To the

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Augustenstraße 5

70178 Stuttgart

Complaint

File number:: A 2 K 13885 / 03

Michael Howard Overlin

Gutenbergweg 16

72622 Nürtingen

Against

die Bundesrepublik Deutschland

represented by the Federal Minister of the Interior,

represented by the Director, Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees

90343 Nürnberg

I additionally request:

Require the Federal Republic of Germany, to translate my written statement, which was titled "Written statement submitted as part of my asylum application interview, which was conducted December 11, 2002". I explain that during my asylum hearing I believed my Last Written Statement would be treated exactly as if I had spoken ist contents aloud d uring my asylum hearing. I need a translation into German so that I can use ist contents as evidence for these court proceedings. It is 45 pages long, and I am not qualified to translate it myself.

I have enclosed the original English version of this written statement on pages ____________________________ .

Terms used:

"Bundesamt"	refers to Bundesamt für die Anerkennung Ausländischer Flüchtlinge, Außenstelle Karlsruhe.
"Asylum Interview"	refers to meine Anhörung gem. § 25 AsylVfG am 11.12.2002 in Karlsruhe.
"Last Written Statement"	refers to the document titled "Written statement submitted as part of my asylum application interview, which was conducted December 11, 2002".
"Interview Protocol"	refers to document titled "Niederschrift über die Anhörung gem. § 25 AsylVfG am 11.12.2002 in Karlsruhe".
"Interview Supplement"	refers to document titled "Beiblatt zur Niederschrift über die Anhörung".
"Interviewer"	refers to Frau Twarog, the federal official who conducted meine Anhörung gem. § 25 AsylVfG am 11.12.2002 in Karlsruhe.
"Decider"	refers to Frau Twarog, the federal official who made the decision on my asylum application.
"Decision"	Refers to document titled "BESCHEID in dem Asylverfahren des OVERLIN, Michael Howard"
"Translator"	Refers to Frau Weiner, the translator who was present during meine Anhörung gem. § 25 AsylVfG am 11.12.2002 in Karlsruhe.

Evidence included:

1. Interview Protocol, as received from the Bundesamt	Pages
2. Interview Supplement, as original	Pages
3. Last Written Statement, in English, as received from Bundesamt	Pages
4. My translation of Last Written Statement (evidence item 3) into German	Pages
5. Decision, as received from the Bundesamt	Pages
6. Letter sent December 11, 2003 to the Bundesamt , as photocopy	Pages
7. Cover-letter from Bundesamt which accompanied the documents I received from the Bundesamt in response to my letter (evidence item 6) to them, as received from the Bundesamt	Pages
8. Letter to Bundesamt dated December 18, 2002, as photocopy	Pages
9. My translation of my letter in evidence item 8 into German	Pages

During my Asylum Interview I was not given sufficient opportunity to explain how I had been politically persecuted in the U.S., and why I fear return to the U.S.

This is shown by the Interview Protocol (evidence item 1). From the Interview Protocol, page 6:

"F: Ich habe keine Fragen mehr an Sie. Möchten Sie Ihren Asylgründen noch etwas hinzufügen?

A: Ich habe nicht alles gesagt.

Ich möchte angeben, dass ich Zeitungsartikel bei mir habe, die über gebündelte Energie schreiben. Außerdem habe ich noch nicht alle meine Symptome hier nennen können.

...

Dem Antragsteller wird Gelegenheit gegeben, seine Gründe vollständig shriftlich niederzuschreiben. Der Antragsteller erklärt daraufhin, dass er dazu eine Woche Zeit benötigt, also bis zum 18.12.2002 die vollständigen Gründe schriftlich zum Vorgang einreicht."

Interview Protocol, page 6

In the above quoted passage, when I said "Ich habe nicht alles gesagt" I meant that I had not had a chance to fully explain how I had been politically persecuted in the U.S., and why I fear return to the U.S.

