# Norman Rabin's
Court Case

To contact Norman

> ### Contents

> > The Complaint
> > Verification
> > Exhibits

> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

> EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

> COMPLAINT

> Docket No.:
> Jury Trial Demanded

> CV 98 4435
> SPATT, J.
> BOYLE, M.

> RECEIVED
> U.S. DISTRICT COURT, E.D.N.Y.
> IN CLERK'S OFFICE
> LONG ISLAND COURTHOUSE

> JUN 26 1998

> ENTERED

> NORMAN CARL RABIN,
> Plaintiff,
> -against-

> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM S. COHEN, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE GEORGE J. TENET, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT,

> Defendants.

> 1. This is a Civil action for damages and injunctive relief arising under the Constitution of the United States.
> 2. Plaintiff Norman Carl Rabin complains against the defendants collectively and individually and for a first claim for relief alleges the following upon information and belief:
> 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. Section 1331, United States Constitution Amendments Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Thirteenth (4, 5, 8 & 13).
> 4. 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned and complained of plaintiff Norman Carl Rabin has been a resident of Nassau County, New York. More specifically from January, 1990 through March, 1995, plaintiff was a resident of Elmont, Nassau County, New York. That from March, 1995 to the present plaintiff has resided in Plainview, Nassau County, New York.
>    2. The defendants United States Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and United States Department of State are agencies of the United States of America.
> 5. Since October 1990 the plaintiff has been a "satellite hostage" and "satellite prisoner" of multiple satellites' monitoring and assault by the United States Government, its agents, servants and employees. In the alternative, existent devices (of any type) have been used to achieve such monitoring and assault. Plaintiff has been subjected to thought monitoring, full body monitoring, tracking, voice assault, bio frequency assaults which are electromagnetic signals which interact with the human body in an adverse manner, mind-control [i.e., thought-inhibiting or other thought-affecting] assaults, and debilitation.
> 6. Plaintiff's being held satellite prisoner of multiple satellites' monitoring and assault consists of, day and night, 7-days a week: tracking; thought-monitoring (including, but not limited to, monitoring of thought-verbalizations); full-body monitoring; bio frequency voice-assault; debilitation; bio frequency assaults (torments, tortures, harassments) since February-May, 1992; and, during sleep, artificial-dreams (having visual-contents, and sound-contents, including voice contents) since late-December, 1990. Especially since February 1992, plaintiff has recorded in notebooks the dates, times, and identities of the most notable of the aforementioned assaults.
> 7. Plaintiff alleges that the full-body monitoring deployed upon plaintiff imposes a burden on plaintiff's body, almost as if plaintiff were physically carrying a 5 or 10 or 15 pound backpack of wireless-wires, where the weight of such wires was distributed over plaintiff's full body.
> 8. Bio frequency assault (harassment, torment, torture) is achieved by tuning signals to interact with virtually any part or area of the human body. Harassment, torment, or torture is achieved by tuning at one or more areas of plaintiff's body so as to cause discomfort, distress, or suffering. The following assaults (of any type) are among those assaults which have caused the most suffering, distress, or discomfort, at plaintiff: tuning at the heart area, tuning at eyes/visual area of the brain, tuning at below the belt, tuning signals at plaintiff's brain so as to prevent plaintiff from sleeping, and, artificial dreams.
> 9. Since January 1991 to the present, out of concern for the safety and/or privacy of others, plaintiff has limited his activities resulting in plaintiff spending much of his time at his residence. Plaintiff has been reluctant to seek employment partly because of the mental and physical burdens imposed by the satellite monitoring and assault and partly out of concern for privacy rights of prospective employer and employees.
> 10. Prior to October, 1990, covert satellite assault without plaintiff's knowledge at the time, including but not limited to "satellite-caused- mania" in January-March 1986, August 1987, and March 1989, caused plaintiff a loss of income and employment.
> 11. Additionally, those "satellite-caused-mania"s caused plaintiff to be hospitalized. As a direct result of the effect of each "satellite-caused-mania" upon plaintiff's brain, plaintiff experienced difficult periods of recovery, lasting 2-3 months after hospitalization.
> 12. Additionally, those "satellite-caused-mania"s caused plaintiff to be medicated with prescribed medication(s) from February 1986 through April 1990, because plaintiff was misdiagnosed as actually having mania. Such medications were improper, because plaintiff was otherwise in good health.
