Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 17

PageID #: 53



* *


* * Civ. No. 10-385-B-W

v. * TLC PROPERTIES, et al. Respondents * *




In the Court‟s 10/26/2010 decision, Judge Woodcock states that the Court “recommended that Mr. Blackhouse‟s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be denied because the Complaint lacked the requisite likelihood of success on the merits.” However, the Court found that Mr. Blackhouse‟s claims lacked said likelihood based upon a victim‟s narrative he is presently forced to produce while restrained to the crime scene in question. Mr. Blackhouse filed for an enlargement of time to respond to the alleged concerns and was granted such an enlargement. However, he could not meet the deadline as a pro se filer subjected to ongoing HUD fraud and money-laundering activity. The extent to which Mr. Blackhouse is able to


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 17

PageID #: 54

intervene on his own behalf as a crime victim restrained to an undersized apartment – in violation of his habeas corpus rights – heretofore has not been addressed by the Court. Additionally, it is crucial to the safety of US citizens – and to national security – that the Court grant Mr. Blackhouse‟s injunctive relief now. He is attempting to report abuse at its most insidious and inhumane: specifically, systemic, confinement-based psychiatric torture, which – albeit known to occur in Maine, one of the United States and ostensibly protected by Constitutional freedoms – is among the worst forms of torture to occur anywhere in the world. At this writing, area law enforcement refuses to intervene in the housing fraud, not because his claims lack merit, but because corruption plagues their respective forces and agencies. In its 9/21/2010 recommendation for dismissal and denial of the TRO, the Court discusses the circumstances under which injunctive relief/TRO is generally granted, citing Waldron’s “four factors.” In the Plaintiff‟s 10/6/2010 Motion to Extend Time, he responds to the Court‟s invocation of Waldron by writing:

Finally, the “amalgam of four factors” the Court cites from Waldron v. George Weston Bakeries, Inc., 570 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 2009) should also be reconsidered with respect to their application to Mr. Blackhouse‟s case: to wit, the Plaintiff – as the movant – is both likely to succeed on the merits and is also likely to “suffer irreparable harm” in the absence of injunctive relief. Public interest should also weigh urgently into the Court‟s reconsideration for the obvious reasons described in the September 15, 2010 filing.

The paragraph accurately describes how the likelihood that he will succeed on the merits does not comprise the entire “amalgam” of factors delineated in Waldron. Additionally, had onsite harassment not prevented him from timely filing, the Court would have found that the Plaintiff is, in fact, likely to “succeed on the merits” in any event. As such, Mr. Blackhouse herein rebuts the concerns set forth by the Court in the 9/21/10 order, including misconceptions


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 3 of 17

PageID #: 55

that he – as the pro se Plaintiff – could not dispel by way of timely filing given the longstanding abuse in question. However, the Court should also amend the judgment based upon “the due process clause (requiring) the States to afford (the Plaintiff) a „meaningful opportunity to be heard‟ by removing obstacles to (his) full participation in judicial proceedings.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S. Ct. 780, 787, 28 L. Ed.2d 113, 120 (1971).


Standard for Review and Reconsideration

Mr. Blackhouse has no meaningful opportunity to pursue litigation while a victim of criminal activity enabled by corrupt law enforcement agencies that would otherwise protect him from manifest housing fraud, human trafficking, and unlawful real estate transfer practices: such violations contravene Federal regulations, constitute money-laundering activity, and engender the Plaintiff‟s wrongful confinement to premises out of which he cannot safely afford to move. While the Court posited a number of objections to his 9/15/2010 request for a TRO in its 9/21/2010 response, the Plaintiff was not able to rebut said objections while an embezzlement victim subjected to on-site harassment. Rule 59 (e) of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 [e]) states that a filer may submit a Motion for Amended Judgment within twentyeight (28) days of the Court‟s decision. With this filing, the Plaintiff calls for the lawsuit‟s reinstatement as well as for the immediate granting of the injunctive relief requested in his 9/15/2010 complaint – citing due process and habeas corpus violations as the overarching reasons he cannot respond.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 4 of 17

