I have received the following. I replied to this fellow TI:


"Nice work John. What about all of us sending petitions/emails to the various international organisations, instead of isolated emails? For example, sending a petition to a Human Rights Organisation, with all our signatures would be more prominent I think.

Are you a member of http://www.mindcontrol-victims.eu? In any case we can form a team of TIs that will be submitting such petitions.


Ioannis "



His message follows:


DEAR IOANNIS and ROBERT

I hope you're ok.

here are some of my "results" - I will send you
further info..

all the best
john finch

After having submitted my DIRECTED ENERGY AND
NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE CASE SUMMARY
detailing the most extreme and totalitarian violations
of human rights in human history I have received the
responses listed below. There are many others, all
over the world, who are being subjected to similar
torture and abuse.

So far our other appeals for justice, protection
and/or publicity to Government Representatives,
Government Officials, Government Agencies,
International Organisations, Human Rights
Organisations and media have been almost completely
ignored and/or suppressed.

In spite of this failure I would encourage everyone to
keep sending their CASE SUMMARIES/PETITIONS to the
various "authorities" so that -

A. We can be sure that as many people as possible know
about these horrendous crimes

B. We can be sure that these "authorities" are either
trying to uphold the rule of National, International
and Human Rights Law, and that we will, sooner or
later, be protected by these laws

C. Or that we can be sure these "authorities" are
complicit and/or acquiescent to these crimes against
humanity and that National, International and Human
Rights Law no longer apply - in which case our task
will be to get the rule of these laws restored.

As well as being illegal and criminal the crimes being
committed against us are contrary to the Principles
and Values of all the major religions and ethical
systems - so we will also be demonstrating to these
"authorities" the huge disconnect between their
professed Principles and Values and the reality. We
will be puncturing their Doublespeak Doublethink
bubble of ignorance, stupidity and/or hypocrisy.

A tedious and unenviable task - the alternative is
acquiescence and resignation to our own torture and
destruction.

Sincerely
John Finch, 5/8 Kemp St, Thornbury, Vic 3071,
Australia
Tel: 0424009627 Email: johnfinch@yahoo.com

1. MR HANS-GERT PÖTTERING, PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, BRUSSELS, EUROPE

A(2007)8511/AT/ssk

"Dear Mr. Finch,

I am writing in reference to your e-mail to the
President of the European Parliament.

On behalf of Mr Hans-Gert Pöttering, I thank you for
the information you have provided and I can assure you
that it has been noted and read with interest.

While the European Parliament supports research
activities aimed at creating the knowledge society and
strengthening the scientific and technological bases
of the Community industry, it has always pointed out
the need to respect fundamental ethical principles,
including those reflected in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. With regard
to the seventh Framework Programme of the European
Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), the
Parliament has stated in particular that the opinions
of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New
Technologies are and will continue to be taken into
account. You may wish to read more details at the
following Internet addresses:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0265+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/index_en.htm

Yours sincerely,

Jean-Louis COUGNON
Head of Division
-----------------------------------------------
European Parliament
General Directorate for Information
Correspondence with Citizens Unit"

2. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, STRASBOURG, EUROPE

Application no. 48661/06

"Dear Sir

I write to inform you that on 15 May 2007 the European
Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Committee of three
judges (E. Myjer, President, E.Fura-Sandstrom and
I.Ziemele) pursuant to Article 27 of the Convention,
decided under Article 28 of the Convention to declare
the above application inadmissable because it did not
comply with the requirements set out in Articles 34
and 35 of the Convention.

In the light of all the material in its possession,
and in so far as the matters complained of were within
its competence, the Court found that they did not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols.

This decision is final and not subject to any appeal
to either the Court, including its Grand Chamber, or
any other body. You will therefore appreciate that the
Registry will be unable to provide any further details
about the Committee's deliberations or to conduct
further correspondence relating to its decision in
this case. You will receive no further documents from
the Court concerning this case and, in accordance with
the Court's instructions, the file will be destroyed
one year after the date of the decision.

The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 53
& 2 of the Rules of Court.

yours faithfully
For the Committee
S. Naismith Deputy Section Registrar"

3.INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE
PROSECUTOR, THE HAGUE, EUROPE

“Dear Sir, Madam

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Court acknowledges receipt of you
documents/letter.

This communication has been duly entered in the
Communications Register of the Office. We will give
consideration to this communication, as
appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

As soon as a decision is reached, we will inform you,
in writing, and provide you with reasons for this
decision.

Yours sincerely

….(illegible) …..

Head of Information and Evidence Unit
Office of the Prosecutor”

I'm still waiting for their written decision.

4. THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, NEW YORK, USA

no response at all although they have recently filed
the following "tip-of-the-iceberg" lawsuit:-

"CCR Files Suit over NSA Domestic Spying Program
Center for Constitutional Rights Believes Privileged
Attorney-Client Communications Were Intercepted by NSA
without Warrants

Synopsis

In New York, on January 17, 2006, the Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against
President George W. Bush, the head of the National
Security Agency (NSA), and the heads of the
other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's
surveillance of persons within the United States
without judicial approval or statutory authorization.
The suit seeks an injunction that would prohibit the
government from conducting warrantless surveillance of
communications in the U.S. CCR filed the suit in the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of
New York on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR
attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit
the criteria described by the Attorney General for
targeting under the NSA Surveillance Program.

As has been widely reported, for over four years the
NSA, with the approval of the president, has engaged
in a program of widespread warrantless electronic
surveillance of telephone calls and emails in
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA). The suit argues that the NSA Surveillance
Program violates a clear criminal law, exceeds the
president's authority under Article II of the
Constitution, and violates the First and Fourth
Amendments. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
explicitly authorizes foreign intelligence electronic
surveillance only upon orders issued by federal judges
on a special court. It expressly authorizes
warrantless wiretapping only for the first fifteen
days of a war, and makes it a crime to engage in
wiretapping without specific statutory authority.
Rather than seeking to amend this statute, the
president simply violated it by authorizing
warrantless wiretapping of Americans without statutory
authority or court approval. As a result, the President
violated his oath of office to take care that the laws
of this nation are faithfully executed, and instead
secretly violated a criminal prohibition duly enacted
by Congress.

CCR has been one of the most active opponents of the
illegal detention, torture and intelligence gathering
practices this administration instituted in the wake
of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. As part of its
mission to fight violations of the Bill of Rights and
the Constitution, the Center for Constitutional Rights
represents hundreds of men detained indefinitely
without charge as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo
Bay; Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen accused of al
Qaeda ties and rendered from the United States
to Syria for the purpose of being tortured; and Muslim
immigrants unreasonably and wrongfully detained in the
U.S. for months without probable cause or criminal
charges in the wake of 9/11.

In the course of representing these clients, the
Center's lawyers have engaged in innumerable telephone
calls and e-mails with people outside the United
States, including their clients, their clients'
families and outside lawyers, potential witnesses, and
others. Given that the government has accused many of
CCR's overseas clients of being associated with Al
Qaeda or of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there
is little question that these attorneys have
been subject to the NSA Surveillance Program. The
Center filed today's lawsuit in order to protect CCR
attorneys' right to represent their clients free of
unlawful and unchecked surveillance.

CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "On this, the
day following Martin Luther King Day, we are saddened
that the illegal electronic surveillance that once
targeted that great American has again become
characteristic of our present government. As was the
case with Dr. King, this illegal activity is cloaked
in the guise of national security. In reality, it
reflects an attempt by the Bush Administration to
exercise unchecked power without the inconvenient
interference of the other co-equal branches of
government."

According to CCR attorney Shayana Kadidal, "The mere
existence of the program harms CCR and our attorneys
because it serves to inhibit their ability to institute
and effectively litigate these suits."

The Center for Constitutional Rights is represented in
the suit by CCR attorneys Bill Goodman, Shayana
Kadidal, and Michael Ratner, and CCR cooperating
attorney David Cole. Also appearing as an attorney
for CCR, is Professor Michael Avery, president of the
National Lawyers Guild (NLG), on behalf of the NLG."

Sincerely
John Finch, 5/8 Kemp St, Thornbury, Vic 3071,
Australia
Tel: 0424009627 Email: johnfinch@yahoo.com













Sincerely
John Finch, 5/8 Kemp St, Thornbury, Vic 3071, Australia
Tel: 0424009627 Email: johnfinch@yahoo.com

-- 
My Electromagnetic Harassment blog: http://jvranos.wordpress.com