Letter in regards to the recognition of directed energy weaons and mind control weapons being used on human beings - a violation human rights..

[Ron Angell]

Ireland and the USA ratified the Geneva Convenions- we have global rights. - Weapons of Mass Destruction- Non Lethal Weapons, Mind Control Weapons, or psychotronic weapons has been listed as weapons of Mass Destruction by UNIDIR-UN http://unidir.org/pdf/ouvrages/pdf-1-92-9045-002-2-en.pdf directed energy weapons used in florida- for decades- TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332h
§ 2332h. Radiological dispersal devices
(3) Special circumstances....
— If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/118/2441
18 U.S.C. § 2441 : US Code - Section 2441: War crimes

(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described
in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for life https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=405427762812930&set=a.1... to me From the International Courts of Jusice In French

[Spirality]

Jeez Ron - I was reading about rights violations when that video in the comments AUTO-played, I nearly lost it.
If you must have Bagpipe music from Chicago police, Can you please put it in the video section, its completely out of place here. Thanks.

[Ron Angell]

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Please listen the the Lawyer from Michigan State University- he is the second speaker just after Michael S. - Moderated at the Whitehouse by Ms.Gutman March 2011.

[Ron Angell]

Thank you President Clinton-10/05/1995 Executive Order 12975 Protection of Human Research Subjects and Creation of National Bioethics Advisory Commission
Presidential Document
10/05/1995
Executive Office of the President
Pages 52063 - 52065 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/1995/10/05/95-24921/protec...
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
THE CORE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS and their monitoring bodies http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5038

There are nine core international human rights treaties. Each of these treaties has established a committee of experts to monitor implementation of the treaty provisions by its States parties. Some of the treaties are supplemented by optional protocols dealing with specific concerns.
Date Monitoring Body
ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 21 Dec 1965 CERD
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 Dec 1966 CCPR
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 16 Dec 1966 CESCR
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 18 Dec 1979 CEDAW
CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 10 Dec 1984 CAT
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child 20 Nov 1989 CRC
ICRMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 18 Dec 1990 CMW
CPED International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 20 Dec 2006 CED
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 13 Dec 2006 CRPD
ICESCR - OP Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 10 Dec 2008 CESCR
ICCPR-OP1 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 Dec 1966 HRC
ICCPR-OP2 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty 15 Dec 1989 HRC
OP-CEDAW Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 10 Dec 1999 CEDAW
OP-CRC-AC Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict 25 May 2000 CRC
OP-CRC-SC Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography 25 May 2000 CRC
OP-CAT Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 18 Dec 2002 SPT
OP-CRPD Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 12 Dec 2006 CRPD THE USA FULLY RATIFIED THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS more than once. They fact that the USA FULLY RATIFIED THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS HAS BEEN KEPT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. President Ford Signs the Geneva Protocol in 1975. Article 1 of the 1975 Declaration against torture both mental and physical is binding in the USA and worldwide. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5038

[Ron Angell]

1998 Dr. Mike D’Zmura-Ph.D. Psychology - Professor & Chair, Department of Cognitive Sciences, from the University of California, Irvine and the lead scientist on the project.-"Public sale of Artificial Telepathy technology would inevitably result in the stealing of bank account numbers, PIN numbers, passwords, trade secrets, etc., which in turn would inevitably translate into actual theft. The damage to the economy could be catastrophic, and the sudden disappearance of privacy – all privacy – might literally cause society as we know it to melt down." 1998
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~mdzmura/
Michael D'Zmura
www.socsci.uci.edu
Social Sciences Plaza B 3219
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, California 92697-5100 USA
[phone] (phone) -2307 (fax)

Known as synthetic telepathy, the technology is based on reading electrical activity in the brain using an electroencephalograph, or EEG. Similar technology is being marketed as a way to control video games by thought.

Army developing “synthetic telepathy” UN Commission of Human Rights, Interpol, EU Commission of Ethics

Read This Thought: The U.S. Army is developing a technology known as synthetic telepathy that would allow someone to create email or voice mail and send it by thought alone. The concept is based on reading electrical activity in the brain using an electroencephalograph, or EEG.

