Whenever the media generate a bit of light and fresh air, an unseen hand, it seems, slams the window shut and draws the shade. On October 9, 1994, WBAI-FM's "Emanations" program featured an interview with Ms. Julianne McKinney of the Association of National Security Alumni's Electronic Surveillance Project. A former Army intelligence officer, she confirmed the existence of "directed energy" broadcast technology that can produce a "voices-in-the-head" phenomenon.

By the time comedian-activist Dick Gregory appeared on Bernard White's WBAI morning show on February 6, 1995, however, the atmosphere had changed. The outspoken Mr. Gregory started to mention that the government has "equipment" with which it is "messing with people's minds." Most uncharacteristically, however, he then exercised self-censorship, stating that he didn't want to "leave here discredited." A letter to Bernard White about this incident went unanswered. I listened in vain throughout 1995 and 1996 for more news of electromagnetic brain-invasion weaponry. I heard none.

On March 28, 1995, Professor Ann Fagan Ginger of Berkeley, California's Meicklejohn Civil Liberties Institute was interviewed on WBAI and gave listeners a New York phone number. I was pleasantly surprised when she returned my call, but she sounded a bit nervous and reticent. Professor Ginger made no offer of advocacy, but encouraged me to continue my efforts. Two letters written to her Berkeley, California address went unanswered.

None of my 15 letters to WBAI or Pacifica ever prompted any sort of response. The last, dated February 28, 1996, emphasized: "Everything I claim is real. I'm not paranoid; I'm damn annoyed." I wondered aloud how much oppression might not have happened had someone listened to me years before. "Justice delayed is justice denied. Truth delayed is truth rendered irrelevant. Please get in touch with me for further information." There was no response.

In 1997, I decided not to renew my subscription to WBAI. Why contribute to a station that will not answer my correspondence? There seems to be no point in even listening to a station so obviously controlled or intimidated by intelligence forces.

As of the spring of 1995, Dave Emory had a show broadcast on WFMU-FM in East Orange, New Jersey. It was his custom once a month to phone in his program live from California, responding to questions submitted by WFMU listeners. On May 16, I called in a question about mind-control and mind-reading technology. He responded positively, confirming the existence of devices that "measure the changes in the electromagnetic field around the human body which correspond with the activation or deactivation of certain neural pathways," thus detecting "sub-vocal thought" and interfacing these changes in the body's electromagnetic field with computer technology. He also reported that devices have existed for some time that can "implant thoughts in the brain of an experimental subject."

During the course of the show, Mr. Emory also discussed the Temple of Set, a sect founded by former Army intelligence colonel Michael Aquino, and he touched briefly on Project Monarch, which allegedly uses mind-control on young children to induce artificial multiple personalities for purposes of espionage and sexual exploitation. He remarked at one point that 21st-Century technology was in the hands of "people who thought Hitler and Mussolini were great." He said "It's very late in the day," warning that we may face "the total world triumph of absolute evil, forever."

That was the last time I ever heard Dave Emory speak live on WFMU's airwaves. Shortly thereafter, he took the summer off. When his program returned in the fall, it consisted only of pre-recorded material. I have to say, though, that the intrepid Mr. Emory has spoken more truth, more consistently and courageously, than any other broadcast personality I know. His interviews of such authorities as Nick Begich, Ph.D. have revealed significant truths, including cautious references to mind-reading technology.

My second appeal, in the summer of 1995, to Rutgers University's Constitutional Litigation Clinic produced a response from law student Regine Dupuy-McCalla informing me of the Inquiries Team's decision: "Unfortunately, our Clinic cannot handle the kind of matter you have described and will, therefore, be unable to represent you [scan]." Cannot handle? What does that mean?

My March 25, 1996 letter to the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, written without reference to the previous correspondence of a decade before, produced no response, even though CCR has represented other victims of the government's campaign against CISPES.