PageID #: 56



In March, 2002, Mr. Blackhouse was kidnapped from private property, conveyed into a locked facility, and daily tortured – for three continuous weeks – until the point of permanent and total disability. The perpetrators did not simply transfer him “from an outerlying hospital”; rather, the conspiracy to harm him exploited the mental health system as the operating cover for disabling psychiatric abuse. That a Waterville hospital was used as a way-station for the unlawful conveyance of the victim does not mitigate his unlawful abduction and forced confinement to locked premises: in dismissing his complaint, the Court failed to recognize that renditioning activity constitutes kidnapping; forced subjection to psychiatric treatment, torture; and that the specific manner in which the perpetrators forcibly confined him and subjected him to such abuse violated both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Now seriously debilitated with the ongoing, simultaneous effects of both the resultant disability and on-site criminal abuse and exploitation, the victim is also entirely unable to receive even basic assistance from social services agencies, as the operators of said agencies actively manipulate application procedures to prevent him from receiving justice relative to: a) years of housing fraud and police abuse; and, b) his (aforementioned) subjection to disabling torture. As both the State and local law enforcement agencies unlawfully refuse to intervene to protect the victim‟s civil and human rights, the Court is his last chance for release from imprisonment to his own apartment and reprieve from extreme forms of multi-year abuse, including social and geographic isolation: without injunctive relief, Mr. Blackhouse will never have a “meaningful opportunity” to interact with either the Court or any effective, upstanding law enforcement it might assign. While the Plaintiff does not owe the Court explication of events in advance of being offered the aforementioned “meaningful opportunity to be heard,” with this filing, he nonetheless


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 5 of 17

PageID #: 57

attempts to provide a preliminary response to the Court‟s 9/21/2010 misconceptions regarding both his degree of involvement in Edgewood Arsenal experimentation and his allegations of ongoing habeas corpus violations. He also herein seeks to rebut the Court‟s stated concern that the 28 USC 1915 (e) (2) (B) criterion has not been fulfilled. Edgewood Arsenal Experimentation and the “Mental Health” Facility d/b/a “P-6” With respect to the Court‟s decision that “no indication” in his pleading suggests that Blackhouse “was ever enlisted in the armed forces” or involved in (i.e., a victim of) the Edgewood Arsenal experimentation, the Plaintiff objects to the Court‟s re-configuration of his initial presentation, as he at no point describes himself as a victim of Edgewood: additionally, Mr. Blackhouse does not claim to have been a member of the military, nor would he need to be a member of the military to file a criminal complaint claiming psychiatric torture, kidnapping, and confinement-based abuse. Rather, he claims to be a victim of MKULTRA-derived mind-control torture, including psychiatric torture (“brainwashing”) techniques that are: a) known as such to the CIA; b) enacted against targeted victims in facilities such as P-6; and, c) partially mentioned in the VVA v. Price lawsuit (MKULTRA is mentioned by the plaintiffs, and the project included extensive research into psychological manipulation and mental torture). Project MKULTRA, then – as well as appurtenant clandestine CIA projects – are common to both VVA v. Price and this action. This similarity between Edgewood experimentation and “P-6” was, and remains, the Plaintiff‟s only assertion relative to Edgewood. In invoking Edgewood, Mr. Blackhouse intended to outline this correlation in the context of the serious, longstanding, and unprosecuted criminal activity leveled against him. It is also the case that Edgewood cannot be properly resolved without reliance on the findings and disposition of the Plaintiff‟s current – and separatelyconsidered – claims (as presented in this action, Civ. No. 10-385-B-W). Indeed, Mr. Blackhouse


