical episode had its origins in CIA- generated propaganda, designed to give the CIA the political space needed to research more sophisticated mind-control techniques.
 
Many undergraduates learn about the experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, which demonstrated that expressed opinions can be easily manipulated by social pressure, even in obvious cases, such as whether Line A is longer than Line B on a particular card. And Stanley Milgram showed that many unwitting research subjects would administer a series of escalating electric shocks to another, even to the point of an apparent heart attack, simply because a white-coated lab assistant asked them to continue. Milgram's research suggests that a "Manchurian Candidate" already exists in many of us, and that all that's required to bring him out may be a bit of propaganda. The historical evidence for blind human obedience that could be cited here is very familiar, and very depressing.

Still, there's evidence that Pentagon planners are uneasy about potential unruliness among the mass populations Dulles identified as mind control's "first front." Princeton alumni may perhaps follow and accept arguments that U.S. interests are at stake in Bosnia, but their sons are unlikely to be on the scene defending those supposed interests. The urban or Appalachian infantryman, and the family he comes from, may have other ideas.

Elite unease on this point may lie behind Pentagon enthusiasm for the new wrinkle in military force that goes by the name "nonlethal" or "less-than- lethal." Its very claim to embody a "humanitarian" form of warfare is a weapon in Dulles's "battle for men's minds."

Nonlethal technology becomes im-portant in a discussion of mind control, as it involves something very close to it, in a form which might be used to control large populations. The propaganda aspect of "humanitarian warfare" is merely a sideshow; it's the technology itself that enlists the enthusiasm of Pentagon planners and law enforcement officials. Much of this "friendly force" technology involves electromagnetic fields and directed-energy radiation, and ultrasound or infrasound weapons -- the same tech-nology that's currently of interest in brain-stimulation and mind-control research.

A partial list of aggressive promoters of this new technology includes Oak Ridge National Lab, Sandia National Laboratories, Science Applications International Corporation, MITRE Corporation, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. In the 1996 defense authorization bill, Congress earmarked $37.2 million to investigate nonlethal technologies. And this money looks like a mere ante in the game.

U.S. interest in this "less-than-lethal" technology dates back to the early 1960s, when the State Department became aware of low-energy microwave radiation directed at the U.S. embassy in Moscow. Under the name "Project Pandora," secret research into the Moscow radiation continued for ten years -- before embassy employees were informed that they were on the receiving end. Researchers initially assumed that the microwaves were designed to activate bugging devices. But when a large number of illnesses were reported at the embassy, a review of Soviet scientific journals revealed that the Soviets believed microwaves affected cell membranes and increased the excitability of nerve cells.
Officially, the incidence of illness at the embassy was ultimately blamed on the U.S. shortwave trans-mitting antenna on the embassy roof, which leaked energy and contributed to the unhealthy environment. Still, the secrecy surrounding Project Pandora encouraged further speculation within the U.S. intelligence community and elsewhere. For instance, researchers knew that a low-energy microwave beam could be modulated with an "audiogram," and actually convey a recognizable message into an irradiated brain. This led some U.S. spooks to suspect that the Soviets had been attempting to practice mind control on the embassy staff.

Such history brings us back to the situation of the restless public in our own jittery, pre-millennial U.S. Today, there seems to be a dramatic increase in the number of "wavies," those who feel they are being harassed by non-ionizing radiation such as radio or sound waves. Nevertheless, there is little evidence to support their belief that the secret state, despite its obvious interest in nonlethal technology, is supporting applied research on unsuspecting average citizens. Several alternative explanations suggest themselves.

First of all, the treatment of mental illness over the past few decades has changed dramatically -- from an institutional approach, to an out-patient, community-based system that relies on prescription drugs to control symptoms and behavior. Greater numbers of sufferers of paranoia, freed from institutions, are also free to exercise their First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the power to express oneself has been enhanced by technology -- everything from personal photocopying machines and desktop publishing, to fax machines and now the Internet. And on the Internet, almost everyone can find soulmates.

And "wavies" can make the case that they deserve the benefit of a doubt. Revelations about the Cold War secret state, from the CIA documents released in the 1970s to last year's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (which investigated ionizing radiation only), have produced a social environment in which it can seem diffi-cult to rule out anyone's claim, no matter how paranoid-sounding. Finally, there is the modern problem of "pollution" in the broadest sense: from electromagnetic and chemical, and including simple noise. Human reactions to this pollution, which is a new phenomenon in the history of our species, apparently vary by orders of magnitude. Those who are ultra-sensitive may feel harassed, even if no one is intentionally targeting them.

To a disinterested observer, the claims of the "wavies" are perhaps no more bizarre than the claims of those who have experienced profound religious conversions. The point is not to be-little anyone's beliefs, but rather to establish that social factors often determine what we consider to be credible. For thousands of years societies have found it useful to allow sufficient space for religion. Only recently has social space opened up for the claims of "wavies." The increase in their numbers is thus predictable, irrespective of whether the secret state is behind their problems or not. (It isn't, in my opinion.)
 
This brings us to the "second front" mentioned by Allen Dulles in 1953: the technology of mind control applied on an individual level. Whereas non- ionizing radiation can be "broad-cast" to large populations, techniques such as psychosurgery, implants, and electronic stimulation of the brain (ESB) are administered on a case-by-case basis. More exotic techniques, whose scientific status and potential effectiveness remain uncertain, include radio hypnotic intra-cerebral control and hypnotic dissolution of memory (RHIC-EDOM), and the use of induced "screen memory" and multiple personality disorder (MPD) for cover purposes.

The closest parallel to the "wavies" within this second front include those who feel that implants were forced on them, sometimes during childhood. Such beliefs obviously tap deep fears in the popular psyche. The season premier of "The X Files" showed FBI agent Scully discovering that someone had planted a microchip near the base of her skull. And accused Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh apparently claims that an implant was inserted under his skin, for tracking purposes, during the Gulf War.

Identification implants, which are passive devices that respond to an energy source and return an identifi-cation number, are similar to the bar codes at the checkout counter in a grocery store. Today's pet owners can have these devices implanted in their pets. But anyone who confuses this simple technology with a chip that tells them what to do is already in trouble. Such a person should consider turning off the television, logging off the Internet, and checking out a few books from the local library. ID technology is ominous for those concerned with surveillance and privacy, but it has little to do with mind control.

Granted, there are experimental "stimoceiver" implants that can stimulate the brain through electrodes. Mind-control enthusiast Jose Delgado became briefly famous when he stopped a charging bull in its tracks with such a device in 1964. Even allowing for electronic miniaturization since then, or for the fact that finely-tuned microwaves can achieve the same results as implanted electrodes, ESB would still seem to be impractical as a mind-control device. At best it appears to stimulate various emotions, and might be used for behavioral conditioning in a controlled environment. This is still quite crude as a control device. It would be simpler and more reliable to arrange a fatal accident.
 
The combination of surveillance technology and implanted aversion therapy conjures up the vision of a society of victim-robots, with monitors on every utility pole and computers administering the conditioning. But the necessary infrastructure would be frightfully expensive.

And no doubt unnecessary. Suffi-cient control over the flow of infor-mation in society can yield results very similar to those that could be achieved by mind-control implants installed in every individual. Thus the flaw in the reasoning of many researchers: the mind-control techniques that have them so worried are usually the most difficult techniques one can possibly imagine. For those who would seek total control, plain, old-fashioned information control -- leavened with a few fascist techniques -- will do nicely, thank you.

In 1973, former MKULTRA researcher Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, from the Department of Psychiatry at UCLA, convinced California and federal officials to sponsor a Violence Center. Governor Ronald Reagan mentioned the proposed Center in glowing terms in a speech on January 11, and the federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) approved a $750,000 grant. By this time the federal government, through LEAA, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the Bureau of Prisons, and the CIA, was operating or funding numerous behavior modification programs in prisons, schools, and hospitals. In response to protests from UCLA students and faculty, the LEAA announced that it would ban the use of its funds for "psychosurgery, medical research, behavior modification -- including aversion therapy -- and chemotherapy."
 
A year later Louis West was still hoping to obtain funds from NIMH, but by then it was too late for his proposal. Until the 1970s it was not unusual for mental health professionals to propose programs that would screen children for the purpose of early diagnosis and treatment of the potentially violent. But by the 1970s the trend was in the other direction, as some states enacted laws that made it more difficult to confine someone involuntarily as a mental patient. By the 1990s the shoe is securely on the other foot.