A sympathetic rejection dated April 9, 1996 came from H.W. Cummins, Esq., representing the Task Force on Radiation and Human Rights in Takoma Park, Maryland. He suggested that I should talk to a lawyer in New Jersey. I couldn't resist writing him back on April 13, however, sending a ten-page chronology of my previous attempts since 1984 to obtain legal representation. My letter also revealed that while I was out to dinner on April 10, someone had broken into my Perth Amboy, New Jersey apartment and snipped the diamond tip off my phonograph stylus. A nice Freudian touch, don't you think?

I have quit the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU of New Jersey ignored five letters from me between 1994 and 1997, including one on March 5, 1996 that said:

You can be forgiven for refusing to look compassionately upon my own personal ordeal, but how can you justify ignoring the vitally-important issues I have tried to bring to your attention? Electromagnetic mind-invasion technology has existed for at least nine years. How many persons have been victimized, without even knowing what was happening to them? ...

Do you really imagine that no-one will ever do these things to you or anyone you care about? Are you ready to see the minds and bodies of your loved ones invaded and abused by psychopathic fascist freaks? I have seen these monsters turn little girls into mind-control zombies, slave-prostitutes. Is there no voice other than my own to denounce these practices? Will no one help me expose these crimes?

My letter of February 20, 1997 to ACLU's Membership Director Denise G. Hantman supplied materials indicative of her organization's evasive insouciance since 1984. I wrote:

The well of hope and trust has run dry. I can no longer contribute to organizations that discriminate against me and refuse to challenge the vicious criminals I have sought to expose. The use of high-tech torture by America's intelligence and law-enforcement authorities in suppression of human rights is the most significant and portentous issue that confronts persons of good will. Nobody can afford to ignore it. Nobody is protected against it. It is now 1984-plus-thirteen. Big Brother is raping you, and nobody seems to care.

Ms. Hantman wrote this on February 26, 1997 [scan]:

We are in receipt of your February 20 letter informing us that you are dropping your membership due to your present financial limitation and clear disappointment in the ACLU of New Jersey for not assisting you with your human rights cause.

It appears that you perceive the ACLU as a public defender like Legal Services or Legal Aid, and it is not. The cases taken are generally landmark cases that set precedent so a larger number may benefit from the decision. Also, each ACLU affiliate is autonomous and decides the issues it will stress and which cases it will accept, independent of other affiliates and the National office. Therefore, the National ACLU does not intervene in these decisions.

Our Public Education Department sent you some literature last October, and we hope you found it informative. Unfortunately, we cannot be of more assistance.

Thank you for your past support of our work.

Compelled to respond, I wrote on February 28 that I was not a criminal suspect in need of a public defender -- that I had never been charged with or convicted of any criminal offense. I informed her that she was not the first to treat me like a "pitiful little miscreant with a personal `problem' or `cause' that is of no general significance or interest." Later in my letter, I stressed the issues once again:

How could you have read my United Nations "1503" communication without realizing that I do indeed present a "landmark case" that "sets precedent so a larger number may benefit from the decision?" This is not my human rights cause. It is the cause of human rights, period. Electromagnetic neurological invasion, assault, and somatic disruption effectively nullify the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This country's absolute refusal to abide by its own laws and Constitution and to comply with the international human rights treaties, as demonstrated and documented in my personal experience, endangers the very future of human civilization.

You needn't respond unless you are prepared to acknowledge and discuss the issues.

There was, of course, no response.

Human Rights Watch ignored four letters after my return from Europe, the last of which, dated April 25, 1997, dealt solely with the discriminatory "safe country of origin" asylum policies lately adopted by European countries. Apparently, that issue is also a bit too controversial for the fainthearted folks at Helsinki Watch, who will not favor me with a reply. They don't respond to e-mails, either.

Amnesty International remains intransigent, refusing to consider my case even after having enlarged its mandate to include refugees. E-mails to Amnesty offices generally prompt no response, except for the Copenhagen and Amsterdam offices. Lisbet Birkedal's message of October 7, 1998 informed me: "If the case involves a complaint against the Danish authorities then the Danish Section is not just unable to act but prohibited from getting involved under the statutes of Amnesty International." I thanked her and continued my attempts at contacting AI's international secretariat in London, with no success to date.