Although in the two sentences that follow, which begin with " Ich möchte angeben ...", I describe newspaper article excerpts that I wanted to give, and also additional physical symptoms that I wanted to describe, these were not the only additional information I wanted to give. I was unable to finish telling the Interviewer what additional information I wanted to give. The Interviewer interrupted me before I could finish my statement. During my Asylum Interview, I was often unable to finish statements in this way, because the Interviewer interrupted me.

It can also be seen from the Interview Supplement (evidence item 2) that, during my Asylum Interview, I was not given sufficient opportunity to explain how I had been politically persecuted in the U.S., and why I fear return to the U.S. Before the Interview Supplement had been signed by anyone, I hand-wrote on it the following statement in English:

"However, the reasons for my asylum application and fear of return to the USA will not be complete until I have given my written statement; and also, the corrections I made to the translation of the interview were not retranslated into English for me."

Interview Supplement

My above hand-written addition to the Interview Supplement was translated into German by the Translator so that my Interviewer could understand it.

My translation of the above statement into German is as follows:

"Jedoch sind die Gründe für meine Asylantrag und Furcht vor Rückkehr in die USA nicht komplett, bis ich meine schriftliche Aussage gegeben habe; und auch, die Korrekturen, die ich zur Übersetzung des Interviews bildete, wurden nicht zurück in Englisch für mich übersetzt."

Interview Supplement

My German translation of the above statement is not perfect, because I am not fluent in German.

The Interview Supplement is signed by the Translator, by the Interviewer, and by myself.

In the above quoted statement, "meine schriftliche Aussage" refers to my Last Written Statement (evidence item 3). During my Asylum Interview, I believed that it had been agreed that my Last Written Statement would be treated exactly as if it had been spoken aloud during my interview. That is why I made the following statement on the Interview Supplement:

"Ich bin heute vor dem Bundesamt für die Anerkennung ausländischer Flüchtlinge angehört worden und hatte ausreichend Gelegenheit, meine Asylgründe zu schildern und darzulegen, welche Hindernisse einer Rückkehr in mein Heimatland oder in einen anderen Staat entgegenstehen."

Interview Supplement

This statement is correct only if my Last Written Statement is treated exactly as if it had been spoken aloud during my interview.

The following statement from my Interview Protocol is correct only if my Last Written Statement is treated exactly as if it had been spoken aloud during my interview:

"Auf Nachfrage erklärt der Antragsteller, dass er ausreichend Gelegenheit hatte, die Gründe für seinen Asylantrag zu schildern und auch alle sonstigen Hindernisse darzulegen, die einer Rückkehr in sein Heimatland oder in einen anderen Staat entgegenstehen."

Interview Protocol, page 7

The above quote refers to what I said on the Interview Supplement. Unfortunately the above quote does not mention the statement I added to the Interview Supplement by-hand in English before it was signed.

During my Asylum Interview I was entitled to an opportunity to explain how I had been politically persecuted in the U.S., and why I fear return to the U.S. Unless my Last Written Statement is treated exactly as if I had spoken it aloud during my Asylum Interview, I was not given sufficient opportunity to do this.

Unfortunately, I believe my Last Written Statement has not been treated exactly as if it had been spoken aloud during my Asylum Interview, for the following reasons:

Most likely the federal office has never even translated my Last Written Statement into German.

On December 11, 2002 I sent a letter (evidence item 6) to the Bundesamt in which I requested copies of all written statements I had submitted during the asylum procedure. I asked for copies of both the original English versions as well as the German translations. I received the requested documents from the Bundesamt on January 14, 2004. I have included the letter from the Bundesamt that accompanied these documents as evidence item 7. The documents I received from the Bundesamt included the original English version of my Last Written Statement, but did not contain a German translation of it. From this I infer that my Last Written Statement has never been translated into German.

It is critical that this court have a chance to read my Last Written Statement. For this reason, I have included my translation of my Last Written Statement into German as evidence item 4. Because I am not fluent in German, my translation is not perfect.