By Eric Bland

Oct. 13, 2008
Vocal cords were overrated anyway. A new Army grant aims to create email or voice mail and send it by thought alone. No need to type an e-mail, dial a phone or even speak a word.
Known as synthetic telepathy, the technology is based on reading electrical activity in the brain using an electroencephalograph, or EEG. Similar technology is being marketed as a way to control video games by thought.
“I think that this will eventually become just another way of communicating,” said Mike D’Zmura, from the University of California, Irvine and the lead scientist on the project.
Artificial Telepathy machine cannot possibly be advertised and sold on the open market for obvious reasons: they would utterly destroying the privacy of many, many people. “Peeking” into the lives of others would quickly pervert itself into stalking, mind rape, privacy violation, identity theft and information theft on a massive scale.
Public sale of Artificial Telepathy technology would inevitably result in the stealing of bank account numbers, PIN numbers, passwords, trade secrets, etc., which in turn would inevitably translate into actual theft. The damage to the economy could be catastrophic, and the sudden disappearance of privacy – all privacy – might literally cause society as we know it to melt down.
For all of these reasons, Artificial Telepathy may be rightly called a “non-lethal” H-Bomb. The damage done to society by release of such technology would be nightmarish. See for example the dystopian film Strange Days(1995, starring Ralph Fiennes) in which dream thieves use a technology called “SQUID” to jack into the minds of people, record their experiences, and sell those experiences on disc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Days_(film)
See also the film “Artificial Telepathy” (Dir. Mitchell Cox), from which the movie poster (above) is taken:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~visualaffects/vault/details/15196.html
No one would die as a direct result of the Artificial Telepathy’s use. It is a “non-lethal weapon.”
But nothing would ever be the same again.
Most scientists and lawyers understand this. Indeed, if the maker of an Artificial Telepathy weapon tried to sell the product on the open market, the number of people who would line up to sue that manufacturer would probably circle the Earth.
Third in line would be a lawyer representing every voice-hearer and human rights advocate in the Western hemisphere. That’s a large number of people.
Second in line would be a lawyer bringing a massive class-action suit joined by every paranoid corporation that has a trade secret to hide. That is, almost every corporation in the world.
First in line would be the United States government. Every copy of the machine, its blueprints, and its patent documents, would be immediately seized and locked away on the grounds of national security.
The military reasons for grabbing up this technology and suppressing it are obvious: With Artificial Telepathy, there is no such thing as a surprise attack. And without the element of surprise, war becomes impossible. Artificial Telepathy machines could potentially put every single G.I. Joe at the DOD out of work. And as far as the Department of Defense is concerned, any technology that puts them out of work is a weapon of mass destruction.
Even if it doesn’t kill anyone. (But IT DOES KILL)
Translation: No one gets one of these weapons but Uncle Sam. The United States Department of Defense has no objections to weapons of mass destruction. It just objects to anyone else owning one.
Although any government would strictly forbid public ownership of such technology, every government would certainly want to use the Artificial Telepathy machine itself. Far from destroying such a weapon, most military service branches would probably compete for possession of one, as would every law enforcement organization and every intelligence agency under the sun. Some would argue that the machine ought to be destroyed, but others would find that the lure of knowing exactly what the “enemy” is thinking is far too intoxicating to pass up.
An Artificial Telepathy weapon is, after all, a spy agency’s dream.
Conclusion: If or (more properly) when an Artificial Telepathy machine is developed, it will certainly be classified as a weapon – specifically a “Non-Lethal Weapon.” It will never be released on the public market. The public will be given no clue that it exists, and the military branches of different countries will fight fiercely among themselves for possession of this cool new toy.
Within the U.S. military branches, the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines will probably squabble with the intelligence community, law enforcement and the Department of Justice for possession and control, then finally settle on a scheme for sharing control among themselves. Most likely they will combine forces (and budgets) to build and manage new weapons based on the first Artificial Telepathy technology. If the weapons work, everyone will claim to be the proud Papa. If the cover is blown, and Congress launches a massive investigation, the program will be orphaned. Everyone can back off and point fingers at each other.
Joining forces means everyone wins, and nobody is to blame.
Given this conclusion, we can now ask ourselves a simple question: Where would the military hide its deep-black research program into Artificial Telepathy, if such technology exists?
Answer: They would hide Artificial Telepathy under cover of a Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program.