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 6 of 17

PageID #: 58

sues for control of the Central Intelligence Agency because his disability resulted, in part, from the Agency‟s failure to protect him from what can only be described as a quasi-military psychological torture facility; additionally, the U.S. government‟s own records indicate that medical industry developers routinely conduct and conceal the operation of clandestine psychiatric torture to advance the syndicate‟s agenda of disabling targeted civilians, including opponents of US medical practices (such as Mr. Blackhouse) and – very likely, and equally insidiously – individuals viewed as having become too financially “dependent” on the syndicate‟s corporate and tax-based (i.e., government-derived) resources. In the same manner in which the CIA knew about and concealed torture in VVA v. Price, the Agency also knew about – or permitted the distribution of – mind-control and torture techniques to “P-6” and to facilities under the operation of the Veterans‟ Administration. While Mr. Blackhouse is not known to be a member of the military, individuals with ties to national security concerns were, in fact, involved in his 2002 abduction and torture, and a faction of the US government or military – or a corporate derivation thereunto – appears to have targeted him for abuse-based indoctrination based (at least in part) upon the content of his senior college thesis and his family‟s ties to the VA and Washington, D.C. However, any uncertainty on Mr. Blackhouse‟s part – relative to the motivation behind his subjection to torture – should not confuse or mystify the Court: rather, the Court should adopt concern that Mr. Blackhouse was abducted and tortured at all, first by examining the events of 2002 irrespective of their proximity to any national intelligence or military influence per se, then by pursuing a full analysis of the extent to which such unlawful shock lobotomies and incarcerations – abductions and torture concealed as medical practice – are occurring nationwide.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 7 of 17

PageID #: 59

Opportunity to Develop “P-6” Affidavit Required Mr. Blackhouse requires the opportunity to develop an affidavit to protect countless others from crippling, unlawful confinement-based abuse as it occurs in facilities such as “P-6”; however, to do so, he must elucidate complex matters such as cascade pathogenesis and the manner in which the torture enacted (that is, MKULTRA-derived torture, or the existence of medical torture as anticipated by the CIA) seamlessly dovetails with psychiatric praxis. Additionally, he is – at this writing – harassed relentlessly by a corrupt local police department bent upon terrorizing him by triggering the ill effects of the damage caused to his autonomic nervous response system, which originated during the “P-6” torture the same agencies refuse to prosecute or investigate. Providing such a deposition requires remedying the losses he has sustained during eight (8) years he has spent living: a) in near-total, retaliatory indoor confinement; b) terrorized by mob-run police forces protecting the Defendants; c) in forced geographic and administrative proximity to un-Constitutional renditioning facilities such as Riverview/AMHI; and, d) subjected to housing fraud enabled by money-laundering (e.g., the illegal sale of the Mad Dog at the apparent behest of the GPD) and rental extortion. Evidence of Criminal Activity is Evident from Extant, Discoverable Records Each day that Mr. Blackhouse is subjected to fraud-based isolation, evidentiary and investigatory opportunities slip further out of reach. Mr. Blackhouse is also a victim of discoverable police-based criminal activity and public housing fraud designed to prevent him from bringing criminal charges at all. Paragraph 26 of the Plaintiff‟s complaint clearly articulates the three (3) Federal (HUD) regulations violated by way of the Defendants forcing Mr. Blackhouse to pay HUD-prohibited excessive rent: 24 CFR § 982.310; 24 CFR § 982.451 (b) (4) (iii); and, 24 CFR § 982.305 (a) (5). The final rule clearly states that no covered tenant shall pay


