The following is a copy of my asylum/torture claim–my first request for assistance was to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in a foreign country, and I was granted asylum as a torture victim.
I am not an attorney, but I was able to spend time researching many of the applicable laws and court cases. If you are a targeted individual, feel free to cite any of this research if you may find it helpful. Please note that the appendices referenced are not all currently on the site–I am continuing to add more pages and will post more documentation as it becomes available.
Please accept this document as my petition for asylum. My permanent address in the United States is 9515 Beckford Ave., Northridge, CA 91324-1707, my date of birth is September 14, 1978, and my background is mainly in nonprofit and government work. My communication is directed against the United States of America; the object of my complaint is to request asylum under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) Articles 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16. This report will also identify human rights violations based on the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, violations of the United States’ constitutional laws and domestic statutes, and violations of California State law, as many of the activities pertaining to torture and ill treatment occurred in California.
This report is accurate to the best of my perceptions and memory, I have no motive to lie, and the following adds to my credibility: I completed a BA with a triple major and a 3.9 GPA at Pepperdine University and an MSc at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University; I have authored or co-authored several publications; I have written grants for government and nonprofit organizations that have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars; I passed every examination including the polygraph and background check with the United States Secret Service (USSS) to be admitted to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); the City and County of Los Angeles as well as America’s National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians deemed me capable of handling life and death situations as a lifeguard and EMT.
Facts of the Claim
I started having major problems in 2005-2006 when I was a PhD student and teaching assistant at Georgetown University. The problems included what I believe were sound effects that I heard in my home that began with sporadic knocking sounds at all hours and progressed to noises that included people screaming in the early hours of the morning when I was trying to sleep. Thus, sleep deprivation was an issue, and varied environmental manipulation occurred. These disturbances ceased through the summer months when I was no longer in Washington DC—I spent that summer working in Los Angeles and in the Czech Republic, however similar disturbances resumed when I returned to Washington DC in the fall.
In Spring 2007, I met a woman who said that her name was Elizabeth Baynard, and she and I dated for about two months—I later saw her or someone who looked very similar stalking me on several occasions. In Fall 2007, I traveled to San Francisco, as I was admitted to law school at UC Hastings. After my first week, I decided that Hastings was not the place for me, so I withdrew and left my law school ID card there—that ID card was found in front of the home where I was staying several weeks later in Sacramento, CA, thus someone wanted to make it clear that I was being followed.
Stalking, Torture, Ill Treatment, and Other Illegal Activities
In winter-summer 2008, I was working for a think tank as a professional whistleblower/journalist reporting on government abuse, fraud, and waste (see appendix A for documentation; more of my publications can be viewed here: http://www.npri.org/scholars/louis-dezseran). The unit next door to ours was supposedly vacant, but while in the office by myself I could hear what may have been more sound effects, and I was followed around and subjected to environmental manipulation such as street theater. Environmental manipulation is a form of psychological torture in that it is sensory disorientation, defined as efforts to obliterate the familiar and replace it with the strange.
After I published several articles and a short book in Las Vegas, I moved to Los Angeles in the late summer of 2008 for a job as market research manager with a company called Entertainment Partners; the gang stalking worsened. Some of the people I had seen near my former worksite in Las Vegas were periodically near my new worksite in Los Angeles, and while my supervisor gave me positive employee reviews, I was subject to harassment in my workplace and other issues including the windshield on my car being broken. After discussing these issues with my manager and human resources to no avail, I filed a complaint with America’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the company for harassment (a copy of the complaint can be provided if desired). When the company offered me money to drop my complaint, I declined, as I filed the claim only in the interest of justice.
A few days after saying I would file an EEOC complaint, Entertainment Partners put me on unpaid leave, and harassing electronic messages from an anonymous source appeared—these messages made threats including the creation of car accidents, and my family’s car was hit on the freeway by the same car twice in a row (see appendix B for documentation). In addition, on one day when I woke up, a printout of Alan Seeger’s poem, “I Have a Rendezvous With Death”, was on my kitchen table, thus someone must have entered my home while I was asleep, violating Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of the CCPR, Cal Civ Code § 646.9, Cal Penal Code § 422, and Cal Penal Code § 602.
In response to this perceived death threat, I put additional locks on my doors and I began sleeping with my bedroom door locked and barricaded. I went back to lifeguarding for several months (I saw Ms. Baynard or someone who looked very similar more than once at my beach—this person called me by name but I ignored her), and I began the process to become a USSS Special Agent Trainee. I passed the USSS written test, interview, polygraph, drug test, and background check, however after completing that process, I received an email from a USSS official stating that because I had filed a complaint with the EEOC against a former employer, I should withdraw from their application process (see appendix C for the email), which is illegal under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)9. I contacted other USSS employees and received no definite answer as to my status for months, so as a whistleblower, I forwarded that email from the USSS to my congressional representative and requested assistance; the USSS admitted me to Criminal Investigator Training Program Class 037 at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), beginning in April 2010.
Some of the people who had stalked me at my former workplaces were at the FLETC; even if these people were not those stalkers but actors that the FLETC had manufactured to look like those stalkers, then federal officials must have known what was occurring and decided not to enforce the law. Varied harassment and psychological torture occurred at that training center, for example I woke up in the morning on more than one occasion feeling light-headed with my shorts undone and the blankets off of me, and I had severe diarrhea as though some kind of medication had been administered. (Please note that I do not drink alcohol or use controlled substances that would cause me to wake up in such a state, I always slept alone in my room with the door locked, I generally eat similar foods from day to day and I had no accompanying symptoms indicative of the flu or any other ailment, thus the administration of medication is a highly likely cause of the severe diarrhea. If someone at the FLETC entered my room and administered medication, it would be pharmacological manipulation, which is psychological torture according to domestic law; the totality of these actions would also violate the CCPR’s Article 17 in that they infringed on my privacy and home area; these activities also violate the CAT’s Articles 1 and 16 in that they intimidated and coerced me, they must have been done with at least the consent and acquiescence of public officials given that no one is allowed at the FLETC without permission, and they were cruel, inhuman, degrading, and caused severe mental suffering. Also note that in Wieser v. Austria, an international court found “that the procedure of forcible undressing by the police may amount to such an invasive and potentially debasing measure that it should not be applied without a compelling reason.” El-Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia includes the following language: “any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicant’s own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.” In Tyrer v. UK, an international court found that with regard to degrading treatment: “it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others.” Also note the following from The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu: “Sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact… Sexual violence falls within the scope of “other inhumane acts”, set forth in Article 3(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, “outrages upon personal dignity,” set forth in Article 4(e) of the Statute, and “serious bodily or mental harm,” set forth in Article 2(2)(b) of the Statute…”).
