United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

No. 14-5054
1:14-cv-00225-UNA
Brad Kempo


Appellant
v.


United States of America

Appellee

Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

1. Pursuant to Rule 35(2) the Appellant argues that what is before the

Honorable Court involves a question of exceptional importance and for

the following reasons. First, not one but two successive administrations

were engaging in unlawfulness, abuses of power and human rights

violations. Second, this conduct was extremely protracted, over the

course of a decade, and was systemic in nature involving two

presidents, their cabinet secretaries and Pentagon and the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) appointees. Third, both administrations

colluded with a plethora of international counterparts to proactively

1
 perpetuate stealth cognition technologies R&D so as to acquire as

powerful and lethal a capability that could be designed; not caring he

had been since the late 1980s and was still being held in

experimentation servitude and tortured, battered, abused, tormented

and threatened with grievous bodily harm and worse daily; and the

Appellee condoned and on hundreds of occasions facilitated that

behavior as pled in para 2.91 and 2.94.1 Fourth, all attempts at

procuring U.S. reform and accountability viz. whats pled beginning in

late February 2011 failed because of administrative incompetence

and/or laziness or the initiatives were covertly interfered with and

successfully sabotaged by the Defendant.2 Fifth, because of this

incompetence, laziness or sabotage the only remaining efficacious check

on systemic government criminality and abuses of power besides

Congress and the Fourth Estate is the courts. Sixth, Congress took

receipt of six requests for investigations and refused or declined to

investigate or conduct hearings. Seventh, the Fourth Estate has been

since April 2006 and continues to be a NATO 2.0 member and has

1
In Attachment 5 is a compilation of the Appellants experiences in both
diary and photographic form. Corroboration of his ordeal is contained in
Attachment 6. The tortured, battered, abused, tormented and threatened
with grievous bodily harm and worse daily did not commence until early
2004, the genesis of his Canadian reform and accountability collaboration
with the Appellee and NATO 2.0.
2
In Appendix 1 is a compilation of these reform and accountability
initiatives. The lack of any type of success constitutes a seriously
problematic breakdown of some of the administrative checks on systemic
government criminality and abuse of power.
2
refused or declined since March 2011 to fulfill its obligation to publicize

the pled unlawfulness, abuses of power and human rights violations

committed by the Appellee. Consequently, the Court is the only

constitutional check left with which to assess and procure civil

accountability. Eighth, the Appellant was at all material times a

member of the Bar; and malfeasance and human rights violations

occasioned on lawyers or exploiting them and taking advantage of their

vulnerabilities in any way over multiple years that adversely impacts

their interests is acutely reprehensible; and no court should tolerate and

must severely sanction the Appellee. A failure to do so sends a

democracy antithetical message that attorneys can and without

recourse be legitimate targets of the kind of egregious state behavior

pled. Ninth, the conduct of Huvelle J. was, as argued in the Honorable

Court of Appeal at first instance, criminal obstruction of justice and

conspiracy to obstruct same. To let that ruling stand is to compound its

injurious nature to the integrity of the administration of justice and

would bring it into more serious disrepute; and, further, would continue

a miscarriage of justice. Tenth, what was happening within the federal

government executive, Pentagon and CIA since 2004 violates values,

beliefs and standards Americans are patriotically proud of and fight for

domestically and internationally to protect. The Appellees behavior

shocks the conscience and is an affront to all. Eleventh, the United

3
 States is hailed as the most advanced, mature and functional

democracy in the world and in history. Most all other nations are

envious of and look to America as the paradigm to mirror. How goes

the United States so goes the modern world. For generations it has set

the bar high for political and judicial achievement. But the Founding

Fathers legacy has been insidiously under threat for many years and

continues to be. One way to reassert the countrys standing and as an

example to follow is to grant the relief being sought and allow the

matter to proceed to trial. And twelfth, to be successful at trial will set

a historic, legal, political and international precedent and also generate

an efficacious deterrent for future administrations and governments

throughout the world. They will recall the very steep price paid for

engaging in what was pled before replicating it.

2. The Appellant sought the reversal of the 11 February 2014 decision of

Huvelle J. in which the within proposed Complaint (Complaint) was

dismissed with prejudice. On July 29, 2014 the ruling was upheld by

Brown and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges and Ginsberg, Senior Circuit

Judge. The per curium decision cited Tooley v. Napolitano 586 F.3d

1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Williams, S.C.J. stated:

4
 A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it "is
patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for
decision." Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994); see also
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 683, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939
(1946); cf. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1959 (Souter, J., dissenting) (The
sole exception to th[e] rule [that allegations must be credited at
the pleading stage applies to] allegations that are sufficiently
fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green
men, or the plaintiff's recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time
travel.).