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 8 of 17

PageID #: 60

in excess of 40% of income towards rent. Despite this regulation – designed to present housing fraud and in-place stranding – Mr. Blackhouse is routinely required to pay in excess of 100% of his adjusted income towards rent during a period in which embezzlement at the AHA (and money-laundering at the Mad Dog Pub and its subsidiary) now surpasses $100,000, in simple loss to the victim‟s SSDI check and personal resources alone. This fact of basic math provides incontrovertible proof of criminal activity and requires no additional evidentiary markings qualifying it as a conspiracy for it to inspire immediate judiciary interest.1 Alleged Lack of Claim/Charge The Court‟s recommendation for the complaint‟s dismissal appears to center on the Plaintiff‟s alleged failure “to bring a charge,” citing 28 USC 1915 (e) (2) (B). However, Mr. Blackhouse believes to have articulated a “charge” insofar as State and Federal law appear to permit him to do so: the charge – or criminal complaint – against the Defendants is that he was abducted and tortured in 2002, and that subsequent to his having been subjected to disabling brainwashing techniques – including multiple assaults, death threats, and psychological torture – individuals organized to deprive him of public benefits to keep him a human trafficking victim at risk of reprisal abuse. Indeed, both the frequency and extent of demonstrable crime victimization speak for themselves: Mr. Blackhouse is being “kept” – in violation of his habeas corpus rights – by way of a multi-tiered HUD-fraud conspiracy that should have been investigated (and shut down) by the FBI when they recently inquired about “P-6” and the stock fraud preceding Mr. Blackhouse‟s 2002 abduction.

It is unlawful for the Defendants to compel the victim to pay excessive rent, and the manner in which the former exact such compulsory payments may be discovered via the 18-page report the Plaintiff has repeatedly filed…with the GPD, the DA, and the New Hampshire Housing Authority (upon his 2004 attempt to escape isolation and abuse in Maine). If the Court seems flummoxed by Mr. Blackhouse‟s allegations, an evaluation of the nuts-and-bolts workings of the Augusta Housing Authority – including analysis of the arrantly unlawful activity conducted by its alleged “hearing officer,” Catherine Austin – would be a good place for the Court to start its investigation.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 9 of 17

PageID #: 61

Mr. Blackhouse‟s claims are not “self-constructed;” rather, they occurred exactly in the manner in which he presents them. Indeed, the Court presents no analysis of the HealthReach abuses, including the kidnapping attempt organized with the APD, nor does it address the money-laundering scheme as presented in the TRO, nor the criminal activity manifest from the paper trail and evident at first glance. Given these circumstances, the Court has no basis for making sweeping dismissals of the Plaintiff‟s claims, as it does not first offer an opinion regarding the money-laundering activity that has kept him confined to Gardiner since February, 2008: such patently illegal activity – manifest upon simple review of HUD regulations already presented to the Court – require no additional explication by the Plaintiff. Indeed, expecting additional information from the Plaintiff in advance of ensuring that his standard of living meets basic standards for human rights violates his right to due process, as cited in Boddie (see above). 5 U.S.C § 706 Enables the Issuance of a Mandate (e.g., to the FBI) While individuals cannot bring charges under the Federal kidnapping statute, the Court can compel the government to direct its various departments and agencies – such as the FBI – to take action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (for example, when charges – such as kidnapping – should be, but have not been, brought). While Mr. Blackhouse does claim against agencies of the United States, his status as a complainant would not – presumably – prohibit the United States from directing agency action via a Writ of Mandamus, nor would it prevent the Court from specifically directing the FBI or the US DOJ from initiating an investigation. Indeed, the FBI has inquired about matters relative to the “P-6” abuses and yet has been unable to research the matter effectively in part because unresolved HUD-related claims obstruct their stated interest in the fraudulent stock-activity preceding the 2002 abduction.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 10 of 17