As I would walk around the FLETC on my next day of classes, other trainees would stare at me and make comments such as, “they said that we aren’t supposed to laugh at him”, or “they got him, they’re done now, it’s over”, however the same thing happened again, which is cultural and sexual humiliation, both of which are also forms of psychological torture. In response, I contacted a human resources official in the USSS Los Angeles Field Office as well as the USSS Ombudsman in Washington DC (documentation can be provided if desired)—neither offered tangible assistance, and both told me to continue in the training and follow all orders. Two days before the end of the program, it sounded like there were voices outside my dorm room speaking about a planned attack on me, and in another instance I was in a public bathroom and it sounded like at least three people outside were talking about a similar attack (these are a few examples—I was targeted on many occasions), so given that the FLETC dorms are part of my workplace and this activity is illegal (whether it is by people at the FLETC or the result of sound effects) in any workplace in America, I reported what I heard to administrators, who terminated me from my job the next day despite the fact that I had earned high scores as a trainee. (I was the first USSS trainee that year to earn a place on the FLETC fitness wall, I shot 290 out of 300 to qualify as an expert shooter, I averaged close to 90% on the academic exams, and my group passed every group examination with no need for remediation—I was in no danger of failing the FLETC course and thus I had no motive to lie.) Also of note, on my flight back to Los Angeles I saw several of the people (or very similar likenesses) who had stalked me, and while at the airport, one man walked past me and said, “$39,000 each” and then walked away, suggesting graft. Even if all of this was manufactured, making me feel physically threatened in my workplace is illegal and another example of psychological torture. These activities are also human rights violations according to the CCPR’s Article 25, as because to my knowledge I was the only employee at the FLETC subject to this activity, because I was terminated after making a whistleblower complaint, because the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) did not conduct a proper investigation, and because I was barred from even presenting my case before the Merit Standards Protection Board (MSPB), I was not given equal access to public service in contrast to the United States’ general proclamations to the United Nations. Also of note, I completed all but the final day and a half of training at the FLETC and while there were lectures on ethics and officer liability, there was not specific training with regard to torture, which violates the CAT’s Article 10, the CCPR’s Article 2, and shows rampant disregard for the Committee Against Torture’s 2006 communication to the United States.
As a whistleblower, I appealed to other USSS officials and they were unwilling to assist (see appendix D for documentation); I contacted my congressional representative and senators and they wrote that they support civil rights but offered no further assistance; the MSPB would not hear my case; the OSC’s investigation was so poor that its official correspondence did not even recognize that I had been terminated from the USSS—they wrote that I had resigned despite my report to them stating that I was terminated and even included my termination letter (see appendix E for documentation); this violates the CAT’s Articles 12 and 13, which mandate that competent authorities perform a prompt and impartial investigation (while I did not state the word “torture” in my complaint, such is not necessary per Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia), and violates the CCRP’s Articles 1 and 2, Section 2(a)-2(b), as I was not offered an effective remedy for my rights and freedoms that were violated by those acting in an official capacity, and this remedy was not determined by a competent administrative authority. Furthermore, the OSC official who was supposed to complete the investigation never called me for a statement wherein I could have articulated this information, which is another policy violation, and while I did make a point of that in my response to the OSC’s initial communication (see appendix F) and I tried to call that official to make a statement, I still was never given that opportunity. Furthermore, I requested that a more senior-level official at the OSC examine my complaint, but the same official sent me the OSC’s final correspondence closing my case. I later contacted private employment attorneys for assistance, and while several told me that the USSS had acted illegally, no government organization or private attorney was willing to help.
After being terminated by the USSS, while I was at my home in the Los Angeles area there were occasions where I would wake up with the same light-headed feeling that I remembered from the FLETC;  the floor of my bedroom had a brown substance on it resembling mud or feces, and I would again have diarrhea. The next time that I was in a public place, a random person who was walking by would say that “they” got me, that “it” is over, and that “they” are done with me. However, on one morning I woke up light-headed with a cut between the cheeks of my derriere, a larger hole cut at the top, and pain in my testicles—there is no natural act I could have committed that would have produced that kind of injury without my knowledge, thus someone must have entered my home, utilized some method to alter my consciousness, and cut me—a clear act of torture under state, domestic, and international law as well as a human rights violation under the CCPR’s Articles 7 and 17. Shortly after that, I was in a public place, and I was again told that “they” got me, that “they” are done with me, and that “it” is over. For physical safety, I left America and traveled through other countries and I periodically saw people who looked like those who had stalked me at the FLETC and in other locations. On one morning, I woke up with severe redness on my shins and part of my upper legs; because I had spent the previous day in my hotel room working on my computer, because I had no substances in my room that would cause such a condition, and because to my knowledge no one else in the hotel had similar injuries, it is more likely than not that this was an intentionally inflicted injury and thus another instance of torture. Again, after this a random person in a public place said that “they” won, that “it” is over, and that “they” are done with me.
I flew to Los Angeles for a few days in Summer 2011 to complete my annual physical, run errands, get a few personal items, and attend to other matters. Several people followed and harassed me everywhere that I went, whether I was on foot or driving—the cars that followed me looked similar to the cars that were used for training at the FLETC, and each time that I would park my car, even if it was at the back of an empty parking lot, they would park nearby and most would sit in their cars without leaving until I drove away. One day, I regained consciousness in my home with slits in my ears, a cut on my lower lip, a hole that looked like a needle stick in a major vein on my left arm, swelling accompanied by a strange feeling in my testicles, and a major cut on the side of my head—the side of my head remained swollen for weeks; clearly, such injuries were the result of violent intruders. Later, three men who were stalking me made threats against my family. (In the next several months, I had symptoms that included a lack of reading comprehension, a severe decrease in my memory, severely hampered decision making abilities, drooling, incontinence, fatigue, dizziness, problems maintaining a proper level of consciousness, flashes in my vision, blurred vision, ringing in my ears, dizziness, strange sleeping patterns, periodic paralysis, varied infections that have required antibiotics including epididymitis [documentation can be provided if desired; please note that a doctor told me that this ailment is mainly sexually transmitted, however I have not had intercourse in years and thus it is likely that I was intentionally infected with this and other ailments], edema, changes in general bodily functions such as more frequent hiccups and yawning, a periodic inability to control my facial expressions, sensations of or similar to electric shocks possibly through the use of nonlethal weapons, nightmares, depression, anxiety, a much higher rate of colds and flu-like symptoms than I have experienced in the past, and in physical examinations my blood pressure was measured almost twenty beats higher than usual systolic and almost ten beats higher than usual diastolic—many of these symptoms have subsided, however all of them are evidence of torture and human rights violations.)
In addition, two people who looked somewhat like my mother and father were at my family’s home and they said that they were my mother and father, however they acted much differently and they were unable to answer basic questions such as where I went to kindergarten, yet they did sign documents to transfer about $70,000 in funds out of my bank accounts (documentation can be provided). I went to the Los Angeles Police Department’s Devonshire station to ask for help, but the officers said that they would not investigate, did not file a police report, and did not offer assistance other than to call me a liar in mocking manner and to tell me that if I do not feel safe in my home, I should sleep at a local park; this is difficult to hear from officers at the police station down the street from which I have played basketball since I was 7 years old (it is highly likely that my real parents were replaced by criminals and thus a prompt and impartial investigation was necessary, however no law enforcement organization was willing to investigate despite the fact that it would not take much effort to confirm those people’s identities via fingerprinting or some other such method, and probable cause existed). Further, stalking at this level and the concurrent actions against me and my family are human rights violations per the CCRP’s Article 17 Point 1, as they interfered with my privacy and family; the LAPD refusing to assist is a violation in that I was not offered the services available to co-nationals, and is a human rights violation per the CCPR’s Article 17 Point 2, Article 23, Article 26, and a violation of the CAT’s Articles 12 and 13.
For safety, I left the country. I flew to Mexico City before flying to London with layovers in Dallas and Toronto. I showed my passport to the employee at Immigration in Dallas and he gave me back my original passport with other items. Later, I looked through these items and noticed that there was a second passport with a picture that looked somewhat like me but with a different name and other information (please note that the use of false documents is also psychological torture); I believed it may have been an attempt to plant false evidence or attempted identity theft with assistance from government employees, so I contacted airport officials at the nearest telephone and stated that I had been given another passport in addition to mine. I dropped that passport off at the proper office and boarded my plane; the employees who accepted that passport told me that it was a mistake, and once again a random person said that “they” got me, that “it” was over, and that “they” are done with me. Other comments have included thanking me for signing “the paperwork”, however I have not been specifically told or shown what I allegedly signed.
I spent a few weeks in England and then traveled through other countries in an attempt to avoid the varied criminal activities, however similar activities continued including regaining consciousness with a brown substance that resembled mud or feces smeared on my face; periodically regaining consciousness with that substance smeared on the walls, bed sheets, and bathroom of the place where I was staying; regaining consciousness with my shorts undone and diarrhea similar to the events at the FLETC; regaining consciousness with the aforementioned severe redness on my legs on a few other occasions; feeling a sensation of electric shocks; and having a man in what looked like a police or security guard uniform cut my arm with a blade and yell, “Money!” After many of these incidents, another person in a public place would walk by and say that “they” got me, that “they” won, and that “they” are done with me. Obviously, if a group stalks me, creates incidents, makes videos of those incidents, or possibly manufactures videos that are entirely false, varied criminal activities are occurring, and my life can look drastically distorted, however the causes for my report are the cumulative affects of torture and ill treatment, the aftermath of these activities, and the American government’s complicity, acquiescence, and occasional participation.
Request for Assistance
My request for assistance pertains to the CAT, the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, findings by international courts, and academic research:
The following are torture and/or ill treatment:
- Acts of violence: cuts between the cheeks of my derriere; acts creating severe redness on my legs; the slitting of my ears; acts causing pain in my testicles; cuts to my lip, the side of my head, and my arm;
- Sensory disorientation: varied environmental manipulation;
- Death threats against me: breaking into my home and leaving the poem, “I Have a Rendezvous with Death” on my kitchen table;
- Threats against my family;
- The replacement of my parents with criminals;
- Sexual and cultural humiliation: regaining consciousness at the FLETC and on subsequent occasions with my shorts undone, the blankets off of me, severe diarrhea, and ridicule the following day; being cut between the cheeks of my derriere;
- Manipulation of my level of consciousness: I regained consciousness with cuts on my body on multiple occasions—when in my right mind, I would not let someone cut my body, then not remember it unless my level of consciousness was manipulated; it should be noted that there are drugs such as benzodiazepines, scopolamine, and flunitrazepam that can place a victim in a hypnotic state and produce amnesia—if placed in a hypnotic state, a victim could look as though he is cooperating with actions with which no reasonable person would cooperate; no legitimate doctor would operate on someone for free without notice, without a medical consultation, and without giving that person records of the surgery; thus any prospective surgery would have been illegal, thus torture occurred. In addition, the following must be considered:
- Some kind of pharmacological or other manipulation is highly likely to have been utilized to render the severe redness on my legs;
- Beration and degradation: using varied insults to humiliate me;
- Use of falsified documents or reports: the additional passport given to me at the airport in Dallas was likely the intentional use of false documentation;
- Cultivation of anxiety and despair: telling me that these incidents are over only to have more incidents occur;
- Induced desperation: I contacted law enforcement and government organizations several times for assistance to no avail, creating a sense of learned helplessness;
- Psychological torture can create symptoms including delirium, psychosis, regression, cognitive impairment, disorientation, confusion, anxiety disorders, agitation, terror, despair, loneliness, depression, and loss of personality—those who experience psychological torture develop equally high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder as those who experience physical torture, and survivors rate the two kinds of stress equally;  I have suffered and/or continue to suffer from several symptoms, thus there are substantial long-term effects.