4. What the Court ruled was that the Complaint is a 100% fabrication; that

the Appellant conjured up what was pled from a wild, fanciful and

conspiratorial imagination. Rebuttal of the courts finding in part derives

from an incontrovertible history of R&D programs seeking to covertly

influence, modify and substantially alter cognitions and behavior.3

5. The human rights violating program was the subject of a law journal

publication4:

American lawyers John C. Turner and Joseph Rauh Jr. took Jan
Orlikows case in spite of its bizarre allegations and ultimately
succeeded. They then published a detailed account in Anatomy of a
Public Interest Case against the CIA, Hamline Journal of Public Law
and Policy, Fall 1990. Early in 1979 Canadian Member of
Parliament David Orlikow called our office with a horror story that
bordered on the incredible.

3
The factual analysis begins by way of reference to what was pled at para.
2.03 and all of what is contained in Attachment 3.
4
Full text in Attachment 3; along with the headnote to a U.S. Supreme
Court decision and a White House Memorandum from former Vice-
President Dick Cheney to former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld;
Memorandums for the President from White House Counsel Roderick Hills;
correspondence from former CIA Director W.B. Colby to President Gerald
Ford and more.
5
 Also compiled in Attachment 3 are articles from mainstream

newspapers which report on (1) victims commencing legal action or

seeking to settle in the United States and Canada, (2) the Government

of Canada refusing to settle, (3) Members of the Canadian Parliament

demanding committee hearings, (4) congressional testimony, (5) the

purpose of the R&D programs, (6) news media investigations, (7) the

principals conducting the R&D programs, and (8) the number of victims

said to be in the many hundreds.

Whats to be taken special note of is who Messrs. Turner and Rauh Jr.s

client was: Jan Orlikow the wife of a sitting member of Parliament. In

Attachment 8 I submit that I am the lawful son of the Honorable Judge

Wallis Kempo Q.C., B.A., LL.B., LL.M. (Tax Court of Canada) and the

lawful nephew of Senator Paul Lucier.5 In Canada it doesnt matter

what academic or professional credentials one has or significant family

pedigree; citizens have been and continue to be targets of egregious

systemic unlawfulness and intolerable human rights violations.6

5
In Canada senators are appointed for life. Uncle Paul sat in the Upper
Chamber of Parliament for twenty-four years. At his death he was the
second longest serving Senate member.
6
Theres another material similarity; discovered after five years of
academic research. More is in Attachment 2, page 66 69.
6
6. The CIAs 1950s and 1960s experiments were an abysmal failure. The

public outcry led to congressional hearings7 and presidential Executive

Orders that regulated government experimentation involving people.8

7. The Appellants R&D ordeal came to the attention of the Bush

administration when he filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada.9

Thats when the Pentagon and CIA discovered the governments of

Canada and China had successfully achieved what they sought in the

1950s and 1960s; so the decision was made at leadership levels to

acquire the capability for the U.S. arsenal and establish a collaborative

relationship with the Appellant. Because of his academic and

professional credentials and family pedigree10 he was considered an

honest, trustworthy, reliable and competent contributor to help the

Appellee discover how stealth cognition technologies (SCTs), i.e.,

militarized hypnosis, worked and engage in reform and accountability

that challenged Canadas closet authoritarian state and Chinese joint

hegemony of the countrys political system and economy.11

7
In Attachment 3 is a compilation of congressional testimony by U.S.
attorney-at-law Helen McGonigle.
8
They are compiled in Attachment 3.
9
Documentation of the litigation is Attachment 7.
10
Compiled in Attachment 8.
11
The findings of the five year research project are contained in
Attachment 2 and reform and accountability initiatives are compiled in
Attachment 4.
7
8. Because of the trajectory of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) to

acquire superpower status in the coming decades and the Chinese

Communist Party (CCP) promotes that which is antithetical to

democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and its globally

proliferating its ideology,12 the worlds democracies and emerging

democracies have a vested interest in protecting gains made in the 20 th

century. The diplomacy as pled in para. 2.12 2.16 et seq.13 had to be

in back-channel fashion for the reason stated in Attachment 1:

Because if President Bush had publicly demonized the Chinese the

same way President Regan condemned the Soviets, as the evil
empire, the ramifications would have been instant and protracted:
stock markets around the world crashing, currency exchanges
volatile, economies falling into recession and globalization coming
to a screeching halt. Consequently, diplomacy had to be
undertaken and remain below the public radar screen.

9. For this reason and because SCTs are a capability that materially assist

the CIA in conducting clandestine operations, in-depth knowledge of

said capability and said operations are designated national security

confidential.

10. In para. 2.55 of the Complaint is a list of forty-seven (47) prime

ministers and presidents, other heads of state and leaders of major

organizations; who beginning in the spring of 2006 entered the back-

12
Reference Attachment 1 and research in Attachment 2.
13
Also reference Attachment 1, Appendix 2, 3 and 4.
8
 channel to announce their membership in or to indicate being cognizant

of what is loosely labeled NATO 2.0.14 The Appellants original belief

was that all of them were supportive of what the Bush administration

said was being pursued; what is described in the Complaint as stated

objectives in para. 2.31:

(1) immediately halt the R&D program, (2) compensate him for his
pain, suffering, injury and economic losses, (3) make full disclosure
about the global proliferation of stealth cognition technologies; and
take steps to (4) terminate Chinese joint hegemony to reestablish
indivisible Canadian sovereignty, (5) implement reforms to reverse
the evolution of authoritarian governance and (6) contain the
Government of Chinas Soviet-style expansionistic ambitions.

11. In mid-February 2011 a critical analysis of Bush and Obama

administrations conduct led to the conclusion (1) the agreement pled in

para. 2.47 2.52 involved deception (para. 2.53), which gave rise to

the tort of deceit, (2) neither were acting with bona fides viz. back-

channel behavior and (3) both had violated U.S. law and Congress

ratified United Nations human rights codes. It wouldnt be until April

2011 it was inferred both had colluded with international counterparts

to perpetuate the said deception so as to prolong the R&D program.

14
Attachment 1, Appendix 1 contains four tables of contents that are
samples of what occurred in the diplomatic back-channel. The first
document in that Appendix is a Table of Contents to the evidence record
authored for the purpose of the within litigation. The addendums therein
list the categories of NATO 2.0 members.
9
12. Huvelle J.s ruling is another instance of the insidious decline of the

Founding Fathers legacy. It follows not only what was pled in the

Complaint about government unlawfulness and abuses of power,

abdications of national security responsibility and intolerable

impropriety dating back to 2004, but also the Federal Bureau of

Investigation refusing to launch an investigation in late February 2011.

The same results were experienced between March 2011 and

September 2011 when seeking to mobilize the investigative

mechanisms of whats referenced in Appendix 1 herein.

13. The following was argued in the appeal at first instance:

It is respectfully submitted [Huvelle J.] knew as a result of her

legal training, experience in the profession and being a member of
the Honorable Court she was taking improprietous and complicitous
receipt of ex parte communications that sought to and did
sabotage the filing of the within Complaint.

[]

First she states The complaint ... is mostly incoherent. By way of

rebuttal it is not factually unclear, confusing, unintelligible,
incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected or
illogical. It comprises a clear and concise itemization of the facts
that support the causes of action; the principal one being the tort
of deceit.

Second, The involvement of the United States ... is unclear. Pled

is a contract between myself and the proposed Defendant (para.
2.47) and one that was based on deceit (para. 2.53 et seq.).
Doing so establishes direct and protracted involvement by the
proposed Defendant.

10
Third, [The claim is] attenuated and unsubstantial as to be
absolutely devoid of merit and [it is] patently insubstantial,
presenting no federal question suitable for decision. The causes of
action are well known in law, the facts pled fully support them and
the U.S. District Court has jurisdiction.

Fourth, she cites the Federal Tort Claims Act stating:

In order to maintain a claim for monetary damages against

the United States for certain torts a plaintiff must exhaust
administrative remedies "first present[ing] the claim to the
appropriate Federal agency. [] Even if the instant complaint
stated a potential claim, it still would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction because there is no indication that plaintiff had
exhausted his administrative remedies under the [FTCA].

In the materials provided the Honorable Court, comprising of the

proposed within Complaint and a Brief of Fact and Law supporting
the application for in forma Pauperis status, I made no mention
about complying with said statute. Consequently, there were no
facts in evidence that allowed her to dismiss my proposed claim
with prejudice on the basis of not having complied with the FTCA.

Further, it is the exclusive role and responsibility of the proposed

Defendant to either plead a failure to comply with the statute or
after filing its Answer bring a motion to strike the claim on the
basis of having so failed. Consequently, her inexcusable bias in its
favor is palpable; and it is inexplicable except when understood in
the context of conspiring to obstruct justice with said Defendant.

In addition, the Federal Tort Claims Act expressly exempts me qua

proposed Plaintiff from having to comply with the statute:

28 USC 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as

prerequisite

(a) An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the

United States for money damages for injury or loss of
property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent
or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented
the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim
shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and

11
 sent by certified or registered mail.

The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall
not apply to--

(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false

imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or
interference with contract rights.

Technically, Huvelle J. erred both in fact and law and thus her
decision is easily reversible on appeal.

The motivation for the conspiracy was at all costs to prevent the
filing of the within Complaint and prevent national publicity and a
political scandal that would engulf the Obama administration. It
pleads a successful military R&D program originally commenced
and managed by the governments of China and Canada one that
from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s achieved benchmark
successes that the Central Intelligence Agency didnt when
engaging in the same type of program in the 1950s and 1960s.
Rogue personnel in Canada and the United States military,
intelligence and security communities have at every turn sought to
prevent me from attaining justice and to procure reform and other
forms of accountability.

[]

More evidence of obstructionism was experienced in June, July and

August 2013. I contacted many dozens of Washington D.C. situate
law firms seeking representation. When I began to infer
obstruction of justice in preventing the retention of counsel I
contacted an associate as pled 2.87 2.89. He pursued that same
objective and to his astonishment was unsuccessful.

Consequently, what occurred involving Huvelle J. that prevented

the timely filing of the Complaint is a continuation of the foregoing
pattern of disruption, interference, sabotage and obstruction of
justice and conspiracy to commit same.

Having regard to the principles of judicial immunity, since she

cannot be criminally prosecuted for her serious and stupefying
malfeasance she ought to be administratively disciplined. I
respectfully submit that given the seriousness and brazenness of
her conduct she be removed from the Bench.

12
14. The U.S. District Court decision was at minimum patently biased and at

maximum generated a miscarriage of justice; and this Honorable Court

ought not ratify it by denying the relief being sought of vacating or

reversing it. Bias has been defined15 as follows:

The alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must stem from

an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on
some basis other than what the judge learned from his
participation in the case. Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31,
41 S.Ct. 230, 232, 65 L.Ed. 481.

The allegation made by the Appellant is Huvelle J. took receipt of ex

parte communications from the Defendant that fatally compromised Her

Honors ability to make an independent, impartial determination on the

facts presented to the Court. Because a formal judicial misconduct

complaint has been filed, it would be imprudent to rule viz. the within

rehearing and rehearing en banc until the entire and lengthy

assessment and multi-faceted administrative appeal process is

concluded so as to not have two contrary findings of misconduct.16

15. The Court ought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court to do so.

As was stated in Linton et al. v. Airbus Indstrie et al., 30 F.3d 592 (5th

Cir. 1994): [T]he Defendants are correct in asserting that we have

authority to recall our mandate "to prevent injustice.

15
United States v. Grinnell Corporation Grinnell Corporation, 384 U.S. 563
(U.S.S.C., 1966), Douglas J..
16
On August 26, 2014 Garland C.J. issued an Order dismissing the
complaint; which means the matter is going to be appealed to the
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.
13
16. It was an error of law for the Honorable Court of Appeal at first instance

to ignore what the Appellant drew to its attention; namely that an

agreement was expressly pled and Huvelle J. blatantly and

inexplicably17 refused to acknowledge that. The panel sidestepped what

was a critical error of fact; as was her ruling the lawsuit was statute

barred because the Federal Tort Claims Act had not been complied with.

The statute expressly exempts tort of deceit lawsuits.

17. Both Honorable Courts, citing Tooley, ruled the Appellant was lying in

the Complaint or He suffers from a mental affliction. This finding is

profoundly inaccurate. Submitted in Attachment 8 is the fact hes been

for 24 years and continues to be a member of the Canadian Bar. His

mother was appointed a Provincial Court Magistrate when he was six

and before having practiced a day of law. She retired from the Bench

and practiced for 13 years. Thereafter she was appointed to the federal

Bench when he was enrolled in his undergrad studies. Similarly, his

father (deceased) was an attorney for 3 decades. The Appellant

excelled at everything he pursued and has never been prosecuted for

anything relating to ethical misconduct.

17
Its inexplicable except when reasonably inferring she took receipt of ex
parte communications that procured the decision to dismiss the lawsuit
with prejudice. Theres no other explanation for her to blatantly ignore
the fact a contract was pled (para. 2.47 2.52) and the claim is
expressly exempt from the procedural requirements of the Federal Tort
Claims Act. Her Memorandum of Opinion is Appendix 2 herein.
14
18. The Appellant was invited in early 2004 to join NATO 2.0 because of his

academic and professional credentials and family pedigree as submitted

in Attachment 8. An investigation into his past revealed nothing in his

character but honesty, trustworthiness, reliability and the highest of

integrity. And over the years he complied with all of his pled

contractual obligations (reference Attachments 1, 2 and 4). He was

also asked to be a reform and accountability collaborator principally

because hed been a victim of the pled multi-decade systemic

unlawfulness and human rights violations that are considered

extraordinarily egregious in democracies. Why his membership was not

revoked was because he never fabricated, embellished, engaged in

hyperbole or cut corners; and often exceeded expectations. For the

Honorable Court to find that the Complaint was manufactured or he

suffers a mental incapacity is contrary to the person he has been since

a child and throughout the entirety of his adulthood. Whats contained

in the Attachments will easily prove on a balance of probabilities (1)

what his personality constitution comprises, (2) the accuracy of what

was pled and (3) he complied with the terms of the agreement.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

This 27th day of August, 2014.

_______________________
Brad Kempo, Appellant

15