PageID #: 62

The Court should afford Mr. Blackhouse the opportunity to offer witness testimony regarding activity conducted by Chief Toman and Ms. Daoust absent their orchestrated harassment, which includes disability-based terrorizing, wrongful confinement, and the unlawful denial of victim‟s assistance. He is not “free to leave” Gardiner if Mr. Toman and Ms. Daoust – in concert with the criminal operators of the Augusta Housing Authority, and the previous owner of 235 Water Street (who threatened Mr. Blackhouse with assault) – have conspired to embezzle over $100,000 from Federal (HUD) coffers during a period in which they repeatedly attempt to alter the outcomes of various lawsuits, subjecting the Plaintiff to on-site stalking by GPD officers who know about but criminally refuse to prosecute Mr. Blackhouse‟s APD assault victimization. Additionally, forcing him to respond to the years-long violent crime victimization with civil actions – by refusing to protect the Plaintiff from criminal activity – constitutes a full-fledged due process violation, and the Plaintiff states as much in his initial complaint. Civil actions must not replace criminal charges, where charges need to be filed, especially when such actions are produced under duress (e.g., in the absence of due process enforcement). Habeas corpus As the Plaintiff remains wrongfully confined by way of housing fraud not addressed in the Court‟s response, he does qualify for habeas corpus protection pursuant to both Federal and State law. He would have to possess the financial means to relocate out of harm‟s way for the Court to consider him free of kidnapping victimization; as stated, he cannot choose to leave because money-laundering activity prevents him from safely relocating to a new residence. The Court does not convincingly disprove that the Defendants violate Mr. Blackhouse‟s habeas corpus rights, as any individual held against his or her will – whether in a penitentiary setting or otherwise – is a victim of such violations. Therefore, it is not at all “obvious” – as the Court


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 11 of 17

PageID #: 63

states in its dismissal recommendation – that Mr. Blackhouse does not require habeas corpus protection. Indeed, the Defendants wrongfully confine him to an undersized apartment to which corrupt local police have criminal access during a period in which same Defendants also: a) attempt to steer Mr. Blackhouse‟s efforts to file various lawsuits and criminal charges; b) maintain unlawful ties to APS and AMHI; and, c) abet the embezzlement of Section 8 money from Federal coffers. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Ku Klux Klan” act) While the Court suggests that the Plaintiff does not provide an actionable cause pursuant to the Federal statute cited, key documents, at this writing, continue to go unexamined by the Court; furthermore, some of the alleged activity does not require proof of a “conspiracy” or that Mr. Blackhouse demonstrate a “plausible suggestion” of one. The Court also failed to address the Chief of Police‟s refusal to investigate a newl y-discovered kidnapping attempt (i.e., HealthReach), a cover-up which occurred astride Ms. Daoust‟s unlawful withholding of victim‟s assistance and in the context of criminal activity manifest from the Plaintiff‟s report regarding abuse of process (e.g., at the AHA) and obstruction of justice engineered by the operators of the State‟s “wrap-around” emergency housing program. While the Plaintiff re-asserts the presence of a conspiracy, proving such a conspiracy is made problematic by ongoing criminal activity designed to conceal it. Finally, neither Mr. Blackhouse nor the Court would need to prove a “conspiracy” per se to pursue remedy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Ku Klux Klan” act): the presence of criminal activity unaddressed by local law enforcement – and the fact of Mr. Blackhouse‟s wrongful confinement to 235 Water Street – is all the Court requires to initiate a posthaste Federal investigation under this statute.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 12 of 17

PageID #: 64

Damage to the Plaintiff, Including Threats of Re-Incarceration Waldron also concerns itself with the likelihood that the injunction requester will sustain losses in the absence of the proposed relief. However, in its dismissal recommendation, the Court expresses no interest in this crucial element of the “amalgam of factors” discussed. At this writing, the Plaintiff suffers from a permanent, memetically-instilled startle-response; multiple, clinical-level phobias; extreme social anxiety; sleep disorders, including seizures and paralysis; and an autonomic nervous response system altered by both the originating abuse at “P-6” and over eight (8) years of exposure to debilitating, commonplace triggers. The disabling fear clinically induced by the criminal operators of “P-6” and other facilities consists of combat-level, insidiously-embedded terror designed to erode instinctive and deeply ingrained elements of the individual‟s psychological and personality matrices (such as the parent-child bond), and is designed to cause suicidal ideation and permanently-ingrained terror of re-incarceration.2 Indeed, a simple investigation by the Court would reveal that the syndicate – as it presently commandeers both the Gardiner Police Department and the area restaurants into which the perpetrators launder the extorted, HUD-prohibited rent – would and do feel free to operate under the assumption that at any point – i.e., one at which Mr. Blackhouse openly opposes the ongoing abuse and confinement conducted by the Gardiner Police Department – they could have Mr. Blackhouse abducted and once again conveyed into torture and confinement.3 Indeed the