In addition, at least some torture and ill treatment was committed by or with government acquiescence and complicity:
- Some of those who stalked me had access to the FLETC—permission is required to be on the premises, thus government officials were at least in complicity with and acquiesced to their activities (or if the stalkers were not there in person, FLETC officials knew enough to manufacture these people’s likenesses without rendering me assistance, proving acquiescence and complicity);
- The following psychological torture activities occurred at the FLETC: sensory disorientation including environmental manipulation, sexual and cultural humiliation, manipulation of my level of consciousness, beration and degradation, cultivation of despair, and induced desperation; pharmacological manipulation is likely to have occurred at the FLETC;
- According to the CAT’s General Comments, if state officials know that non-state officials are committing torture or ill treatment and state officials fail to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish these private actors, the state’s inaction is encouragement and/or de facto permission—I reported these activities several times and I have not been given proof that state officials have made tangible efforts to prevent, properly investigate, prosecute, or punish anyone for these acts;
- The CCPR states that “the positive obligations on States Parties to ensure Covenant rights will only be fully discharged if individuals are protected by the State, not just against violations of Covenant rights by its agents, but also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of Covenant rights in so far as they are amenable to application between private persons or entities. There may be circumstances in which a failure to ensure Covenant rights as required by Article 2 would give rise to violations by States Parties of those rights, as a result of States Parties’ permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities”; in my case, the state did not exercise due diligence;
- At Immigration in Dallas, a government employee likely gave me a false passport by intention;
- The CAT’s Article 3, Paragraph 2 states that when examining a torture claim, authorities should take into account any consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights by the state in question; America does not maintain a comprehensive list of torture or ill treatment allegations or findings, but the following are some egregious examples:
- The United States allowed slavery for decades and slaves were tortured;
- At least 4,742 people were lynched in the United States from 1882-1968 and government employees at times contributed to the practice; anti-lynching legislation was repeatedly defeated in Congress;
- American officials utilized torture during the Vietnam War and an estimated 46,000 extrajudicial executions occurred;
- American policy and support are said to have enabled the Khmer Rouge to commit torture and genocide;
- American officials trained, lent support to, and presided over torture in varied Latin American countries through the Cold War;
- American law enforcement officials have tortured American citizens: Jon Burge tortured at least 135 Americans, some as young as 13 years old, from 1972-1991—activities included beatings with telephone books, suffocation with typewriter covers, electric shocks, handcuffing detainees and burning them, and utilizing mock executions;
- American military personnel, CIA officers, linguists, interrogators, and contractors paid by the American government at Abu Ghraib utilized torture that included pouring phosphoric liquid on the skin, forced nudity, extreme temperatures, beatings with chairs and broom sticks, denial of proper medical care, sodomy, sleep deprivation, starvation, and suffocation—senior officials were aware of and did not prevent the torture;
- At Guantanamo Bay, military and CIA employees utilized torture techniques including extreme temperatures, forced nudity, sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, and threats by military working dogs, the combination of which created life-threatening conditions;
- The CIA has operated interrogation sites around the world where human rights officials have stated that varied forms of torture occurred;
- While not all are torture victims, 4,456 refugees and 432 asylum seekers worldwide today originated from the United States of America;
- In addition to issues pertaining to torture, actions by or at least with the acquiescence and complicity of government employees at the FLETC and possibly elsewhere amounted to psychological operations; it is against US Department of Defense policy for government employees to conduct psychological operations that mislead the audience, it is also a violation for government employees to conduct psychological operations in the United States or to target American citizens with psychological operations;
Responses to Possible Counterarguments
First, if it is to be argued that my claims are due to mental illness, it must be recognized that prior to my attendance at the FLETC, USSS background investigators interviewed and in most cases personally visited my former supervisors and several of my coworkers at the jobs that I have held; my former landlords and roommates at the places where I have lived; my teachers and classmates at the educational institutions that I have attended, and so forth; I also had to pass a polygraph and varied other examinations—the USSS conducts detailed background checks for potential employees. If I had mental health issues before attending the FLETC, then these investigators would have identified that and I would not have been able to legally pass the federal government’s background investigation. Furthermore, on my last day at the FLETC, two people interviewed me, one of whom I believe said she was a psychologist and the other of whom said she was a victim advocate, and they did not refer me to counseling or other health care, thus if the problem is mental illness, then it would have been their responsibility to rehabilitate me after my experiences at the FLETC per the CAT’s Article 14. Thus, I am either sane and my perceptions of having been subject to torture and ill treatment in violation of the CAT’s Articles 1 and 16 are accurate, or I am insane and such insanity could not have been present before my attendance at the FLETC and thus the CAT’s Article 14 has been violated. For documentation, please see the OSC’s response to my complaint about events that occurred at the FLETC in appendix D: the first two pages of that document have statements such as, “on two separate occasions you felt, despite solid proof, that you might be the target…” This verbiage is paramount, as the OSC did not write, “you lied”; it did not write, “you were an actor”; thus the OSC acknowledged my interpretations but it did not refer me to rehabilitation—again, if the OSC, USSS, and FLETC’s opinion is that I became delusional and was seeing and hearing things as a result of the occurrences at that training center, then it would be their responsibility to refer me to a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other therapeutic professional, or to make health care possible for me to procure myself, however they also chose to quickly cancel my medical insurance. In addition, please note that the OSC never detailed the “solid proof” against my assertions despite my asking for more information on that alleged proof in my response in appendix E (as well as in subsequent Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests), which does not accord with varied findings in courts of international law mandating that the State cooperate and provide proper evidence.
Second, if it was argued that I am only a victim of gang stalking, environmental manipulation, and sensory disorientation, it must be recognized that environmental manipulation of this frequency, duration, and intensity would be prolonged and calculated procedures to profoundly disrupt the personality and thus would meet the legal definition of psychological torture under 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2)(B). In addition, I was subject to the alteration of my level of consciousness (psychological torture), likely pharmacological manipulation (psychological torture), beration and degradation (psychological torture), the likely intentional use of false documents (psychological torture), threats of physical violence against me including death threats (psychological torture), threats of physical violence against my family (psychological torture), the likely replacement of my parents with criminals (psychological torture), sexual and cultural humiliation (psychological torture), induced desperation (psychological torture), activities causing swelling and pain in my testicles (physical torture), the possible intentional creation of ailments such as epididymitis (physical torture), and actual physical violence such as cutting my skin (psychological torture, or physical torture depending on legal interpretation)— per Point 201 in the UNHCR Handbook which emphasizes cumulative effects, and decisions by international courts, these activities are torture and ill treatment given the following: (1) theycaused severe mental pain and suffering; (2) they occurred intentionally; (3) they intimidated and coerced me; (4) because I was terminated from the FLETC the day after reporting these activities, my law enforcement career was dependant on allowing these activities to continue, rendering me powerless in my ability to end the torture and ill treatment; (5) the duration of these activities was extensive given that they continued over several years; (6) they have had a lasting impact on my personality; (7) they were highly degrading; (8) they must have occurred with the acquiescence and complicity if not the active participation of government officials. If it was argued that I did not respond to these activities in the same way as other torture victims, research has found that people respond to torture in different ways—if someone responds to torture by shrieking and crying, then that person is a torture victim; if a different person responds to the same torture activities by going into shock, then that person is a torture victim as well. However, the American government has not enforced any laws, making an asylum claim appropriate.
Third, if it was argued that I unknowingly consented to any of these activities, it must be recognized that with regard to torture and/or ill treatment, my rights under California State Law, the US Constitution, and international law are non-derogable. Further, the CCPR’s Article 17 pertaining to human rights as applied to the home, family, and privacy cannot be diminished either. Even further, if there was some kind of form on file calling for me to be a victim of these crimes, then it must be recognized that all valid contracts must have a legal object and that many of these activities are illegal. Yet even further, many of the activities pertaining to torture and ill treatment occurred in California, where state law does not mandate proof that suffering occurred for an activity to be torture, however law enforcement has systemically chosen not to enforce these laws, making a CAT claim appropriate. Finally, if these activities are argued to be legal in America, then it is that country from which I need asylum.
Fourth, if it was argued that I was only being investigated, these acts have involved illegal activities. To give examples, investigating could include getting a valid search warrant and looking through my home while I am away, following me to the places that I frequent and watching me, typing my name into an electronic search engine and viewing the available information, or interviewing the people with whom I interact. However, following me to the places that I frequent and not just watching me but harassing me, using sound effects to alter my emotions, or entering my home while I am asleep and leaving things for me to view when I awaken would be stalking me (as well as other crimes), as such would cause terror in any reasonable person, and would violate my right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, if videos were produced or some types of surveillance were utilized such as reading my emails, such would be a felony as well as business fraud if a private investigator or anyone else receiving any kind of compensation for such videos is involved, however these laws have not been enforced, making an asylum claim appropriate.