> 13. Resultant from covert satellites-based assault, and now from satellites' monitoring and assault, plaintiff has worked less than 2 1/4 relatively healthy working years since January, 1986. Those 2 1/4 relatively healthy working years were: July 1986 through July 1987; and, February 1988 through February 1989.
> 14. Additionally, defendants, in support of their conducting their program of covert assault, utilized, from February 1986 to at least October 1990, one or more surveillance satellites (sufficiently positioned over plaintiff' s residence) to watch plaintiff inside his residence.
> 15. Additionally, plaintiff attempted Spring and Autumn to earn graduate-level Credits at Hofstra University from the Spring Semester of 1992 to the Autumn Semester of 1994 (except for Spring 1993). But which resulted in plaintiff needing to opt for "Withdrawal" status, for all courses attempted, due to plaintiff being held satellite prisoner, which has included plaintiff being subjected to assault and debilitation (during classes; while studying; and while doing homework).
> 16. Plaintiff graduated from college in May, 1983. In December, 1985, plaintiff was a normal, and gainfully employed, twenty-five (25) year old person, in good health. Additionally, in December, 1985 plaintiff looked forward to commencing graduate study within three years. As a direct consequence of the aforementioned covert satellites-based assault and multiple satellites' monitoring and assault, plaintiff has been prevented from: freely developing his career; freely developing his graduate studies; freely seeking, finding, and enjoying marriage and family; and, living in a condition of liberty as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
> 17. Said multiple satellites' monitoring and assault, by the United States Government, its agents, servants and employees, continues to be utilized against the plaintiff up until the time this complaint was filed.
> 18. Besides from the aforementioned Crimes against the plaintiff, upon information and belief, plaintiff alleges that agents, servants, and/or employees of the defendants have conspired to utilize mind-control type signals-assault, and thought-monitoring, ["methods of subversion"] so as to prevent others from helping plaintiff to be freed from the Crimes against plaintiff.
> 19. Plaintiff's alleges that persons, including but not limited to the following, have been thus prevented from freely and most effectively helping plaintiff to be freed from the Crimes against plaintiff:
>     - A lawyer, Ronald A. Friedman, who initially had agreed to attempt a Federal Court case to try to free plaintiff from the Crimes against plaintiff, was targeted by said methods of subversion, at plaintiff's initial meeting with him on March 3, 1993, and possibly afterwards.
>       In light of the above, attorney Friedman declined to accept the $5000.00 retainer which he had requested and later in March 1993 discontinued in his legal representation of plaintiff
>     - Raymond B. Grunewald, a prominent New York City area attorney who had agreed to provide professional initial legal consultation and evaluation of plaintiff' s case as a crime victim, was targeted by said methods of subversion, at the plaintiff' s initial and only meeting with attorney Grunewald on May 30, 1995.
>     - Plaintiff's parents, whose legal residence has been the same as plaintiff's since January 1990, have been repeatedly targeted by said methods of subversion, since October 1990. (Plaintiff's father died March 22, 1997.)
>     - Plaintiff' s older brother, who resides in Nassau County, New York, has been repeatedly targeted by said methods of subversion, since October 1990, although perhaps to a lesser degree during the past 2 to 4 years.
> 20. Plaintiff alleges that: satellites-based (or other) mind-control assault; and, satellites-based thought-monitoring;, are advanced technologies which are insidious, subversive, and dangerous. Furthermore, said advanced technologies are believed to be U.S. classified at this time.
> 21. In light of plaintiff's allegations of serious Crimes against the plaintiff committed by defendants since 1986, and in light of the above allegations concerning methods of subversion, and because of the fact that the deployment of: satellites-based (or other) mind-control assault; and, satellites-based thought-monitoring;, are not well-reeulated in a public manner, the plaintiff Norman Rabin requests that the Court take the appropriate measures and safeguards so as to insure that all court personnel, prospective witnesses, litigants, and the courthouse, be verifiably secured against said electromagnetic signals-assault and satellites-based monitoring, by the United States Government and/or its agents, or associates.
> 22. To aid the Court, plaintiff suggests that the court make inquiry to learn of arrangements and methods which the U.S. Supreme Court, and perhaps other U.S. Courts (in various circumstances), have used to insure that their own Court(s) is/are secured against subversion: by (satellites-based or other) mind-control type signals-assault; or, by any other methods of subversion.