If in fact the Bundesamt had my Last Written Statement translated into German, I have never had an opportunity to check the accuracy of its translation.
I have included the Decision as evidence item 5. Many statements in the Decision indicate that the Decider had not carefully read my Last Written Statement:

From page 4 of the Decision: "Da der Antragsteller weder in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, noch in Deutschland bereit ist, einen Arzt aufzusuchen, kann er seine persönliche Lebenssituation nicht verbessern."

This contradicts what I wrote in my Last Written Statement.

On page 7 of my last written statement I ask for help in contacting Dr. Roger Leir, a surgeon in Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Dr. Leir has helped other U.S. citizens with problems similar to mine.

From page 4 of the Decision: "Dem Sachvortrag des Antragstellers ist nicht zu entnehmen, daß er sich in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika oppositionell engagiert hat."

On pages 1 and 2 of my last written statement, I describe some of my political activity in the U.S. Also on page 19, 20, and pages 22 to 27, I describe my political activity in the U.S.

From page 4 of the Decision: "Auch Abschiebungshindernisse gem. 53 AusIG liegen nicht vor."

This statement ignores, without explanation, the following information from my Last Written Statement:

On pages 32 and 33 of my Last Written Statement I give a list of past unethical and involuntary human experimentation programs carried out by the U.S. Federal Government.
On page 29 of my Last Written Statement I quote from "Torture in the United States", a report by the World Organization Against Torture from 1998. This report states there are good reasons to suspect that the United States is currently using involuntary human research subjects in the development of "high technology military weaponry, including microwave and laser equipment." My quote from this report notes "the serious negative impacts on non-consensual human subjects that classified research of this type is capable of producing" and also "the past history of secret experimentation by the government." Here, "government" refers to the United States Federal Government.
On page 29 of my Last Written Statement I give statements from experts professor Alan Scheflin and Dr. Colin Ross that it is plausible electromagnetic and non-lethal weapons are being used in experiments on U.S. citizens without their consent today.
On page 4 and 12 of my Last Written Statement I wrote that, while a physics graduate student at UC Irvine, I attended a conference at the Beckman Laser Institute, and that the subject of this conference was the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the human brain. I wrote that I signed papers at this conference in which I supposedly agree to be used as a human test subject in this research.
On pages 10 to 27 of my Last Written Statement I described the horrible abuse I have already suffered as a result of being used as an involuntary human test subject. In particular, on page 21 I quoted from an email I sent March 7 2002 to some UC Irvine math graduate students and faculty members. In this quote, I wrote:

"I am hurt every day, sometimes multiple times per day. The pain is quite bad, in addition to the cognitive problems I’ve mentioned. I can’t have any kind of life with this going on. Although I would never harm myself, I feel I am literally being tortured to death …"

Last Written Statement, page 21

It is hard to understand why the Bundesamt would have refused to consider my Last Written Statement because of time-constraints in deciding my application. The Bundesamt time-stamped the first page of my Last Written Statement as received on December 30, 2002 (evidence item 3). The Bundesamt did not issue its Decision (evidence item 5) until November 20, 2002.

My Last Written Statement was submitted to the Bundesamt by the date my Interviewer and myself agreed on.

Immediately after my Asylum Interview, my Interviewer told me that if I needed additional time to submit my Last Written Statement, beyond the date of December 18, 2002 set during the Asylum Interview, I could have the extra time. On December 18, 2002 I hand-delivered a letter (evidence item 8) to the Bundesamt in which I asked to be allowed until the afternoon of December 20, 2002 to submit my Last Written Statement. At that time, I spoke with my Interviewer, who agreed to the time extension. I have included my translation of that letter into German as evidence item 9. Because I am not fluent in German, my translation is not perfect.