Fifth, if it was argued that I cannot prove the cause for this torture and ill treatment, this question requires a two-tiered answer that meets the CAT’s parameters—the first tier would pertain to the immediate cause for a given act of torture and ill treatment, and the second tier would pertain to the overarching causes for all of the torture and ill treatment that has occurred over the years. Each act of torture and ill treatment that occurred, for example, at the FLETC (namely acts of psychological torture such as hearing sound effects related to physical threats on multiple occasions and waking up with my shorts undone, the blankets off of me, having severe diarrhea the next day, and being subject to related ridicule) was meant for intimidation and coercion. With regard to the second tier answer to the causation question, I cannot be entirely sure of the overarching purpose behind the totality of the acts of torture and ill treatment—as stated, when I was at the airport waiting for my flight from the FLETC back to Los Angeles on the day before I was told that I would be terminated as a USSS Special Agent Trainee, a man walked by me and said, “$39,000 each” and then walked away, insinuating graft and thus money would be a highly likely cause, however this man did not identify himself as someone who was affiliated with the company against which I filed an EEOC claim, as someone whose financial or other interests may have been damaged by my publications as a professional whistleblower, as someone who may have been paid by the woman who claimed to be Ms. Baynard, as someone who had an interest in harming other members of my family, and so forth. Given the American government’s lack of law enforcement despite my requests, an asylum claim is appropriate.
Sixth, if it was argued that my problem is with one person or a small group of people and thus I only need a restraining order, given the lack of law enforcement and associated acquiescence and complicity to torture and ill treatment, the solution cannot be limited to a restraining order given that a restraining order that the police would likely not enforce would be as ineffective as my government’s torture and other statutes that the police have not enforced. Further, my problems deal with repeated torture and ill treatment, some of which occurred at the FLETC and were likely at the hands of federal employees—I cannot get a blanket restraining order against so many people, thus an asylum claim is appropriate.
Seventh, if it was argued that this report is unbelievable, I found it unbelievable when a USSS human resources official sent me an email telling me that I should drop out of their application process because I filed an EEOC claim against a former employer, but please see appendix C for documentation. I found it unbelievable when the OSC sent me an official correspondence making it clear that they did not know that I was terminated in response to my whistleblower complaint, but please see appendices E and F for documentation. I found it unbelievable when I was subject to violence and no law enforcement or other organization offered assistance, but this occurred. I found it unbelievable when 13 USSS employees among others were implicated in hiring 20 prostitutes in Columbia and caused an international scandal; when two DEA agents used agency blackberries to facilitate and later destroy evidence of an encounter between a USSS agent and a prostitute; when a USSS Officer assigned to Vice President Biden’s residence was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in his custody; when a senior USSS Agent who kept his extramarital affair with a Mexican woman secret from the agency committed suicide during an investigation of his behavior; when the USSS let imposters who wanted to be on a reality show into a White House state dinner; when a USSS employee mistakenly left his gun in an airplane’s lavatory; when a USSS Officer was arrested for passing out due to drunkenness on a Miami street corner; and when a USSS employee engaged in a bar fight against members of the US military assigned to the same security detail. I found it unbelievable when an Associated Press FOIA request unveiled a complaint by a female USSS employee that she was sexually assaulted by a male USSS employee; when that FOIA revealed complaints that USSS agents were publishing pornography, leaking sensitive information, utilizing illegal wiretaps, and when a USSS employee was implicated in an FBI investigation of a prostitution ring. I also found it unbelievable when a USSS employee allegedly solicited a prostitute who turned out to be an undercover law enforcement officer (the USSS perpetrator was driving a marked agency vehicle at the time); and when a FOIA revealed complaints of USSS employees burglarizing a home while carrying a firearm, discharging a firearm during an argument with an unnamed person, embezzling public money, and wandering nude around an apartment complex on videotape on two occasions,however each issue is documented by credible mainstream news sources. In fact, USSS employee’s behavior has been such that the agency recently developed policies mandating that chaperones from the Office of Professional Responsibility accompany them on many trips to enforce on and off-duty conduct rules. Furthermore and directly related to the believability issue, it has been argued and foundthat when torture allegations occur, the burden of proof is on the State and it is the State’s responsibility to provide evidence, however despite formal complaints, cases filed, and FOIA requests submitted, I have not been given proof from the State that any of my assertions are false, but rather my assertions have been ignored or ridiculed, making an asylum claim appropriate.
Eighth, if it was argued that my risk of being tortured is not personal and present, I have not been notified that any arrests have been made per V.L. v. Switzerland or the CCPR guidelines, leaving substantial doubt that the authorities would take the necessary measures to fully protect me from future harm. I have received varied threats including death threats in the past, and there is no proof that such threats are now void. Per A.A.C. v. Sweden, torture and ill treatment activities occurred recently, and because they occurred the last two times that I was in America, and because that country has made few pertinent reforms to its policing policies or agencies (other than the USSS’ new chaperone policy) since these activities occurred, there is no reason to believe that the state complicity with, acquiescence to, and possible occasional participation in torture and ill treatment will permanently cease. In fact, there is only reason to believe that American law enforcement’s behavior has become worse rather than better recently.
Steps Taken to Exhaust Domestic Remedies
The domestic remedies that I have attempted have been unsuccessful:
- I requested help from FLETC officials: they did not assist and fired me from my job;
- I requested help while at the FLETC from the USSS Ombudsman and from a USSS human resources official at the Los Angeles field office to no avail;
- I later requested assistance from higher-level USSS officials and they did not assist;
- I contacted the EEOC regarding the activities at Entertainment Partners but the EEOC was ineffective and would not give me information on their investigation;
- I contacted my senators regarding varied illegal activities, and each sent me a letter stating that they support civil rights, but they did not assist;
- I contacted my congressional member regarding varied illegal activities, and his office offered no tangible assistance;
- I requested assistance from the MSPB and they would not allow me to present my case;
- I contacted the watchdog OSC, which ignored some of my complaints and told me that at least some violations occurred, but they would not take any substantive action;
- I contacted the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding some of the occurrences at the FLETC, and they did not return my messages;
- I visited an LAPD station and they ridiculed me and refused to file a police report;
- I filed several FOIA requests to garner information and in some cases I filed FOIA appeals but was not given much helpful information, denying my right to the truth; I communicated with the Office of Government Information Systems (OGIS) about the lack of information provided regarding my FOIA requests, and while they opened cases and they stated that government agencies broke FOIA policies, OGIS is statutorily unable to take any action other than mediation;
- I sent an abridged version of this report by email to the Los Angeles FBI Office and I received no reply; I went in person to the US Consulate in Hong Kong to give a copy of my report to the FBI officials there, however the consulate’s security officer met me at the entrance to the building and said he would deliver the report to the FBI officials but he would not allow me to speak with them or enter that part of the Consulate (which is an issue with access to competent authorities per the CAT’s Article 13); I sent my report to the FBI’s Washington DC Office by email, however their reply was that they would not let me know whether they would open a case (see appendix G); this is egregious given that the CAT’s Articles 12 and 13 mandate a prompt and impartial investigation; per the CAT’s Article 22, I have not contacted other government organizations given that they would be unlikely to provide effective relief in a timely manner.
An opinionated editorial by Jimmy Carter, former American President and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, stated the following: “The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights… As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.” President Carter wrote that the United States of America’s policies “are now violating at least 10 of the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights’] 30 articles, including the ‘prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.’” Using language that directly addresses civil liberties and civil rights in the United States, President Carter wrote that American “law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.” I have been subject to many of the human rights violations about which President Carter wrote, and the following summarizes my complaints:
- CAT Article 1: Several acts of torture occurred; the government did not assist me and thus there was at least acquiescence and complicity;
- CAT Article 3: If refouled, there are substantial grounds for believing that I would be in danger of being subjected to furtherpsychgical and pssibly physical torture given that n arrests have been made and few pertinent reforms to policing policies haveccurred;
- CAT Article 10: Per the Committee Against Torture’s official communication to the United States and my personal experience at the FLETC, the American government did not render instruction on the prohibition against torture to its law enforcement officers, nor did it render instruction on how to identify and/or report signs of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment;
- CAT Article 12: I reported my torture claims to varied American government entities several times and they have not confirmed a prompt and impartial investigation (see appendix G);
- CAT Article 13: In not properly responding to my torture claim, I have been denied the right to properly complain to the investigating authorities. In addition, to my knowledge no steps were taken to protect me against all ill treatment or intimidation after my complaints were made;
- CAT Article 14: If my perception are due to mental illness, I could not have had such issues and legally attended the FLETC. Thus, either I am sane and my perceptions are accurate regarding violations of the CAT’s Articles 1 and 16, or I am insane and Article 14 has been violated because the State chose not to rehabilitate me after occurrences there and cancelled my medical insurance;
- CAT Article 16: The same arguments above regarding torture also apply to ill treatment.
For several years I have been subject to cruel, unusual, and degrading torture and ill treatment that has included physical injuries and severe mental trauma, however my government has allowed and in some cases facilitated a systematic denial of justice. I have no motive to lie whereas those who tortured me have every reason to do so, and I have been personally targeted to such a degree and my requests for justice and rehabilitation from varied domestic organizations have been ignored such that an asylum request remains necessary. Please assist me.
 United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. Interpretation of Torture in the Light of the Practice of Jurisprudence and International Bodies, Resolution 36/151 (16 December 1981). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tibi v. Ecuador. 7 September 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 146;Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. 27 November, 2003. Series C No. 103, par. 93; Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. 18 August 2000. Series C No. 69, par. 104.
 Almerindo E. Ojeda, “What is Psychological Torture?” in Ojeda, A. The Trauma of Psychological Torture, Westport, Connecticut, Praeger Publishers, 2008.
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 23 March 1976, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art41
 Cal Civ Code § 646.9 (1990) states the following: “Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes 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 is guilty of the crime of stalking.”
 Cal Penal Code § 422 states the following: “Any person 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 the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.”
 Cal Penal Code § 602 (1872) prohibits “Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.”
 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)9 prohibits an employer’s ability to “take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation.”
 El-Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Application no. 39630/09, 13 December 2012. par. 207.
 18 U.S.C. § 2340 defines torture as “an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control”; furthermore, the law defines(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” as the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from–(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality[.]; if it was argued that environmental manipulation was the primary force, acts of environmental manipulation of this frequency, duration, and intensity would be prolonged and calculated procedures to profoundly disrupt my personality, and thus would be psychological torture. U.S.Const. Amend. XIV states the following: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I certainly was not given equal protection of the laws. In interpreting the pharmacological manipulation aspect of psychological torture, the following is an excerpt from a memo by Jay Bybee with the assistance of John Yoo for Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President: “acts must penetrate to the core of an individual’s ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality.” Bybee, J. S. Memo re: Standards of conduct for interrogation. 11 (2002).
 Acquiescence is defined as a “public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, has awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.”
 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. 25 November 2000. While my case is not exactly the same, the court found that situations where Bámaca Velásquez’s “feet and hands were bound and he was tied to a bed, while he received death threats, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
 This also violates the CCPR’s General Comment No. 20, Point 2, which states, “The aim of the provisions of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to protect both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual”; in addition, Point 5 states, “The prohibition in article 7 relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim.”
 European Court of Human Rights, Tyrer v. UK, Communication 5856/72, 25 April 1978, paras. 30 to 35.
 Ojeda 2008; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. Ictr-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, para 688 states the following: “The Tribunal considers sexual violence, which includes rape, as any act of a sexual nature which is committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive. Sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact. The incident described by Witness KK in which the Accused ordered the Interahamwe to undress a student and force her to do gymnastics naked in the public courtyard of the bureau communal, in front of a crowd, constitutes sexual violence. The Tribunal notes in this context that coercive circumstances need not be evidenced by a show of physical force. Threats, intimidation, extortion and other forms of duress which prey on fear or desperation may constitute coercion, and coercion may be inherent in certain circumstances… Sexual violence falls within the scope of “other inhumane acts”, set forth in Article 3(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, “outrages upon personal dignity,” set forth in Article 4(e) of the Statute, and “serious bodily or mental harm,” set forth in Article 2(2)(b) of the Statute.” Para. 693 further states that forced undressing and having someone sit in mud is an act of sexual violence.
 Ojeda 2008; EEOC regulations prohibit conduct in the workplace that “is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.”
 United Nations Human Rights Committee. “Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant, Third Periodic Reports of States Parties due in 2003, United States of America.” 28 November 2005, P. 97-98.
 United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment Number 31 . “The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant.” 18th Session. Adopted on 24 March 2004 (2187th meeting). The language is as follows: “Article 2 requires that States Parties adopt legislative, judicial, administrative, educative and other appropriate measures in order to fulfill their legal obligations.”
 Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations on USA, UN Doc. CAT/C.USA/CO/2, para. 23. The Committee mandates that “The State party should ensure that education and training of all law-enforcement or military personnel, are conducted on a regular basis, in particular for personnel involved in the interrogation of suspects. This should include training on interrogation rules, instructions and methods, and specific training on how to identify signs of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Such personnel should also be instructed to report such incidents.” The FLETC did include instruction on officer liability and ethics, however the Convention was never mentioned (and neither was the CCRP or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights); no specific training on how to identify signs of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was rendered; no instruction on reporting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was rendered; absolutely no training on prohibitions regarding psychological torture were mentioned in any way, shape, or form.
 Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia, Case No. 187, 14 November 2003.
 El-Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, par. 259 includes the following language: “The superficial approach which the public prosecutor took cannot be said to be compatible with the duty to carry out an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty.”
 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tibi v. Ecuador. 7 September 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 146 includes the following language: “acts that have been ‘planned and inflicted deliberately upon the victim to wear down his psychological resistance… to subject him to other types of punishment, in addition to imprisonment itself’ can be classified as physical and psychological torture.” In addition, Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. 27 November 2003. Series C No. 103, par. 93 states the following: “some acts of aggression inflicted on a person may be classified as mental torture, particularly acts that have been prepared and carried out deliberately against the victim to eliminate his mental resistance… to subject him to other punishments.”
 Cal Penal Code 12022.75 (2006) states the following: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who, for the purpose of committing a felony, administers by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any other means, any controlled substance listed in Section 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057, or 11058 of the Health and Safety Code, against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury to the victim or another person, shall, in addition and consecutive to the penalty provided for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of three years. (b) (1) Any person who, in the commission or attempted commission of any offense specified in paragraph (2), administers any controlled substance listed in Section 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057, or 11058 of the Health and Safety Code to the victim shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years. (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses: (A) Rape, in violation of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 261. (B) Sodomy, in violation of subdivision (f) or (i) of Section 286. (C) Oral copulation, in violation of subdivision (f) or (i) of Section 288a. (D) Sexual penetration, in violation of subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 289. (E) Any offense specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.61.
 Penal Code 240-248 (2009): Chapter 9, Assault and Battery; and Cal Penal Code (2010) Chapter 2, Penal Code Section 203-206.1 state the following: (203): Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem. (204) Mayhem is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or eight years. (205) A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person, intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body. For purposes of this section, it is not necessary to prove an intent to kill. Aggravated mayhem is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole. (206) Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture. The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain. (206.1) Torture is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of life.
 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (1976) makes a prohibition regarding the following: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws…” In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 241 (1964) states the following: “if two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or?If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
 The Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 1988), P. 16, point 99 states that if an applicant is denied services that are usually provided to co-nationals, then this may constitute a refusal of protection.
 See also Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-III.
 Ojeda 2008.
 Cal Civil Code Section 1708-1709.
 Committee on Civil and Political Rights, Njaru v Cameroon, Communication 1353/2005, 19 March 2007.
 United States Drug Enforcement Administration, “Benzodiapezines”, accessed 7 April 2012: http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/benzodiazepines.html. National Institute of Health, “Medline Plus”, 1 October 2010, accessed 7 April 2012: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682509.html#side-effects. United States Drug Enforcement Administration, “Flunitrazepam”, accessed 7 April 2012: http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/flunitrazepam.html.
 While a definition of “Informed Consent” is not included in California law, it has been extensively discussed in case law and is well understood within the medical and legal communities to mean that a patient “receive sufficient information to make a meaningful decision” regarding his or her own healthcare. Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229. http://www.calpatientguide.org/ii.html#2_7.
 Ojeda 2008.
 UC Davis, Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, “The Neurobiology of Psychological Torture”, 2005-2012, accessed 23 February 2012,http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-neurobiology-of-psychological-torture-1. Support for Torture Victims, “Traumatic Reaction”, accessed 24 February 2012: http://www.torturevictims.ch/index.php?id=36&L=2. David Luban and Henry Shue, Mental Torture: A Critique of Erasures in US Law. Georgetown L. Jour., Volume 100, No. 3. (2011). Metin Baolu, MD, PhD; Maria Livanou, PhD; Cvetana Crnobari, MD, Archives of General Psychiatry. 2007; 64 (3): 277-285.
 General Comment 18 reads as follows: “The Committee has made clear that where State authorities or others acting in official capacity or under colour of law, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors consistently with the Convention, the State bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts. Since the failure of the State to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity, the State’s indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission.” See also Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V.
 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights General Comment 31 , point 8.
 United Nations. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 19 of the Convention, Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 1995, Addendum: United States of America, 15 October 1999.
 “Africans in America, Part 1, The Middle Passage”, PBS, accessed 31 January 2012, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p277.html.
 Robert A. Gibson, “The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950”, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute,http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html.
 Thomas A. Bass, “Torture… Fifty Years of US Practice”, Huffington Post, 11 May 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-a-bass/torture-fifty-years-of-us_b_201331.html. Alfred W. McCoy, “The CIA’s Secret History of Psychological Torture”, Salon.com, 11 June 2009, accessed 20 January 2012:http://www.salon.com/2009/06/11/mccoy/.
 Frontline World, “Cambodia—Pol Pot’s Shadow: Chronicle of Survival”, PBS, October 2002,http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl04.html; Huffington Post, “Khmer Rouge Defendant: US Policies Enabled Cambodian Genocide”, 7 May 2009, accessed 30 January 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/khmer-rouge-defendent-us_n_183660.html.
 A.J. Langgth, “U.S. Has a 45 Year History of Torture”, The Los Angeles Times, 3 May 2009, accessed 31 January 2012:http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/opinion/oe-langguth3.
 University of Chicago, “Human Rights at Home: The Chicago Police Torture Archive”, accessed 31 January 2012:http://humanrights.uchicago.edu/chicagotorture/.
 Seymour M. Hersh. “Torture at Abu Ghraib: American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis, How Far Up Does the Responsibility Go?” The New Yorker, 10 May 2004, accessed 30 January 2012: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact; Schlessinger et. al., “Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations”, August 2004, P. 43, accessed 9 February 2011, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/d20040824finalreport.pdf.
 Bob Woodward, “Guantanamo Detainee Was Tortured, Says Official Overseeing Military Trials”, The Washington Post, 9 September 2009, accessed 30 January 2012: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html.
 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, A/HRC/IO/3, 4 February 2009; Matthew Cole and Brian Ross, “Exclusive: CIA Secret ‘Torture’ Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy”, ABC News, 18 November 2009, accessed 6 February 2012: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-secret-prison-found/story?id=9115978#.Ty_P2hy7T34; Laura Pitter, “Delivered into Enemy Hands: US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya”, Human Rights Watch, 6 September 2012, accessed 6 September 2012: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/09/06/delivered-enemy-hands-0.
 UNHCR, “United States of America: 2012 Regional Operations Profile – North America and the Caribbean”, accessed July 24, 2013:http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e492086
 These are defined as “planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”
 National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 177 of 26 January 2006, “Rumsfeld’s Roadmap to Propaganda”, Kristin Adair, ed. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/index.htm. 22 U.S.C. § 1461 (1986 and 1987). International Public Information (IPI),?”Presidential Decision Directive PDD 68”,?30 April 1999, http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-68.htm. Joint Publication 3-13.2, “Psychological Operations”, 7 January 2010. Department of Defense, United States of America, “Information Operations Roadmap”, 30 October 2003,http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/info_ops_roadmap.pdf. Joint Publication 3-53, “Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operation of September 5, 2003”, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/02_psyop-jp-3-53.pdf. President Reagan’s NSD-77 in 1983, President Clinton’s PDD-68 in 1999, and President Bush’s NSPD-16, July 2002.
 UN Convention Against Torture General Comment Number 2 (2007).
 UN Committee against Torture, 16th session, Document CAT/C/16/D/41/1996, Geneva, 13.5.96; Svenska Dagbladet, 4.6.96; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 12.6.96; United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Committee Against Torture, Official Records, Fifty-Third Session, Supplement No. 44 [A/53/44], Annex IX, ‘General Comment on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22.’ New York, 1998.
 Chanrani Buddhipala v. Australia, Complaint No. 138/1999, 4 June 1999, P. 116.
 The Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 1988), P. 32.
 European Court of Human Rights, Aksoy v. Turkey, Communication 21987/93, 26 November 1996 found that when someone is in good health (which I was before attending the FLETC) and leaves law enforcement’s premises injured (in my case, the injuries were psychological), it is incumbent on the State to find a plausible explanation as to the causing of the injury—the OSC’s reply to my complaints seems to recognize my assertion that I did leave the FLETC with psychological injuries, however the OSC did not fully explain the cause of the injuries and furthermore did not call for any rehabilitation.
 Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 189 (2001). Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 251. Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Caso Gangaram Panday, supra note 86, para. 49. Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 141. Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 135 note the following: “in proceedings on human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to obtain evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation.”
 The Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 1988), P. 33.
 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tibi v. Ecuador. 7 September 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 146; Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. 27 November, 2003. Series C No. 103, par. 93; Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. 18, August 2000. Series C No. 69, par. 104.
 Iljina and Sarulienè v. Lithuania, no. 32293/05, § 47, 15 March 2011.
 Kathleen Allden. “The Psychological Consequences of Torture”, in The Medical Documentation of Torture, by Vincent Iacophino, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2002, P. 120.
 Cal Penal Code § 646.9 (2008).
 18 U.S.C. § 2510-21, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 – Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 212.
 Email correspondence with Jodi Strong of the Los Angeles Film Office on March 15, 2013 states the following: “A Film permit is required for all filming (tv, commercials, features films, student films, etc) and still photography. The only qualifier would be that if it has commercial value a permit is required. If you are videotaping a child’s birthday party for personal use, no permit would be required. If you are shooting a spec commercial for a director’s reel, a permit would be required because it has commercial value – it is a promotional tool.” Previous email correspondence with this official stated that no filming permits have ever been granted for the places where I have lived.
 United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, Interpretation of Torture in the Light of the Practice of Jurisprudence and International Bodies, Resolution 36/151 (16 December 1981).
 Lisa Myers and Mike Brunker. “EXCLUSIVE: DEA agents arranged prostitute for Secret Service Agent.” NBC News, 10 January 2013: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16451715-exclusive-dea-agents-arranged-prostitute-for-secret-service-agent
 Jana Winter. “Secret Service officer charged with sexual assault of girl, 14.” FoxNews.com, 24 October 2012, accessed 28 December 2012:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/24/secret-service-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault-girl-14/?test=latestnews#ixzz2GNZ1zxRZ.
 Alicia A. Caldwell. “Secret Service agent kills self amid affair probe.” Associated Press, 2 November 2012, accessed 6 November 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-kills-self-amid-affair-probe-220803035.html.
 Jason Horowitz, Roxanne Roberts, and Michael D. Shear. “Secret Service Takes Blame for Uninvited Couple’s Access to White House.” The Washington Post, 28 November 2009, accessed 29 April 2012: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112702650.html.
 “Secret Service gun inadvertently left in Romney plane lavatory.” CBS News, 29 August 2012, accessed 30 August 2012: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57503016-503544/secret-service-gun-inadvertently-left-in-romney-plane-lavatory/.
 Alicia A. Caldwell. “Secret Service Officer Arrested After Passing Out.” Associated Press, October 12, 2012, accessed October 13, 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/secret-officer-arrested-passing-211729088.html.
 Jane Winter, “EXCLUSIVE: Biden’s brawlers: Veep’s security team squared off in Nantucket melee”, Foxnews.com, 21 June 2012, accessed 4 September 2012.
 The Guardian, “US Secret Service Agent’s Alleged Scandals since 2004 Revealed”, 15 June 2012, accessed 31 August 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/15/us-secret-service-scandals-revealed.
 Peter Eisler and Aamer Madhani, “U.S. reveals accusations against Secret Service”, USA Today, 15 June 2012, accessed 4 September 2012: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2012-06-15-secret-service-accusations.htm.
 Foxnews.com, “Documents detail serious allegations against Secret Service agents since 2004”, 15 June 2012, accessed 4 September 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/15/us-reveals-accusations-against-secret-service/.
 Alicia A. Caldwell, “US releases allegations against Secret Service Agents”, Boston Globe, 16 June 2012, accessed 4 September 2012: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/06/15/releases-allegations-against-secret-service-agents/WfseEvnTBvvO5SSWBIsLuL/story.html.
 Foxnews.com, “Chaperones included in new Secret Service conduct rules”, 28 April 2012, accessed 4 September 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/28/chaperones-among-new-secret-service-conduct-rules/.
 Mutombo v. Zaire, Communication No. 13/1993, November 18, 1993, para. 7.3.
 European Court of Human Rights. Aksoy v. Turkey, Communication 21987/93, 26 November 1996. Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; ECHR 2000-VII; and Rupa v. Romania (no. 1), no. 58478/00, § 97, 16 December 2008.
 V.L. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 262, 12 January 2005, para. 8.10.
 CCRP General Comments 31 (80), Point 18: “Where the investigations referred to in paragraph 15 reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, States Parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. As with failure to investigate, failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant… Indeed, the problem of impunity for these violations, a matter of sustained concern by the Committee, may well be an important contributing element in the recurrence of the violations… Accordingly, where public officials or State agents have committed violations of the Covenant rights referred to in this paragraph, the States Parties concerned may not relieve perpetrators from personal responsibility, as has occurred with certain amnesties (see General Comment 20 (44)) and prior legal immunities and indemnities. Furthermore, no official status justifies persons who may be accused of responsibility for such violations being held immune from legal responsibility.”
 A.A.C. v. Sweden, Communication No. 227, 6 February 2003, para. 8.3.
 Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 144, 24 May 2011.
 United States President Jimmy Carter. “A Cruel and Unusual Record.” The New York Times, 24 June 2012, accessed 27 June 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html.