Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frederick Banks v. Dictorate, Science & Technology Center (Cia)

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

March 7, 2014



LISA PUPO LENIHAN, Magistrate Judge.


It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).


Frederick Banks ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner currently confined at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. Prior to his incarceration, he initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2013.[1] Along with his Complaint, he submitted for filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis . The case was transferred to this Court on December 2, 2013, without ruling on the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), thus leaving that motion for the transferee court to decide. This Court subsequently granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and now, conducts the initial screening of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a former federal inmate who was incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons from June 2004 to May 2013. (Compl. ¶1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts a claim in excess of $300 million in damages against a litany of government officials and federal agencies (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5 & 17), and seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against several of them.

In support, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that while he was incarcerated, Defendants stole his Ferrari 355 and conspired to keep him from reporting it using a technology know to the public at large as "Voice to Skull" and "Remote Neural Monitoring." (Compl. ¶1.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Dictorate at the CIA Science and Technology Center authorized a terror campaign in the form of electronic harassment using Voice to Skull and MKUltra technology to harass him at work and in all aspects of his daily life, because he filed over 800 lawsuits against the government. (Compl. Preamble, ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) Plaintiff also alleges that the NSA director, and officials and their agents named in the Complaint used Voice to Skull technology to harass and annoy him in his daily life, and in the practice of his Wiccan religion, "because of their propensity as Christians and their inherent belief that Pagans and Wiccans and practioners (sic) of Witchcraft are Evil'." ( Id ., ECF No. 1 at 4.)

In addition, Plaintiff requests that the U.S. Attorney be compelled to present evidence of this criminal wrongdoing to a grand jury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3332, and that the Secretary of the Interior be compelled to effect the arrest of these agents, so that they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, citing to the Sioux Treaty of 1868, 15 Stat. 635 (1868). ( Id. ) Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants' activities violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and created a state religion-namely, Christianity-in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ( Id .) Plaintiff further avers that Defendants Clapper, Blair, Gompert, Bush, and Obama did not stand idly by but participated in the day to day running of this harassment by monitoring such activities. ( Id .)

In his Complaint, Plaintiff also requests class action certification under Rule 23 and the appointment of class counsel, for a class consisting of one million persons currently being harassed by the government and NSA using Voice to Skull and Remote Neural Monitoring technology and individuals under the NSA's behavioral modification program. ( Id. , ECF No.1 at 5.) Plaintiff avers that class certification is necessary to securing damages in the amount of $10, 000 against the United States for the negligence of Defendants pursuant to the Little Tucker Act because defendants had a duty as officers of the United States to keep Plaintiff and the class from harm. As a result of that negligence, Plaintiff alleges that he and the class were damaged in the amount of $200 million. ( Id. )

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants at SIS Davenport and the FCC Forrest City were all aware that Voice to Skull technology was being operated against him but did nothing to intervene or stop it. (Compl. ¶8.) Plaintiff avers that these Defendants also possessed actual knowledge of the agents or agencies that actually possessed Banks' stolen Ferrari. ( Id. ) Plaintiff contends that this "activity" violated the Electronic Communications Act, as amended, the Privacy Act, his First Amendment right to privacy, and was an unlawful invasion without probable cause in violation of the search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. (Compl. ¶9.)

As a result of the alleged acts of Defendants, Banks asserts claims for alleged violations of his due process rights and rights under the First and Fourth Amendments; an alleged violation of his property rights as an American Indian under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, as well as the "bad men" clause of the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie, 15 Stat. 635 (1868); negligent and intentional interference with his contractual relations with companies with which he did business; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; wanton infliction of pain, cruel and unusual punishment; gross negligence; strict liability; and alleged violations of the Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act. (Compl. ¶10.)

For relief, Banks seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Congressman Mike Doyle to further investigate the other Defendants' use of Voice to Skull and Remote Neural Monitoring technology to harass him, as well as an order enjoining Defendants from employing Voice to Skull technology, harassing electronic communications and non-lethal weapons against him. (Compl. ¶17.) In addition, Banks seeks monetary relief in the amount of $100, 000, 000.00, plus $27, 000.00 in actual damages for the vehicle, and seeks an order of court directing Defendants to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.