UPDATED: August 30, 2004 Re: Mr. Jesus Mendoza, guest on The Power Hour, March 3, 2004 who described his brutal admitted "monitoring" attacks by government, using powerful electronic signals on Mr. Mendoza AND HIS 2 AND 3 YEAR OLD CHILDREN. A recording of his 3 year old daughter WRITHING IN PAIN was played on the show. Electronic measurements CONFIRM these signals. ** Go to the alphabetical index and do a Control-F Find Text on "Mendoza" to listen to his The Power Hour radio appearances Here is Jesus Mendoza's contact information: Jesus Mendoza 2202 East 28th St. Mission, Texas 78574 956-519-7140 Jesusmm7@hotmail.com Jesus Mendoza's two successful radiation detectors: HF Detector, used for detecting NON-ionizing conventional radio frequency harassing signals Inspector, an IONIZING radiation detector (x-rays, gamma, etc.) (Both from http://www.lessemf.com, and courtesy of donations from The Power Hour listeners.
Here is Jesus Mendoza's case as published on the web site of The Power Hour on August 27, 2004:FOR ADDITIONAL Information contact: Jesus Mendoza Maldonado Jesusmm7@hotmail.com PLEASE FILE THIS COMPLAINT My complaint of Judicial Misconduct indicates that misconduct of federal judges Dorina Ramos and Ricardo Hinojosa has helped perpetrators of hate crimes and electronic aggressions. The judicial misconduct, as evidenced by the federal record make possible that constitutional violations continue unaddressed and undeterred. The Complaint asks the Chief Judge of the Court to verify and consider whether Judge Ramos and Judge Hinojosa have displayed a deep-seated-favoritism to corruption and a deep- seated-antagonism to victims of constitutional violations. Because judicial misconduct is detrimental to the public at large, anybody can file a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct based on the same evidence on the federal record. Your Complaint will help to prevent that aggressions to our constitutional rights continue unaddressed and undeterred. A sample of a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct and copy of my Complaint are attached. Please file this complaint and ask others to do the same. If a complaint is mailed please send a courtesy copy to Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, 2202 E. 28th St Mission, Texas, 78574 or to Jesusmm7@hotmail.com God bless you. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 600 Camp St. Room 102,New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130 504/ 310-7688 Dear Clerk: Enclosed for filing is a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Truly Yours, ________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 351(a). CHIEF JUDGE: Now Comes ___________________________________and respectfully files on this Court a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 351(a), against the judges named on the Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed on this Court by Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and which indicates that Judge Dorina Ramos and Judge Ricardo Hinojosa have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the Chief Judge of this Court that upon consideration and verifications of the facts on the federal record submit this complaint to the Judicial Council of this Court. Respectfully Submitted,_______________________________________ Address___________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 351(a). CHIEF JUDGE: Now Comes Jesus Mendoza Maldonado and respectfully files on this Court a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 351(a), against US Magistrate Dorina Ramos and against US District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, on the ground that evidence on the record indicate that Judge Ramos and Judge Hinojosa have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts as explained herein. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On February 3, of 2003, I, filed Pro-se in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a complaint seeking as relief an order to compel the defendant, the US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, to cease and desist from using directed electromagnetic surveillance on my family and on myself on the ground that defendant's malicious aggression has caused severe physical harm to my children and to myself, on the ground that defendant's investigation of my activities is retaliation for bringing claims of racial discrimination and fraud of federal funds against some members of the bar and of the judiciary, collectively called the "Cooley defendants." 2. US District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa referred the case to US Magistrate Judge Dorina Ramos for pretrial matters. (Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v. John Ashcroft, Case No. M-03-038). 3. On April 4, 2003, Judge Ramos reset hearing on my application for injunctive relief for April 15, 2003, impairing my ability to present testimony of lay and expert witnesses in support of my applications for immediate injunctive relief. 4. On April 7, 2003, I filed a motion to recuse judge Ramos on the ground that Judge Ramos had displayed a deep-seated favoritism, and a deep-seated antagonism while hearing a case of racial discrimination, fraud and retaliation against the Cooley defendants. (Docket No. 13). 5. During the litigation against the Cooley defendants Judge Ramos ignored conclusive evidence of the Cooley defendants' fraudulent activities within the Southern District of Texas; ignored conclusive evidence of Cooley defendants' fraudulent statements to defraud of venue Judge Ramos' court; ordered me not to file motions on the matter; severed the case when the live complaint states the elements of the conspiracy among the defendants; recommended transferring the case against the Cooley defendants to the state of Michigan without considering evidence of my inability to travel long distances; struck from the record my motion to stay the proceedings and evidence of the injuries caused by the Cooley defendants after the case had been physically transferred to Michigan; and recommended dismissal of the complaint against the remaining defendants after Judge Ramos found lacking the elements of the conspiracy among the severed defendants. (Docket No. 36 at 5) (Maldonado v the Thomas M. Cooley Law School case # M-99-77 dockets 66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 85, 88, 97, and 99). 6. Judge Ramos recused herself from the case, and referred the motion to another judge. (Docket No. 18) 7. On April 28, Judge Hinojosa denied the motion to recuse the Magistrate Judge and reassigned Judge Ramos for pretrial matters in violation of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3) which divests Judge Hinojosa of the power to assign a Magistrate judge any duty inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. (Docket No. 24). 8. On May 15, 2003, my wife, my oldest daughter, and my brother, gave testimony before Judge Ramos' court. My wife testified as to the swelling pain and suffering caused on me by exposure to electricity, and how this has affected our daily life. My wife testified to the suffering of my children when they are exposed to electromagnetic radiation inside our home. My wife testified as to how high readings on radiation meters inside our home decrease when I attempt to record the occurrence in a video camera. My brother, testified as to the pain and suffering, experienced by other persons after I moved into their place. My daughter, my wife, and my brother testified to my mental stability, and to my law-abiding conduct. (Docket No 29). 9. Without a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Ramos issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 15, 2003, which finds irrelevant the testimony presented in support of immediate injunctive relief, modifies the testimony given by my wife, and recommends dismissal of my applications for injunctive relief. (Docket No. 32). 10. My wife testified as to how high readings on radiation meters inside our home decrease when I attempt to record the occurrence on a video camera. The Report and Recommendation modified my wife's testimony into: "Silvia Mendoza, who is Plaintiff's wife, testified that Plaintiff's has trouble breathing, among other things. She also testified that Plaintiff's difficulty seems to subside when he operates a camera." (Docket No. 32, at 5, Statement of Evidence, and my wife's affidavit denying giving that testimony, Docket No. 40). 2. On July 25, 2003, I filed objections to Judge Ramos' alteration of evidence, and objections to Judge's Ramos impartiality. (Docket No. 33). 3. On the Report and Recommendation to dismiss my case, Judge Ramos' claims reading pertinent documents from the litigation in the Western District of Michigan, and on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Docket No. 8 at 2, and Docket No. 32 at 3). The Report and Recommendation states, "The Sixth Circuit panel noted that there is simply no doubt that Maldonado's discovery defaults have been willful and in bad faith." (Docket No. 32 at 3). Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of Michigan include uncontroverted evidence showing that the US district court in Michigan relied on the Cooley defendants' fraudulent statements, and declined to consider my timely motion seeking protection from defendants attempts to take advantage of my disability. Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of Michigan show that without a hearing, the district court dismissed my claims against the Cooley defendants after my health condition prevented me from attending depositions. (Maldonado v, The Thomas M Cooley Law School et al, Case No. 5: 01 cv 93 Dockets 162, 163 179, 180, 184, and 185). 4. Pertinent documents of the litigation in the Western District of Michigan and in th US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit include uncontroverted evidence of Cooley defendants' false statements to defraud of venue Judge Ramos court; evidence of the Cooley defendants' scheme that operates to defraud more than seventy- percent of minority law students of their federal loans while giving away law degrees to their affiliates, evidence of fraud of student money committed by the president of the law school and former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, acting in concert with a law school board member and judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals; evidence of the Cooley defendants' participation on a federal investigation of my activities; evidence showing that the abusive active electronic aggression caused me severe physical harm; evidence in support of the legitimacy of the injuries caused by the aggression; and evidence of my mental stability. The evidence became conclusive as a mater of law when the US district court in Michigan denied Cooley defendants' motion for summary judgement and admonished the Cooley defendants for failing to engage claims and evidence of their wrongdoing, and when the Cooley defendants failed to engage specific claims of their fraudulent statements to the federal courts on their Appellee's Brief, and on their response to my Appellant's Motion for Sanctions. (Maldonado v Ashcroft, Case No. M-03 -038, docket No. 13 and Affidavit; docket No. 33 at 6-8; docket No. 36 at 5). (Maldonado v, The Thomas M Cooley Law School et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Case No. 5: 01 cv 93, Docket No. 131, 139,and 142). (Docket No. 2, Exhibit C4, Docket 27, Exhibit D1). (Maldonado v the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 02-2095). 5. At several times relevant to this case, Judge Ramos indicated on court documents that the Thomas M. Cooley Law School may be visited on the world wide web. (Docket No. 8 at 1; Docket No. 13; Docket No. 14, and Docket No. 32 at 2). 6. On July 31, 2003, Judge Hinojosa adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to dismiss my claims. (Dockets No. 34, 35). 7. I filed a timely motion urging judge Hinojosa to reconsider the evidence in support of my claims of Judge Ramos' misconduct. (Docket No. 36). 8. On an Order dated November 17, 2003, Judge Hinojosa denied my motion for reconsideration. (Docket No. 37). 9. On January 15, 2004, I filed on the district court a timely notice of appeal. (Docket No. 38) 10. The appeal is based on the ground that Judge Ramos did not have jurisdiction to refer a motion to recuse after she had recused herself; on the ground that Judge Hinojosa did not have jurisdiction to deny or reverse a voluntary recusal; and on the ground that Judge Hinojosa did not have jurisdiction to adopt a Report and Recommendation to dismiss my claims when the judicial misconduct of Judge Ramos has been established as matter of law. 11. On January 23, I served on defendant and filed on the district court a Statement of the Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(c), including my wife's affidavit. My wife's affidavit denies testifying before Judge Ramos that my breathing difficulty seems to subside when I operate a camera. (Docket No. 40). 12. On February 2, 2004, my appeal was docketed in this Court. Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v. John Ashcroft, US Attorney General, Case No. 04-40095. 40). The appeal is pending before this Court. 13. The evidence in support of this complaint remains uncontroverted, while the judicial misconduct stated herein has allowed hate crimes against my children, myself, and others to continue undeterred. RELIEF For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully ask the Chief Judge of this Court that upon consideration and verifications of the facts on the federal record submit this complaint to the Judicial Council of this Court. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________________ Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Complainant. 2202 E. 28th St., Mission, Texas 78574 (956) 519-7140 August 1, 2004