Legal Information.

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
 –  United States Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

Download File


United Nations training manual  –  “Manual on the Investigation and Documentation of Torture”

(Disclaimer:  Targeted Justice is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.  Any opinions expressed by members, are the sole opinion of the individual.  Please consult an attorney for legal advice. 

In general, Targeted Justice does not recommend filing individual lawsuits, because the results have not been good.   However, if you have credible witnesses and solid documentation… here is a website that might help with your gangstalking complaints.

Previous Court Cases:  We are attempting to gather all legal case histories that involve TI’s globally.  If you have information on legal cases anywhere in the world, send them to
This is important because we have learned that our government has taken steps to seal or hide previous case histories.

United States Code (Federal) and State Codes are Law. Targeted Individuals – as Plaintiff – can file lawsuits for the harm done to them based on either federal or state civil codes, which are different than criminal codes. Targeted Individuals can also file lawsuits, the “Complaint” or “Pleadings” against state and federal governments (jurisdictions) using the Constitution (Amendments / Rights). The Fourteenth Amendment made the United States Constitution apply to the state courts as well as federal courts. State Lawsuits are filed in Superior Court and Federal Lawsuits are typically filed in the District Courts.

The codes and information below is just a partial list of information and we will be adding information. They are divided into the following sections:
I. United States Constitution and Treaties
II. United States Civil Code and Criminal Code
III. State Codes (Laws)
IV. United States Supreme Court / Circuit Court Case Law (supports Const. Rights claims)
V. Human Experimentation
VI. Common Law Torts / Civil Torts (base claims on when writing the Cause of Action)

You can sue for actual damages and sometimes punitive damages, Injunction (Court Order) or Declaratory Relief (Court recommendation).

I. U.S. Constitution and Treaties There are many Treaties that the U.S. Government has violated by Targeting civilians worldwide.  Please help us identify them – i.e., torture and human experimentation.

Crimes Against Humanity
The number of civilians worldwide, that have been targeted and/or  killed by Directed Energy Weapons is staggering.  Although definitions of crimes against humanity differ slightly from treaty to treaty, all definitions provide that the deliberate, widespread, or systematic killing of civilians by an organization or government is a crime against humanity.  Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity may be committed in times of peace or in periods of unrest that do not rise to the level of an armed conflict.

Weapon of Mass Destruction
The satellite system in geosyncronous orbit used to target many individuals globally, may be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) as it harms thousands of civilians.  Such weapons have been identified in international treaties – Protocol I and Protocol II of the Geneva Convention.

U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984.

“I was only following orders.”  This is another defense that is explicitly illegitimate under international law. The U.N. Convention Against Torture, which was sent to the Senate by Ronald Reagan in 1988, states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

It recently fell to Senator Rand Paul to make the obvious observation that appears to have eluded almost everyone else in official Washington: “This has been historically a question we’ve asked in every war: Is there a point at which soldiers say ‘no’? … Horrendous things happened in World War II, and people said, well, the German soldiers were just obeying orders. … I think there’s a point at which, even suffering repercussions, that if someone asks you to torture someone that you should say no.”


United States of America        Signed 18 April 1988            Ratified 21 October 1994

Definition of torture
Article 1.1 of the Convention defines torture as:
For the purpose of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
The words “inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions” remain vague and very broad. It is extremely difficult to determine what sanctions are ‘inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions’ in a particular legal system and what are not. The drafters of the Convention neither provided any criteria for making such determination nor did it define the terms. The nature of the findings would so differ from one legal system to another that they would give rise to serious disputes among the Parties to the Convention. It was suggested that the reference to such rules would make the issue more complicated, for it would endow the rules with a semblance of legal binding force. This allows state parties to pass domestic laws that permit acts of torture that they believe are within the lawful sanctions clause. However, the most widely adopted interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause is that it refers to sanctions authorized by international law. Pursuant to this interpretation, only sanctions that are authorized by international law will fall within this exclusion.

II. U.S. Code

U.S. Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Targeted Individuals are predominantly women, about 65 – 70%, making it a Hate Crime against women.  Hate crimes are a prejudice-motivated crime, usually violent, which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim due to gender, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994
The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.  VAWA was again reauthorized in 2013.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for Hate Crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person.

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009)
On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which expanded existing United States federal Hate Crime law to apply to crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

Civil Rights Act of 1968
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who “willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the person’s race, color, religion or national origin” or because of the victim’s attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
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;
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.

Torture – 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C – § 2340
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the 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;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from–
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
(a) Offense.–
Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.–There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if–
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.–
A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

18 U.S. Code § 2331
As used in this chapter–
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that–
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended–
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

18 U.S. Code § 2333 – Civil remedies
(a)Action and Jurisdiction.–
Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees.