These facilities – with which the Defendants maintain unlawful ties – are, at present, protected by longstanding public representations that the targeted victims of carefully engineered abuse are recipients of authentic medical practice and conceal the unlawful elision of the central precept of habeas corpus: that is, the right of every citizen to be free from seizure by the government or private organizations. 3 Indeed, Federal investigators and the Court would find an appalling disjunction between law and practice based upon analysis of MRSA 22, Chapter 958 and how APS functions relative to this public law. While Mr. Blackhouse can help the Court investigate the situation – and assist in both protecting citizens and enforcing the law – he cannot extend such assistance while wrongfully confined and at risk of confinement-based shock, mental deterioration, and a target of reprisal kidnapping efforts.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 13 of 17

PageID #: 65

existence of 6 Church Street as an operational base for the abetment and concealment of unConstitutional activity, including facility-based torture, should be challenged by the court quo warranto. Without exaggeration, the City of Gardiner operates as a stalag-style concentration camp with Mr. Blackhouse as the only prisoner, his wrongful confinement and human trafficking victimization supported by the patently untenable conceit that the abuse against him occurs in error, or is “self-constructed,” despite: a) the statistical near-impossibility that anyone would ever become “accidentally” confined, especially for as long as Mr. Blackhouse has been confined (and, in reality, trafficked); and, b) the presence of criminal activity one cannot interpret as anything other than such in any event (e.g., the AHA‟s representation, in a letter to Mr. Blackhouse, that Federal ADA accessibility regulations are not among its local “policy”). Note the kidnapping conspiracy implicit within the GPD‟s orchestrated harassment of the Plaintiff, whom they wrongfully confine to an undersized apartment during a period in which the Department maintains unlawful ties to the mob-run locked facilities that Maine DHHS continues to operate. However, the deliberately-advanced likelihood that ongoing police abuse will trigger a response from the City of Gardiner‟s PTSD-afflicted captive (i.e., a self-defense or harassmenttriggered response ostensibly enabling them to pursue commitment procedures, however unlawfully) is not the only kidnapping conspiracy presently underway: as reported in his 9/15/2010 complaint, the Plaintiff discovered an attempt to have him committed to a renditioning (torture) facility to retaliate against him for refusing to drop criminal charges against the operators of “P-6.” Astonishingly, the architects of this plan kept detailed notes of their criminal activity by way of “patient records” generated by the “mental health” service “team” that invaded his home subsequent to his attempt to bring criminal charges against his Maine Medical Center perpetrators in 2002.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 14 of 17

