###

    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