> 23. Furthermore, to aid the Court, plaintiff suggests the court make an inquiry to the National Security Agency ("N.S.A."), in the event that their responsibility for conducting "research and development to meet the needs of the United States for signals intelligence and communications security" [Executive Order 12333, of December 4, 1981, section 1.12 (b) (9)] designates that the N.S.A. could help the Court to insure that the courthouse and all persons involved are secure and free from satellites-based (or other) mind-control assault and satellites-based thought-monitoring.
> 24. Additionally, in light of the above allegations concerning methods of subversion, and in furtherance of plaintiff's due process rights, plaintiff requests injunctive relief against defendants to prevent defendants, their agents, servants, employees, or their associates from conducting: (satellites-based or other) electromagnetic signals-assault, including mind-control type signals-assault; and, satellites-based thought-monitoring;, upon plaintiff's counsel, and his professional associates, and their staffs.
> 25. In each of 1994 and 1996, plaintiff distributed over ten thousand (10,000) copies of his "Press Release"s (fliers), in an effort: to inform the public and also the press and media; and, to petition the U.S. Government;, concerning the Crimes against plaintiff, and against other victims of monitoring and/or assault. (Copy of plaintiff's "May [-...] 1996 Press Release" (flier) annexed hereto as plaintiff's Exhibit "A").
> 26. In April 1995, plaintiff wrote to U.S. Representative Gary Ackerman to inform him about the Crimes against plaintiff and others, and to request his help. In May 1995, plaintiff received a meaningful and supportive letter of response from U.S. Representative Ackerman. (Copy of Congressman Ackerman's letter annexed hereto as plaintiff's Exhibit "B").
> 27. In January 1994, U.S. Senator John Glenn, then-Chairman of the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, called for "a government wide review of all testing programs, from drug tests at the Food and Drug Administration to military tests at the Defense Department, to determine if any improper experiments on humans persist to this day." (Copy of New York Times article covering Senator Glenn's calling for said review is annexed hereto as plaintiff's Exhibit "C"). On January 25, 1994, said Committee held a public, open hearing on "Radiation Experimentation and Other Human Experimentation". At that hearing, the leadoff non-Government witness, H. Jack Geiger, M.D., urged that citizens needed to be protected from human experimentation "invoking national security and secrecy". (Copy of Dr. Geiger's testimony at said hearing annexed as plaintiff's Exhibit "D").
> 28. Plaintiff attended said hearing, and first learned of the existence of other victims ("satellite prisoner"s) of: satellites-based or non-satellites-based, monitoring and/or assault;, victims who know that they are being targeted, and who complain about it to the U.S. Government. Plaintiff currently knows of over 30 or 35 such victims. Upon information and belief, the U.S. Government is believed to be conducting all, or almost all, of such monitoring and/or assault. Upon information and belief, there are 50-100, or possibly a few hundred, or more, such victims.
> 29. On January 22, 1997, Senator Glenn introduced legislation which would make it a criminal, as well as a civil, offense, to perform under Federal jurisdiction, any research on humans, including U.S. "Classified Research", without informed consent, and other protections. (S. 193, the proposed "Human Research Subject Protections Act of 1997"). (The Introductory remarks for Senate Bill S. 193, and text of the proposed law, are provided as plaintiff's Exhibit "E").
> 30. Additionally, on March 27, 1997, President William J. Clinton put forth a Memorandum, Administrative Order "Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research", which ordered a new Federal policy, which requires that "no agency shall conduct or support classified human research without" informed consent, and other protections, effective March 27, 1998, or earlier if a public rulemaking process is completed before March 27, 1998. (Copy of Presidential Memorandum is provided as plaintiff's Exhibit "F"). Plaintiff, by 21 similar certified letters dated April 7, 1998 to 21 U.S. agency or office heads, requested to benefit immediately from the new Federal Policy, as concerns each agency if applicable. (Copy of text of plaintiff's letters to the U.S. Department of Justice, and the defendant agencies, is provided as plaintiff's Exhibit "G").
> 31. At least one other victim, by his counsel, has filed a lawsuit to compel the U.S. Government to keep its calendar commitments to the new Federal Policy. [98CV00939, D.C., D.C., filed April 15, 1998]. (Copy of Federal lawsuit as filed by said other victim is provided as plaintiff's Exhibit "H").
> 32. The United States Government currently possesses the technology which plaintiff has alleged. There has been very limited public exposure of: antipersonnel electromagnetic weapons; and, wireless monitoring of the human body and brain;, up until this time. In July 1997, a significant article in a major weekly newsmagazine reported on U.S. Government development of acoustic and electromagnetic weapons. (See attached as plaintiff's Exhibit 'T' the July 7, 1997, U.S. World & News Report, cover story article on "Wonder Weapons").