PageID #: 66

Preponderance of Discoverable Evidence Indeed, the frequency with which the Defendants/conspirators deny Mr. Blackhouse transportation, public assistance, and victim‟s assistance during periods in which he both: a) clearly qualifies for such assistance; b) qualifies as fully disabled and homeless according to Federal guidelines; and, c) actively applies for such assistance would emerge as remarkably salient upon juxtaposition to the public assistance population as a whole, his background as a scholar and critic of the “mental health” social services model notwithstanding. However, a statistical calculation of alleged events would also yield an enormous unlikelihood that a Phi Beta Kappa of Amherst College would “just happen” to become permanently disabled, then relegated to an isolated existence on SSDI, and then subsist for five (5) years entirely without a disability-related Federal housing subsidy…or valid driver‟s license. That retaliatory, enforced poverty, engineered lack of transportation, and ongoing, fraud-based peonage has characterized Mr. Blackhouse‟s day-to-day life since his deliberate disabling at Maine Medical Center in 2002 is consistent with his status as an eight-year victim of human trafficking. The Defendants deliberately deny various forms of transportation and housing assistance exactly because such assistance would enable him to file criminal charges against the offenders. Mr. Blackhouse is in immediate danger and a victim of organized criminal activity: both of these truths should be obvious to and actionable by the Court. The Plaintiff does not subscribe to an over-played political agenda, nor should the Court construe his presentation as flippant or emptily political: the abuse conducted against him at Maine Medical Center – under the guise of authentic psychiatric treatment – does, in fact, appear to have emerged from mind control and abuse-based ideologies developed by the founders of modern U.S. psychiatry, who were influenced by the products of medical torture, e.g., as enacted against Jews, homosexuals, and


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 15 of 17

PageID #: 67

other targeted victims by the Nazis: indeed, Mr. Blackhouse was reporting the presence of Soviet-style brainwashing techniques within the unlawful confines of Maine Medical Center as far back as 2003, and to anyone who would listen. That torture, mind-control, and other forms of abuse shaped modern psychiatry is both a matter of public record and an alarming component of the CIA‟s MKULTRA files. As such, any discrediting of Mr. Blackhouse as “mentally ill” – by way of the neo-fascist “behavioral health” services model conceived by State operators, including psychiatrists and the corrupt local law enforcement on whom they rely – should also inspire concerted interest on the part of the Court.



Mr. Blackhouse remains a victim of crime kept in peril – including at risk of kidnapping and assault – while he generates documents relevant to Civil Action 10-385-B-W (now before the Court). His continued interaction with the Court first requires injunctive relief, and he once again emphasizes that the City of Gardiner‟s municipal offices – and the Gardiner Police Department – actively prevent him from receiving victim-witness assistance while abetting ongoing extortion, embezzlement, entitlement program fraud, and money-laundering activity. The Court must bring this activity to light at once: not at some undisclosed date in the future, but to the same expedited, emergent capacity that public officials – up to and including the Department of Homeland Security – would deploy upon discovering the collapse of a U.S. region‟s law enforcement infrastructure: indeed, no less than such an implosion has occurred, given this shocking instance of psychiatric lynching, government-derived torture, and the multiple years of human trafficking activity designed to conceal both.


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 16 of 17

PageID #: 68

Irrespective of the presence of readily-articulated or -discoverable “conspiracies,” evidence of criminal activity abounds. As such, the Plaintiff repeats his call for injunctive remedy as delineated in the complaint, especially so that he might articulate the manner in which un-Constitutional shock incarcerations are being conducted by a rogue medical oligarchy with apparent ties to Washington, D.C. and tax-derived resources, such as Maine‟s “behavioral health” system, both of which actively flout habeas corpus, human rights, and other indispensable components of Federal law. Finally, the presence of torture concealed as medical practice – and “easy-commitment” policies resulting in permanent injury, disability, and egregious losses to life, limb, and the security of individuals and families nationwide – pose a clear and present danger to national security, as do the systemic, fraudulent housing practices that have kept a disabled witness to U.S.-wide renditioning activity wrongfully confined and repeatedly subjected to due process violations. The consequences of Court inaction – at this juncture – are inconceivably appalling: as such, the injunctive relief requested in the victim‟s 9/15/2010 filing should be immediately granted, and a court-ordered Federal investigation initiated at once, with a paramount focus on protecting the Plaintiff‟s property and personal security rights.

Signed /s/ Eli Archer Blackhouse Eli A. Blackhouse, pro se

On November 23, 2010


Case 1:10-cv-00385-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 17 of 17

PageID #: 69

Eli A. Blackhouse (at the crime scene) 235 Water Street, Apt. 8 Gardiner, ME 04345 (207) 203-2025


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful