Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Starrett v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

March 9, 2018

WILLIAM HENRY STARRETT, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
LOCKEED MARTIN CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court in this pro se civil rights action are three motions to dismiss filed by: (1) Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) (ECF No. 17); (2) Defendants United States Army, United States Army Special Operations Command, United States Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command, United States Army Reserve Command, United States Special Operations Command, United States Department of Defense, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, United States Department of Energy, and National Nuclear Security Administration (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”) (ECF No. 20); and (3) Texas Military Department (“TXMIL”) (ECF No. 56). For the reasons stated, the Court recommends that the District Court GRANT Defendants' Motions and DISMISS Plaintiff's claims without prejudice.

         Background

         On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff William Henry Starrett, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit asserting claims against the United States government and several large corporations for violations of the United States Constitution and numerous federal civil and criminal laws; violations of the Texas Constitution, Texas Penal Code, and Texas Business and Commerce Code; copyright infringement; fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy; and tortious interference, gross negligence, and strict liability. Pl.'s Compl. 1, 50, 55, 56, 63, 74, 76-79, 85-88, 107, 111-145 (ECF No. 2). By his Complaint, which is 149 pages long, Plaintiff asserts 73 distinct causes of action based on allegations that Defendants conspired to forcefully use him as a test subject for military exercises and mind experiments. Pl's Compl. 2, 8-12, 18-23 (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants targeted him with a “Remote Neural Monitoring” system that uses “electro-optical energy like lasers to measure brain activity and sensory nerve impulses, ” harassed him using “Voice to Skull” technology to broadcast sounds, images, and voices directly to his brain, and otherwise remotely monitored and controlled his thoughts, movements, sleep, and bodily functions. Pl's Compl. 8 ¶ 27-30 (ECF No. 2).

         The following allegations are representative of Plaintiff s Complaint:

• This civil action arises out of intentional inflictions of emotional distress, invasions of privacy, forced involvement, thefts, appropriations, and conversions ongoing twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, and continuing to date. Pl.'s Compl. 2, ¶ 2;
• Plaintiffs life was threated by voices not imagined, but sensed more than heard, while his body felt constantly probed, and a constant stream of echoing electronic, synthesized sounds bombarded him. Id. at 8, ¶ 26;
• The United States Army Psychological Operations personnel initiated confrontations, causing Plaintiff to endure invisible but inwardly perceptible voice harassment technologies, delivery of subliminal hypnotic suggestion without consent, electronically induced nausea, and pressure-like sensations. Id. at 9 ¶ 33;
• Every time Plaintiff departed or returned from his home, United States Army Psychological Operations personnel and Lockheed Martin Staff received text messages on their mobile devices to alert them. Id. at 9 ¶ 35;
• Plaintiff was being taunted about group messages detailing activities and habits, including private conversation details and explicit bodily function. Id. at 10, ¶ 36;
• Plaintiff was kept by Defendants as an experiment test subject, and he is continually forced to assist and supply the Defendants with development of trainings, batteries, scripts, procedures, knowledge bases, and expert systems. Id. at 10, ¶ 37;
• Defendants subject Plaintiff to aggressor-controlled cycles of sleep, brutal surprise experiments, electronically imposed hallucinations, stimulation of deeply negative emotions, and activating wildly atypical bodily experiences. Id. at 11, ¶ 40;
• Plaintiff was told by his remote harassers that Defendant U.S. Army had been performing military surveillance of Plaintiffs goings for months as he was a target for Defendant U.S. Department of Defense's sanctioned “Jade Helm 15” exercises. Id. at 15, ¶ 60;
• United States Army Psychological Operations personnel remotely monitored and utilized voice harassment systems against the peace of Plaintiffs home, heart, and mind, ignoring his needs, protests, ...

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.