> WHEREFORE, plaintiff Norman Carl Rabin requests that he be granted such relief as may be appropriate, including but not limited to damages and injunctive relief, and costs.

> Dated: New York, New York

> June 8, 1998

> James L. Hubbert, Esq.
> Attorney At Law
> 363 Seventh Avenue-21st Floor
> New York, New York 10001
> (212) 563-1971- Fax (212) 695-7990

> Contents

> VERIFICATION

> I, NORMAN CARL RABIN, the plaintiff, have read the annexed Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as for those matters I believe them to be true.

> [signature]

> NORMAN CARL RABIN

> Affirmed to before me this 8th day of June, 1998.

> [signature]

> NOTARY PUBLIC

> LAWRENCE W. BANIGAN
> Notary Public, State of New York
> No. 02B A5042486 [Number is not clear. "B" may be a 5, 8, E, or ? "5" could be an S.]
> Qualified in Nassau County
> Commission Expires April 24, 1999

> Contents

> TABLE OF CONTENTS

> Plaintiff's Exhibits

> Exhibit "A"
>   Plaintiff's 2-page "May [-...] 1996 Press Release". "Distribution of Norman Rabin's 2-page May [-...] 1996 Press Release".
> Exhibit "B"
>   May 8, 1995 letter from U.S. Representative Gary Ackerman to plaintiff.
> Exhibit "C"
>   "Study Sought on All Testing on Humans", The New York Times, January 10, 1994, article, p. 12.
> Exhibit "D"
>   Hearing Write-up, for Hearing on "Human Radiation and Other Scientific Experiments: The Federal Government's Role", U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, January 25, 1994, pp. I-III), 63-65.
> Exhibit "E"
>   Introductory Remarks for Senate Bill, S. 193, the proposed "Human Research Subject Protections Act of 1997", January 22, 1997 Congressional Record, pp. S645-S648. Text of proposed law S. 193, from the Internet site of the U.S. Congress. The Internet file transfer protocol by which this text was obtained is:
>   ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s193.is.txt
>   [current address http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.193:]
>   The Internet address of the Internet site of the U.S. Congress is:
>   http://thomas.loc.gov
> Exhibit "F"
>   President Clinton's March 27, 1997 Memorandum "Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research", as it appeared in the May 13, 1997 Federal Register, pp. 26368-26372.
> Exhibit "G"
>   Plaintiff's 3-page April 7, 1998 letter to U.S. Attorney General, and pages 1 and 2 from similar letters of April 7, 1998 to U.S. Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, and U.S. Secretary of State. 3 pages (4 sides) of enclosures to plaintiff's April 7, 1998 letters, besides from pages contained within Exhibits "A", "B", and "F". 2-page list of the names and addresses of the 21 U.S. officials to whom plaintiff mailed similar letters dated April 7, 1998.
> Exhibit "H"
>   Complaint 98CV00939, D.C., D.C., International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons v. U.S.A., filed April 15, 1998.
> Exhibit "I"
>   "Wonder Weapons", by Douglas Pasternak, with illustrations by Robert Kemp, "U.S. News & World Report", July 7, 1997, article, pp. 1,3, 38-46. Wonder Weapons

> Contents