Kent Hovind has company! valpolawblog.wordpress/2014/02/10/lets-get-crazy/ Lets Get Crazy By: Isaac Carr Juris Doctor Candidate, 2015 Master of Business Administration Candidate, 2016 February 10, 2014 (excerpts) Did you hear the one where the CIA joined forces with the FBI, the Department of Justice and the President to torment a graduate student by putting electrodes on her body, threatening to murder her, putting radio devices in her pets, and hiring 20 year old girls to disrupt her “positive thoughts and behavior”? Well, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has. Theresa J. Suess, a pro se Plaintiff, filed a complaint, for her second time, against the Defendants President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an alleged conspiracy to torment her ever since she was a graduate student in the 1980s. During her first complaint, she sought $97 million in damages. This time she has requested only about $10 million. In this case, Suess receives only a disability check every month (for a disability which she claims was a consequence of the government experimentation) and therefore, she meets the requirements of the first prong (of the pauper test). However, the second prong is what brings the controversy before the Seventh Circuit, which resulted after the District Court already dismissed the case with prejudice twice. Suess graduated with a Master of Science degree from Purdue University in 1990, and was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder a year later. In her book Beyond the Hell of Mental Illness, published in 2003, she describes her challenges with her severe mental illness and states in the book’s description on Amazon that “she offers hope to all those whose lives… have been touched by mental disease.” However, her current complaint states that she disagrees with her medical diagnosis. The Plaintiff surely feels that she has been wronged by the government and deserves compensation, unfortunately for her, the District Court applies a more objective test. (T)he Seventh Circuit has said it is not enough that a complaint “might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” See Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010). In Suess’ case, the District Court said her allegations are “implausible and fantastical.” (T)he District Court reassured that Suess’ complaint is inherently frivolous and could not be fixed by an amendment to the complaint. ----------------------------------------------
Posted on: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:40:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015