“It will take a lot of research, and a lot of time, but there are also a lot of commercial applications, not just military applications,” he said.
The idea of communicating by thought alone is not a new one. In the 1960s, a researcher strapped an EEG to his head and, with some training, could stop and start his brain’s alpha waves to compose Morse code messages.
Michael D'Zmura
Professor & Chair, Department of Cognitive Sciences
University of California, Irvine

Contact information
Social Sciences Plaza B 3219
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, California 92697-5100 USA
[phone] (phone) -2307 (fax)
[e-mail]
Education
B.A., Harvard College, Cambridge, MA (1979, German Studies)
M.A., University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (1986, Psychology)
Ph.D., University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (1990, Psychology)
Professional positions
Chair of Cognitive Sciences, UC Irvine, 2005-present
Professor of Cognitive Sciences, UC Irvine, 1998-present
Visiting Professor, University Jean Monnet in St.-Etienne, 1995/96, 1997
Associate Professor of Cognitive Sciences, UC Irvine, 1994-98
Assistant Professor of Cognitive Sciences, UC Irvine, 1990-94
Fellowships and honors
American Psychological Assocation Distinguished Scientific Award
for Early Career Contribution to Psychology, 1998/99
Deutsche Akademischer Austauschdienst Scholarship, 1997
Bourse d'Accueil Fellowship, Region Rhone-Alpes, France, 1995/96
Society for Mathematical Psychology, New Investigator Award, 1993
IBM Graduate Student Fellowship, 1985-87
NEI-ARVO Young Investigators Travel Fellowship, 1984
Research interests
Vision, hearing, language, attention, brain imaging, and brain-computer interfaces
Publications
D'Zmura, M. & Lennie, P. (1986). Shared pathways for rod and cone vision. Vision Research 26, 1273-1280. [PubMed], [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Lennie, P. (1986). Mechanisms of color constancy. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 3, 1662-1672. [PDF]
Lennie, P. & D'Zmura, M. (1988). Mechanisms of color vision. Critical Reviews in Neurobiology 3, 333-400. [PubMed]
D'Zmura, M. (1991). Color in visual search. Vision Research 31, 951-966. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. (1991). Shading ambiguity: reflectance and illumination. In Computational Models of Visual Processing, Landy, M.S. and Movshon, A.J. (Eds.) Cambridge: MIT, 187-207.
D'Zmura, M. (1992). Color constancy: surface color from changing illumination. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 9, 490-493. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Iverson, G. (1992). Color constancy: adaptation to the illumination environment. Optical Society of America topical Meeting on Advances in Color Vision Technical Digest, 107-109.
Kakarala, R., Bennett, B., Iverson, G.J. & D'Zmura, M. (1993). Bispectral techniques for spherical functions. Proceedings of the IEEE Int'l Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Minneapolis, IV, 216-220. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Iverson, G. (1993). Color constancy. I. Basic theory of two-stage linear recovery of spectral descriptions for lights and surfaces. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 10, 2148-2165. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Iverson, G. (1993). Color constancy. II. Results for two-stage linear recovery of spectral descriptions for lights and surfaces. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 10, 2166-2180. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Iverson, G. (1994). Color constancy. III. General linear recovery of spectral descriptions for lights and surfaces. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 11, 2389-2400. [PDF]
Iverson, G. & D'Zmura, M. (1994). Criteria for color constancy in trichromatic bilinear models. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 11, 1970-1975. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Mangalick, A. (1994). Detection of contrary chromatic change. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 11, 543-546. [PDF]
Singer, B. & D'Zmura, M. (1994). Color contrast induction. Vision Research 34, 3111-3126. [PDF]
Singer, B. & D'Zmura, M. (1995). Contrast gain control. A bilinear model for chromatic selectivity. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 12, 667-685. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M., Iverson, G. & Singer, B. (1995). Probabilistic color constancy. In Luce, R.D., D'Zmura, M., Hoffman, D.D., Iverson, G. and Romney, K. (Eds.), Geometric Representations of Perceptual Phenomena. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 187-202.