Twenty years ago it was fashionable for clinicians to blame urban unrest and similar phenomena on the behavior of individuals. Now, however, the individual can disclaim responsibility for his actions by blaming external agencies. Numerous persons have gone public with accusations of strange events during their childhood, suggesting that they were used as guinea pigs for mysterious men in white coats. Some of their evidence seems sufficiently solid to require further investigation, and more cases are emerging all the time.

On 15 March 1995, two patients of New Orleans therapist Valerie Wolf testified before the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Although this was outside the purview of the Committee, they were permitted to testify because some of the names of CIA-connected researchers they mentioned were already familiar to the Committee. These two women remembered sessions when they were around eight years old that involved electric shocks, hypnosis, shots with needles, x-rays, sexual abuse, and even training in intelligence tradecraft. One case occurred from 1972-1976 and the other in 1958. This testimony was not covered by the media.

Although the recollections of the two women were spontaneous and did not involve regression therapy, there is also a cottage industry developing around memories of child abuse in general. For the most part these are not connected with government research, and perhaps many are the result of question- able techniques used by social workers, therapists, police and prosecutors to elicit testimony from children. Juries are becoming more skeptical of many of these cases. This issue has even assumed the dimensions of a religious crusade -- Christian fundamentalists worry about evil in the New Age movement, and are on the lookout for cases of "satanic ritual abuse" of children. Others believe the CIA has turned children into split-personality sex slaves for operational use.

In 1992 the False Memory Syndrome Foundation began in Philadelphia. This organization criticizes the practice of regression therapy when it's used to bring out memories of traumatic childhood experiences. FMSF considers these repressed memories of incest and sexual abuse to be objectively false, and devastating to family life in general. There's a growing split over this issue among psychology professionals. To confuse the situation further, FMSF has some on their Board of Advisors who may want to cover up their own work. One is Louis West, another is Martin Orne, one of the key MKULTRA researchers in hypnosis, and a third is Michael Persinger, who did research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the brain for a Pentagon weapons project.

Regression therapy could be a threat to the techniques the CIA may have secretly developed involving the use of hypnosis. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, George Estabrooks, chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University, was called to Washington by the War Department. As one of the leading authorities on hypnosis, Estabrooks was asked to evaluate how it might be used by the enemy. In 1943 he wrote a book, expanded in a second edition fourteen years later, that included a discussion of the use of hypnotism in warfare. In his opinion, one in five adult humans are capable of being placed in a trance so deep that they will have no memory of it. They could be hypnotized secretly by using a disguised technique, and given a post-hypnotic suggestion. Estabrooks suggested that a dual personality could be constructed with hypnosis, thereby creating the perfect double agent with an unshakable cover.

Estabrooks' theories regarding hypnosis are disputed by many experts today. Frequently the entire topic is dismissed with the notion, promoted by Martin Orne and others, that a hypnotist cannot induce a person to perform an act that this person would otherwise find objectionable. But this in itself appears to be a cover story; if the trance is deep enough, an imaginary social environment can be constructed through which an otherwise objectionable act becomes necessary and heroic. Murdering Hitler during wartime would not be considered criminal, for example. It may even be easier than this: in 1951 in Denmark, Palle Hardrup robbed a bank and killed a guard, and then claimed that hypnotist Bjorn Nielsen told him to do it. Nielsen eventually confessed that Hardrup was a test of his hypnotic techniques, which included telling Hardrup that the money from the robbery was a means to a noble end. Hardrup had become Nielsen's robot, and Nielsen was convicted.
 
In 1976 a book by Donald Bain titled "The Control of Candy Jones" was published by Playboy Press. This one-of-a-kind book is the story Candy Jones, who was America's leading cover girl during the forties and fifties. In 1960 Jones fell on hard times and agreed to act as a courier for the CIA. An excellent subject for hypnosis, Jones became the plaything of a CIA psychiatrist who used her to exhibit his mastery of mind-control techniques. This psychiatrist used hypnosis and drugs to develop a second personality within Jones over a period of 12 years. This second personality took the form of a courier who could be triggered by telephone with particular sounds, and after the mission was completed and the normal personality resumed, did not remember anything.

These missions were elaborate, and frequently involved world travel to deliver messages. According to the book, Jones and other victims were once even subjected to torture at a seminar at CIA headquarters, as a means of demonstrating this psychiatrist's control over his subjects.

Jones married New York radio talk-show host Long John Nebel in 1972. An amateur hypnotist, Nebel stumbled onto her secret personality, and began unravelling the story over many subsequent sessions. Author Donald Bain, a family friend, was invited to reconstruct the story from more than 200 hours of taped sessions between Jones and Nebel. Various researchers have confirmed some pieces of the story, but Bain did not name the major CIA psychiatrist involved, nor did he name a second psychiatrist who Martin Cannon recently identified this second psychiatrist as the late William Kroger, who was an associate of Louis West, Martin Orne, and another MKULTRA veteran, H.J. Eysenck. Whatever the truth is behind Candy Jones -- and it's difficult to see the book as an elaborate hoax -- there's no question that hypnotist George Estabrooks raised issues that the CIA took seriously in secret research for at least 25 years.

The MKULTRA implementing documents specified that "additional avenues to the control of human behavior" were to include "radiation, electroshock, various fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary devices and materials." The word "radiation" gave the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments a reason to request a search of records on human experimentation from the CIA. Their final report, released last October, expressed dissatisfaction with the CIA's response, and recommended that the CIA get their act together so that legitimate requests can be accommodated better in the future.

One problem is the compartmentation of the CIA's record-keeping systems. Another is that the CIA immediately decided that the Committee's purview was restricted only to ionizing radiation -- the type of radiation of interest in nuclear testing, as opposed to the electromagnetic and sound waves that might be used for mind control. Finally, those documents that the CIA did release were heavily redacted. The Committee noted that they had "received numerous queries about MKULTRA and the other related programs from scholars, journalists, and citizens who have

(The CIA's Program of MKultra or Mind Control and Manipulation)  (Click Here)

JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCEAND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
____________
AUGUST 3, 1977
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
and Committee on Human Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1977
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock No. 052-070-04357-1

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Louis J. Farina 

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge James P. Cullen

 Lancaster County Detective Michael Landis

 MIND CONTROL and the Black Budget Program MKultra.

INTELLIGENCER JOURNAL (LANCASTER, PA.)
February 4, 2004, Wednesday
SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A-1
LENGTH: 938 words
HEADLINE:

Convicted killer says he's conspiracy victim; Judge hears
testimony on Zook's mental state
BYLINE: Thomas L. Flannery

Convicted killer Robert P. Zook Jr. took the stand Tuesday during the  second day of a hearing to determine if he is mentally capable of  helping his attorney's efforts to get him off death row.

Zook was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 1986 and sentenced to death for killing 55-year-old typewriter repairman Paul Conard and the repairman's 19-year-old girlfriend, Sandra Wiker, during a botched robbery at Conard's North Queen Street shop.

On Tuesday, under questioning by his attorney, James Moreno of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Zook told Farina he is an innocent man.

Zook said his attorneys are trying to have him executed as part of a conspiracy concocted by former District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher, now a county judge, and retired Lancaster Bureau of Police Chief Michael Landis, now a county detective.

Zook claims the two men plotted with the "radio community" and had transmitters implanted in his head and abdomen.

The transmitters, Zook said, have been used to monitor his every move and record his thoughts and his speech. He said the recordings are listened to by a bevy of "outlaw radio stars" that populate the county.

Zook, a hulking man who weighs about 300 pounds and is fully tattooed, told Moreno he has no idea who killed Conard and Wiker, his distant cousin.

"Did the "radio community' set you up?" Moreno asked.

"Yes sir," Zook said.

Zook was polite, calm and deliberate as he talked about a conspiracy that extended to his entire family and included Moreno.

Zook told Farina he knows about the implants because of the images he sees from behind his eyelids, and voices that speak to him from the implants.

On Tuesday, Philadelphia psychiatrist Dr. Robert Sodoff testified that Zook's mental status has deteriorated to a point where Zook is so delusional and distrustful of Moreno that he cannot assist in his own defense.

Sodoff told Farina that Zook believes he has a computer chip implanted in his head and a two-way transmitter in his abdomen so authorities can monitor his every move and communicate with him, all part of an elaborate plot Moreno helped concoct in 1979.

In 1979, Moreno was a college freshman.

Sodoff also said it is highly unlikely Zook has been faking his delusions for more than five years, when they first surfaced. A psychiatrist called by the defense Tuesday agreed with Sodoff's assessment.

However, Dr. Timothy Michaels, a forensic psychiatrist called by Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach, who is prosecuting Zook at the appellate level, said Zook, despite the alleged delusions, can cooperate and help his attorneys -- if he so chooses.

Michaels said Zook does not "want to be crazy." He said Zook "can effectively think, reason, understand and cooperate with his attorneys."

Under questioning by Moreno, Michaels said he was the only physician to ever examine Zook who did not conclude Zook was psychotic.

"His delusional progression is not consistent with mental illness," Michaels said. If Zook is psychotic, Michaels said, the psychosis he allegedly suffers related to the implanted chip and transmitter does not impair his ability to aid in his own defense.

This week's hearing was ordered by the state Supreme Court, which is considering an appeal filed by Zook of a November 1999 ruling by county Judge Louis Farina. At that time, Farina dismissed an appeal Zook had filed seeking relief under the state's Post Conviction Relief Act. Zook asked Farina to overturn the death sentence and resentence him to life in prison.

Zook claimed he was not properly represented during his two separate murder trials held here in the 1980s.

In 1989, the state Supreme Court ruled Zook's first trial was flawed and overturned the conviction, ordering a second trial. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the county's appeal of the state Supreme Court's ruling.

On Jan. 12, 1990, Zook was convicted a second time of two counts of first-degree murder and again was sentenced to death.

Zook's defense team took an automatic appeal to the state Supreme Court, but the state's top court upheld the verdict and sentence.

On March 24, 1995, Moreno filed Zook's filed first PCRA appeal in state court.

The hearing on the 1995 PCRA filing hearing was set to begin in May 1998, but was delayed until January 1999.

During the 1999 hearing before Farina, Moreno argued that Zook was not adequately represented by attorney James P. Cullen during his first trial, nor by attorney Vincent Quinn during his second trial.

Cullen currently is a Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas judge. Quinn, now in private practice, was the chief counsel for the state's Judicial Conduct Board.

According to the motion for a new trial Farina denied in 1999, Zook claimed both Cullen and Quinn failed to introduce medical evidence about his alleged mental illness during the penalty phase of the 1986 and 1990 trials that may have led the jury to impose a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

The malady, Moreno said in 1999, was caused by brain damage Zook allegedly suffered during a prison scuffle prior to the murders, the abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents and Zook's history of heavy methamphetamine, marijuana, alcohol and crack cocaine use.

After the testimony concluded Tuesday afternoon, Farina did not rule on the matter. The Supreme Court requires a written opinion.

Zook also is serving a separate 25-to-50-year sentence for beating an elderly man during a robbery at a Manheim Township bowling alley.

GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Robert Zook;

1985 photo

COMPLAINT TO U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL re: Fulton Bank and Lancaster County Sheriff, et. al.,

*Complaint was recieved by U.S. Certified Mail on December 9, 2008.

Average Fees and Costs to Homeowners During A Foreclosure by U.S. Congress

** "A report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress estimates that the average cost of a foreclosure, to the homeowner, lender, local government, and neighbors (whose homes decline in value), is $78,000. By contrast, preventing the foreclosure would cost $3,300 per home on average. Here's how the report breaks out that figure among various "stakeholders":

** Average Cost for Foreclosure to Homeowner: $7,200 "

Stanley J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group, was assessed and charged over $48,000.00 constituting fraud; theft by deception; embezzlement; extortion; and other federal crimes.

Realty Transfer Fees                     $ 3,698.00

Interest Expense                          $ 9,363.13

Lancaster County Sheriff Costs       $ 5,012.57

Barley Snyder Legal Costs              $27,610.44

Barley Snyder Attorney Fee            $ 3,000.00

----------------------------------------------

                                                 $48,693.14

November 12, 2008

United States Department of Justice

Attorney General Office

Eastern District Pennsylvania

Suite 1250

615 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA   19106-4476

                    Law Firm of Barley Snyder, LLC

                    Lancaster County Sheriff Department of Lancaster, Pennsylvania

                    Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Bergman

                    Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman

                    Lancaster County Bail Supervision Office

                 &n