  1. Human Trafficking / Human Sex Trafficking

18 U.S. Code § 1584 – Sale into involuntary servitude
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be subject to the penalties described in subsection (a).

22 U.S. Code § 7102 – Definitions
(6) Involuntary servitude The term “involuntary servitude” includes a condition of servitude induced by means of–
(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process

III. State Codes

(1) Michigan: House Bill 4513 (2003)
Classify harmful electronic or electromagnetic devices

(2) Michigan: House Bill 4514 (2003)
Adds to statutes to define crimes

(3) Massachusetts: Chapter 170 of the Acts of (2004)
Possession of electronic weapons

(4) Maine: Chapter 264 H.P. 868 – L.D. 1271 (2005)
Criminal uses of electronic weapons

(5) Missouri House bill 550
introduced by Jim Guest against illegal chip implants.

(6) Electronic Surveillance Laws in USA…

IV. United States Supreme Court Cases
(Case Law)

Unconstitutional Acts by CongressAffords no ProtectionNull and Void
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425 (1886)
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
Common LawFree from Restraint
Conservator of Wendland 26 Cal.4th 519 (2001)
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford 141 U.S. 250 (1891) 
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (N.Y. 1914) 105 N.E. 92, 93

Amendment I – First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine
Broadrick v. Oklahoma 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973)
In re M.S. 10 Cal.4th 698 (1995)

Amendment IVPerson’s “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”
United States v. Jones, 615 F. 3d 544 (2012)
People v. Windham, 145 Cal.App.4th 881 (2006)
Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999))
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984)

Amendment IVThe Right To Be Let Alone
Katz v. United States 389 US 347 (1967)
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965)
People v. Superior Court (Walker) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183 (2006)
People v. Jenkins 22 Cal.4th 900 95 (2000)

Amendment V – Witness against himself
Not be deprived of life, liberty without due process of law
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
Chambers v. Florida 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
Mallory v. United States 354 US 449 (1957)
Malloy v. Hogan 378 US 1 (1964)

Amendment VI – Right to a speedy and public trial, Be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
In re Oliver 333 U.S. 257 (1948)
Klopfer v North Carolina 386 U.S. 213 (1967)
Payne v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 908 (1976)

Amendment VI – Be confronted with the witnesses against him
Pointer v. Texas 380 US 400 (1965)
Crawford v Washington 541 US 36 (2004)
Maryland v. Craig 497 US 836 (1990)

Amendment VI – Have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
Washington v. Texas 388 U.S. 14 (1967)

Amendment VI – Have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Escobedo v. Illinois 378 US 478 (1964)
Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)

Amendment IX – Rights Not Enumerated to the People
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947)

Amendment XIII and XIV- Involuntary Servitude
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (overturned by 14th)
Slaughter-House Cases 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)

Amendment XIV- Equal Protection
Skinner v. Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 US 438 (1972)
People v. Rhodes 126 Cal.App.4th 1374 (2005)
Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Amendment XIV – Due Process –Irrational – Arbitrary
Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)
Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (& Eq Pro)

Amendment XIV – Right to Privacy
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
California State Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 1

Doctrine of Separation of Powers
United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. (2012).

VI. Common Law Torts and
Civil Torts

Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion

  1. Intentionally invaded the private affairs of the plaintiff;
  2. Offensive to a reasonable person
  3. Private matter
  4. Caused mental anguish or suffering

    Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts
    1. Public Disclosure
    2. Private Fact
    3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person
    4. Not Newsworthy

    Invasion of Privacy –False Light
    1. A publication by the defendant about the plaintiff
    2. It was done with reckless disregard
    3. It places the plaintiff in a false light and
    4. It would be highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person.

    1. The act was intended to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact; and
    2. The act indeed caused apprehension in the victim that harmful or offensive contact would occur – in the mind of a reasonable person.
    1. Intent – Battery is a general intent offense. This means that the actor need not intend the specific harm that will result from the unwanted contact, but only to commit an act of unwanted contact.
    2. Contact – Non-consensual contact may be made with either a person or that person’s extended personality. This means that if one person leans forward and yanks the jewelry necklace off another, a battery has occurred, even though the first person never actually touched the neck of the second person
    3. Harm – A plaintiff or complainant in a case for battery does not have to prove an actual physical injury. Rather, the plaintiff must prove an unlawful and unpermitted contact with his or her person or property in a harmful or offensive manner. This, in and of itself, is deemed injurious.
    4. Damages – Substantial harm is not required, but nonetheless, there must be palpable harm (be it physical, emotional, or monetary compensatory (a monetary award), along with special relief such as injunctive or punitive.
  5.  Statutory damages may be for either/both economic and non-economic (emotional) harm – embarrassment – damages for pain and suffering.

1708.7.  (a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:

(1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, place under surveillance, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence.
(2) (B) The plaintiff suffered substantial emotional distress, and the pattern of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
(3) (A) The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with either (i) the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member, or (ii) reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff or that of an immediate family member. In addition, the plaintiff must have, on at least one occasion, clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct unless exigent circumstances make the plaintiff’s communication of the demand impractical or unsafe.

(b) 1 Pattern of conduct” means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short
2 “Credible threat” means a threat implied by a pattern of conduct, including, but not limited
to, acts in which a defendant directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows, harasses, monitors, surveils, threatens, or interferes with…so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety
3 “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to,
4 “Follows” means to move in relative proximity to a person as that person moves from place to place
5  “Harass” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
6 “Place under surveillance” means remaining present…or other place occupied by the plaintiff.
7 “Substantial emotional distress” shall not be construed to have the same meaning as the “severe emotional distress” requirement for intentional infliction of emotional distress. “Substantial emotional distress” does not require a showing of physical manifestations of emotional distress; rather, it requires the evaluation of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the defendant reasonably caused the plaintiff substantial fear, anxiety, or emotional torment.

(c) A person who commits the tort of stalking upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294.
(d) In an action pursuant to this section, the court may grant equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction.
(e) The rights and remedies provided in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

California Civil Code Section 1708.5.
(a) A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following:
(1) Acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results.
(b) A person who commits a sexual battery upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages.
(c) The court in an action pursuant to this section may award equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction, costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.
(d) For the purposes of this section “intimate part” means the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female.
(e) The rights and remedies provided in this section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
(f) For purposes of this section “offensive contact” means contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
To establish defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, plaintiff must prove all of the following:
A. That defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous;
B. That defendant intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress OR that defendant acted with reckless disregard of the probability that plaintiff would suffer emotional distress, knowing that plaintiff was present when the conduct occurred;
C. That plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and
D. That defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s severe emotional distress.
         A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.’ ” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050—1051 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963])
         Outrageous conduct” is conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. Conduct is outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as intolerable in a civilized community. Outrageous conduct does not include trivialities such as indignities, annoyances, hurt feelings, or bad manners that a reasonable person is expected to endure.
Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209 [185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894].)
If (reality) is not outrageous, what would be outrageous in society?
         The California Supreme Court has stated the required elements in at least two separate cases. The elements are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.
The emotional distress must be severe and it must be such that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. And it must be substantial or enduring rather than trivial or transitory.
“Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” Fletcher v. Western Life Insurance Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397.
In discussing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a venerable legal treatise, the Restatement of Torts states that, “Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average person would lead him to exclaim “THATS OUTRAGEOUS!!!” Restatement (Third) Torts § 45.

V. Human Experimentation

Federal Directives for Human Experimentation: Nuremberg Code
United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS);
Office of Research Integrity (ORI);
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR): 
The Protection of Human Subjects.
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

State Codes for Human Experimentation
California Code: Health and Safety Code: Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation – Health and Safety Code Section 24170-24176
24170 Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act.
24171 The Legislature further finds and declares that:
(a) The Nuremberg Code of Ethics in Medical Research was developed after the trial of Nazi war criminals for unethical use of persons in medical experiments; subsequently, the Declaration of Helsinki additionally established recommendations guiding doctors in experimentation involving human subjects.
(b) Neither the Nuremberg Code nor the Declaration of Helsinki are codified under law and are, therefore, unenforceable.
(c) It is necessary that medical experimentation be done in such a way as to protect the rights of the human subjects involved.
(d) There is, and will continue to be, a growing need for protection for citizens of the state from unauthorized, needless, hazardous, or negligently performed medical experiments on human beings.
It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature, in the enacting of this chapter, to provide minimum statutory protection for the citizens of this state with regard to human experimentation and to provide penalties for those who violate such provisions.
24172.  As used in the chapter, “experimental subject’s bill of rights,” means a list of the rights of a subject in a medical experiment, written in a language in which the subject is fluent. Except as otherwise provided in Section 24175, this list shall include, but not be limited to the subject’s right to:
(a) Be informed of the nature and purpose of the experiment.
24174.  As used in this chapter, “medical experiment” means: (a) The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, as defined in Section 109920 or 109925, or electromagnetic radiation.
24176.  (a) Any person who is primarily responsible for conduct of a medical experiment and who negligently allows the experiment to be conducted without a subject’s informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), as determined by the court.

Targeted Justice is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.  Please consult an attorney for legal advice.