Iverson, G. & D'Zmura, M. (1995). Color constancy: spectral recovery using trichromatic bilinear models. In Luce, R.D., D'Zmura, M., Hoffman, D.D., Iverson, G. and Romney, K. (Eds.), Geometric Representations of Perceptual Phenomena. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 169-185.
Luce, R.D., D'Zmura, M., Hoffman, D.D., Iverson, G. and Romney, K., Eds. (1995) Geometric Representations of Perceptual Phenomena. Articles in Honor of Tarow Indow's 70th Birthday. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
D'Zmura, M. & Singer, B. (1996). The spatial pooling of contrast in contrast gain control. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 13, 2135-2140. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. (1996). Bergmann on visual resolution, Perception 25, 1223-1234, translation of Bergmann, C., Anatomisches und Physiologisches ueber die Netzhaut des Auges. Zeitschrift fuer rationelle Medicin II, 1857,83-108.
D'Zmura, M., Colantoni, P., Knoblauch, K. & Laget, B. (1997). Color transparency. Perception 26, 471-492. [ PubMed]
D'Zmura, M., Lennie, P. & Tiana, C. (1997). Color search and visual field segregation. Perception & Psychophysics 59, 381-388. [ PubMed]
D'Zmura, M. (1997). Neural network for color contrast gain control. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Bruges, Belgium, April 1997, pp. 67-72.
Colantoni, P., D'Zmura, M., Knoblauch, K. & Laget, B. (1997) Detection of color transparency. In Rogowitz, B. & Allenbach, J. (Eds.) Human Vision and Electronic Imaging II, Vol. 3016, 360-368.
D'Zmura, M. & Knoblauch, K. (1998) Spectral bandwidths for the detection of color. Vision Research 38, 3117-3128. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M., Knoblauch, K., Henaff, M.-A. & Michel, F. (1998) Dependence of color on context in a case of cortical color vision deficiency. Vision Research 38, 3455-3459. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M. & Iverson, G. (1998). A formal approach to color constancy: the recovery of surface and light source spectral properties using bilinear models. In Dowling, C., Roberts, F. and Theuns, P. (Eds.) Recent Progress in Mathematical Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 99-132.
D'Zmura, M. (1998). Color contrast gain control. In Backhaus, W., Kliegl, R. & Werner, J. (Eds.) Color Vision. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 251-266.
Chen, V.J. & D'Zmura, M. (1998), Test of a convergence model for color transparency perception. Perception 27, 595-608. [ PubMed]
D'Zmura, M. & Singer, B. (1999) Contrast gain control. In Sharpe, L.T. & Gegenfurtner, K.R. (Eds.) Color Vision: From Genes to Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 369-385.
Hagedorn, J. & D'Zmura, M. (2000). Color appearance of surfaces viewed through fog. Perception 29, 1169-1184. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M., Rinner, O. & Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2000). The colors seen behind transparent filters. Perception 29, 911-926. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M., Colantoni, P. & Seyranian, G.D. (2000). Visualization of events from arbitrary spacetime perspectives. In Erbacher, R.F., Chen, P.C., Roberts, J.C. & Wittenbrink, C.M. (Eds.) Visual Data Exploration and Analysis VII 3860, 35-40. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M., Colantoni, P. & Hagedorn, J. (2001) Perception of color change. Color Research and Application S26, S186-S191. [PDF]
D'Zmura, M., Colantoni, P. & Seyranian, G. (2001). Virtual environments with four or more spatial dimensions. Presence 9, 616-631. [PDF]
Knoblauch, K. & D'Zmura, M. (2001). Lights and neural responses do not depend on choice of color space. Vision Research 41, 1683-1684.
D'Zmura, M. (2002). Psychology of colour perception. In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: MacMillan.
D'Zmura, M. (2003). Color and the processing of chromatic information. In Mausfeld, R. and Heyer, R. (Eds.), Colour Perception: From Light to Object, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143-152.
Ge, M. & D'Zmura, M. (2003). 4D structure from motion: a computational algorithm. Bouman, C.A. & Stevenson, R.L. (Eds.) Computational Imaging (Proc. SPIE/IS&T) 5016, 13-23. [PDF]
Ge,M. & D'Zmura, M. (submitted). Recovery of structure from motion in four or more dimensions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology.
Ge,M. & D'Zmura, M. (submitted). A hybrid model for color transparency perception. Journal of Vision.
Links
Cognitive NeuroSystems Lab