At 13:45 on Friday, December 20, 2002 I attempted to hand-deliver my Last Written Statement to the Bundesamt. The time, 13:45, was before the office was supposed to close on that day. However when I arrived at 13:45 I found the office was already closed. At that time I made a note of this on the first page of my Last Written Statement (evidence item 3).

I then returned at the earliest opportunity, Monday, December 23 2002 to the Bundesamt and attempted to hand-deliver my Last Written Statement. I was told that they could not accept it at that time, because my Interviewer was on Christmas vacation. I then gave my Last Written Statement to an official in the local office to deliver for me to the Bundesamt as mail. The local office is located in the same building as the federal office, but on a lower level. I believe the official went upstairs to deliver my Last Written Statement immediately.

Immediately before giving gave my Last Written Statement to the local official, I made a note in English on the first page that it had been resubmitted on December 23, 2002 (evidence item 3).

Abschiebungshindernisse gem. 53 AusIG liegen vor. Ein Ausländer darf gemäß 53 Abs. 1 und 4 AusIG nicht in einen Staat abgeschoben werden, in dem ihm Folter oder menschenrechtswidrige Behandlung mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit droht. Voraussetzung hierfür ist, daß diese Gefährdung vom Staat oder einer quasi-staatlichen Organisation ausgeht oder diesen zumindest mittelbar zuzurechnen ist und die Verfolgung individuell, konkret und zudem landesweit gegen den Ausländer gerichtet wird (vgl. auch BverwG, Urteil vom 15.04.1997, EZAR 043 Nr. 21).

In my statements during my Asylum Interview, and in my Last Written Statement, I said that I had been used as an involuntary human test subject by the United States Federal Government to develop non-lethal directed energy weapons. I said I had been used in research to develop capabilities for influencing human behaviour using directed energy. For example, in my Last Written Statement, I wrote:

"I believe that I am being used as an involuntary human test subject in studies to better understand the effects of electromagnetic radiation (particularly microwave radiation) on the human brain, and to develop methods of using non-lethal directed energy weapons to influence human behavior."

Last Written Statement, page 4

My claim to being a victim of involuntary human experimentation by the U.S. Federal Government is credible for the following reasons:

There is a considerable probability that unethical and involuntary human experiments are currently being conducted by the U.S. Federal Government in support of research into behavioral control. In this research, bio-effects of EM fields and beamed energy are used to directly affect the central nervous system, with the goal of influencing human behavior.

Arguments and evidence in support of the above statement are given on pages ________________________.

As I explain in section "I." above, during my asylum interview I did not have sufficient opportunity to explain why I fear return to the U.S. For this reason I was allowed to submit my Last Written Statement. I agreed to this during my Asylum Interview because I believed my Last Written Statement would be considered exactly as if I had spoken its contents aloud during my Asylum Interview. From a careful reading of my Last Written Statement it can be determined that:

On page 4 of my Last Written Statement I describe the exact event and circumstances under which I began to be used as an involuntary human test subject, in research to develop non-lethal directed energy weapons.
On page 5 and 6 of my Last Written Statement, I show that the physical symptoms I have suffered are consistent with my claim that I am being harmed with non-lethal directed energy weapons technology.
In addition to physical symptoms, the other harassment I have suffered, described pages 10 to 27 of my Last Written Statement, is consistent with my claim that I am being used in research to develop applications of non-lethal directed energy weapons to behavioural modification.
I have given the locations, approximate dates, and persons involved in many of the incidents of harassment I have suffered.
On page 4 and 5 of my Last Written Statement, I explain why I believe it is the United States Federal Government that is using me as an involuntary human test subject, rather than, for example, my being a victim of some group of criminals with access to non-lethal weapons technology.

It is likely that if I am returned to the United States I will continue to be used as an involuntary human test subject by the U.S. Federal Government.
In the U.S. I was being tortured and my human rights were being violated as a result of my use as an involuntary human test subject. If I am returned to the U.S., I will again be tortured, and my human rights will be violated, as a result of my continued use as an involuntary human test subject.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws