This page concerns the legal aspects of mind control, as well as how victims of harassment and nonconsensual experimentation are denied effective redress in the U.S. judicial system. I encourage victims to pursue legal avenues for ending their harassment and trying to learn exactly what all was done to them, but they should be well informed of the actual situation. This page does not constitute legal advice. Victims should consult a competent attorney -- if they can even get one to take their case and can afford one after their years of abuse.
In the landmark case KAIMOWITZ v. MICHIGAN Dept. of Mental Health the court decided (as described by Peter Breggin [*]):
The judges found that "involuntarily confined patients cannot reason as equals with doctors and administrators over whether they should undergo psychosurgery." They declared that under First Amendment freedoms the "government has no power or right to control men's minds, thoughts, and expressions. If the First Amendment protects the freedom to express ideas, it necessarily follows that it must protect the freedom to generate ideas."The opinion was never appealed and stands to this day. It continues to inhibit the performance of psychosurgery throughout the country, especially in state mental hospitals and prisons.
The Smartnews site has online an article, "The Law and Mind Control," [*] which looks at five legal cases involving mind control.
This article in Probe magazine, "Mind-Control Part 1: Canadian and U.S. Survivors Seek Justice," [*] March-April 2000, describes some mind control experiments involving nonconsensual LSD testing, electroshock "depatterning," sensory deprivation, etc. It also summarizes several victims' lawsuits and the resulting stonewalling and machinations of the CIA even decades later.
The decision in the case Kronisch v. U.S. [*] was online at the New York Law Journal site.
James Turner, in this article from the Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, Fall 1990, discusses his involvement in Orlikow, et al. v. United States, and general issues regarding public interest cases against the CIA. [*]
This review of the CIA's actions in the United States and Canada demonstrates how completely unprincipled was the Agency's original brainwashing program, as well as its course of legal manoeuvers years later when it was required to answer for its misconduct. The story of the brainwashing suit and the barriers that were overcome before the CIA's victims were finally compensated, illustrates both the formidable hurdles presented and the unique satisfactions gleaned in a public interest law suit.This is the case John Cary SIMS et al. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al. [*] at the California First Amendment Coalition site.
This article by Elaine M. Ramesh appeared in Risk, the official journal of the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, in 1997. It discusses the legal implications of the implantation of microchips in humans. The article is titled, "Time Enough? Consequences of Human Microchip Implantation." [*]
There are several sites online where you can search on case law. These include FindLaw, the Touro Law Center Web Server, and LawGuru.com.
The United States Constitution (and Bill of Rights), describing a legitimate U.S. government in plain English -- for what it is worth.