[Ron Angell]

The Communications Act of 1934 was a United States federal law enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, requested the Virgin Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interdepartmental committee for studying electronic communications. The Committee reported that "the communications service, as far as congressional action is involved, should be regulated by a single body." http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Communications... The Act largely combined and reorganized existing provisions of law, including provisions of the Federal Radio Act of 1927 relating to radio licensing, and of the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 relating to telephone service.

A recommendation was made for the establishment of a new agency that would regulate all interstate and foreign communication by wire and radio, telegraphy, telephone and broadcast. On February 26, 1934, the President sent a special message to Congress urging the creation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The following day Senator Dill and Representative Sam Rayburn of Texas introduced bills to carry out this recommendation. The Senate Bill (S.3285) passed the House on June 1, 1934, and the conference report was adopted by both houses eight days later. The Communications Act was signed by President Roosevelt on June 1934. Particular parts of it became effective July 1, 1934; other parts on July 11, 1934. And thus the FCC was born.

[Ron Angell]

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—
(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;
(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
(e)
(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511 (2)(a)(ii), 2511 (2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,
(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,
(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and
(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).
(2)
(a)
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—
(A) a court order directing such assistance or a court order pursuant to section 704 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 signed by the authorizing judge, or
(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
(iii) If a certification under subparagraph (ii)(B) for assistance to obtain foreign intelligence information is based on statutory authority, the certification shall identify the specific statutory provision and shall certify that the statutory requirements have been met.
(b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
(iii) to engage in any conduct which—
(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;
(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter—
(i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or
(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if—
(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;
(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.
(3)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.
(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication—
(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511 (2)(a) or 2517 of this title;
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
(4)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted—
(i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or
(ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls,
is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.
(5)
(a)
(i) If the communication is—
(A) a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or
(B) a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain,
then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(ii) In an action under this subsection—
(A) if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such person has not been found liable in a civil action under section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and
(B) if the violation of this chapter is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or such person has been found liable in any prior civil action under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine.
(b) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of such an injunction.

[Ron Angell]

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-presidential-comm... Listen to the Lawyer from Michigan State University- the second male speaker after Miss Gutman the moderator introduces the Bioethics meeting at the White House March in 2011 on the investigation of human rights violations INSIDE THE USA. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321602p.pdf
Weapons in space, synthetic telepathy weapons, and directed energy weapons are a Violation of: Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 3216.02 March 25, 2002 Certified Current as of April 24, 2007 NUMBER 3216.02 Certified Current as of April 24, 2007
USD(AT&L) SUBJECT: Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD Supported Research
References: (a) DoD Directive 3216.2, "Protection of Human Subjects in DoD Supported Research," January 7, 1983 (hereby canceled)
(b) Section 980 of title 10, United States Code
(c) Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219, "Protection of Human
Subjects," current edition
(d) DoD Directive 6200.2, "Use of Investigational New Drugs for Force Health
Protection," August 1, 2000
(e) through (m), see enclosure 1
1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

[Ron Angell]

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 37 § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,

(b) 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights,

(c) 18 U.S.C. § 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence,

... (d) 18 U.S.C. § 1091. Genocide,

(e) 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Mail fraud,

(f) 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant,

(g) 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant,

(i) 18 U.S.C. § 1692. Foreign mail as United States mail,

(j) 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Video voyeurism,

(k) 18 U.S.C. § 1812. Statement of exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted,

(m) 18 U.S.C. § 2332 (a) Terrorism, and (h). Use of weapons of mass destruction,

(n) 18 U.S.C. § 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists,

(o) 18 U.S.C. § 2422. Coercion and enticement, or are currently doing so;

(p) electronic surveillance, in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1809 and 1810, or are currently doing so;

(q) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2510 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511;

(r) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2703, Required Disclosure of communications records, or are currently doing so;
\civilians, and non civilians, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2381. Treason, or are currently doing so;

(t) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261: US Code - 2261A: Stalking

[Ron Angell]

President Eisenhower's 1958 Law has been severely violated for decades- Peace in Space Treaty- “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958” IT IS US Federal Law Ike and passed. Pub. L. No. 85-568, 72 Stat. 426-438 (Jul. 29, 1958) http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf AN ACT To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the..earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I-SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS What he did was create NASA public law to protect us from these torture weapons long ago- in 1958. What is taking place is Star Wars on the American People and peoples of the world using sophisticated military communication systems that have been WEAPONIZED and violate the GENEVA Conventions. directed energy weapons and psychotronic weapons has been listed as weapons of Mass Destruction by UNIDIR-UN http://unidir.org/pdf/ouvrages/pdf-1-92-9045-002-2-en.pdf directed energy weapons used in florida- for decades- TITLE 18 > PART I >... CHAPTER 113B > § 2332h ..§ 2332h. Radiological dispersal devices (3) Special circumstances....—... If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/118/2441 18 U.S.C. § 2441 : US Code - Section 2441: War crimes ... (a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life See More Pub. L. No. 85-568, 72 Stat. 426-438 (Jul. 29, 1958) http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf AN ACT ... To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I-SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS SHORT TITLE Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958”. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. (b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e).

[Ron Angell]

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues- Moderated at the Whitehouse by Ms.Gutman March 2011. Please listen the the Lawyer from Michigan State- he is the second speaker just after Michael S.