How to Build a Court Defense Against Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Government Torture
How to Build a Court Defense Against Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Government Torture
In an era where covert surveillance technology may be weaponized against innocent citizens, a growing number of individuals are coming forward with serious allegations: 24/7 remote neural monitoring (RNM), involuntary thought interrogation, and psychological torture—despite having no criminal history. This blog post outlines a full legal defense strategy inspired by Carl Miller’s constitutional law teachings and landmark case precedents. It is designed for victims who want to stand up for their rights in court—and potentially bring their case before the Supreme Court of the United States.
🔒 1. Core Constitutional Rights Being Violated
🔹 Fourth Amendment – Freedom from Unreasonable Search & Seizure
Remote neural monitoring is an illegal and warrantless seizure of private mental data. Cite Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616.
🔹 Fifth Amendment – Protection from Self-Incrimination and Due Process Violations
Any remote extraction of mental thoughts without consent is a violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. Refer also to Title 5 U.S.C. § 556(d), which terminates jurisdiction upon denial of due process.
🔹 Sixth Amendment – Right to Counsel & Confront Accusers
Victims of RNM are deprived of legal representation and the ability to face their interrogators.
🔹 Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Psychological and neurological torture via non-linear effects clearly meets the bar for cruel and unusual punishment.
🔹 Ninth Amendment – Unenumerated Rights
Mental privacy and bodily autonomy are fundamental rights that exist beyond the text of the Constitution.
📜 2. Carl Miller’s Legal Framework and Case Precedents
✅ Rights Cannot Be Converted to Privileges
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 – Government surveillance cannot transform your liberties into privileges that require consent or licensing.
✅ Citizens May Ignore Unlawful Laws
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 – Citizens are not bound to obey unconstitutional regulations.
✅ No Willful Intent = No Crime
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 – The burden is on the government to prove criminal intent, which it cannot in the case of innocent victims.
✅ No Immunity for Government Actors
Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 and Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 – State and federal officials are liable for rights violations.
⚖️ 3. Additional Constitutional Pillars from Carl Miller
Unconstitutional Acts Are Void From Inception
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 – Unlawful surveillance and torture programs are null and void.
No Emergency Can Suspend the Constitution
No government emergency grants power to bypass constitutional protections.
Burden of Proof Rests on the Government
The state must prove you knowingly and voluntarily waived your rights—something it cannot do.
All Statutes Must Align with the Constitution
16 Am Jur 2d, §177, §256 – Any law in conflict with the Constitution is void ab initio.
Rights Must Be Liberally Interpreted in Favor of the Citizen
Bryars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 – When in doubt, the benefit goes to the people.
Federal Criminal Law Applies
18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 – Government officials involved in RNM are engaged in conspiracy and deprivation of rights under color of law.
🧾 4. Requesting Declaratory Relief
Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, you can formally request the court to:
Declare RNM, remote interrogation, and neural torture unconstitutional
Demand a cease and desist from all state and federal actors
Seek oversight, compensation, and an official precedent against future use
🏛️ 5. Filing Your Case to the Supreme Court
What to Submit:
Your petition (original + 10 copies)
A cover letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court
Filing fee of $300, or apply in forma pauperis if indigent
Where to Send It:
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Also serve:
California Attorney General – 1300 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
U.S. Attorney General – 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20530
What to Expect:
You do not need to appear in court initially.
You may receive an acknowledgment or notice of docketing.
The court decides whether to hear your case based on merit.
🎤 Final Courtroom Statement
“Your honor, the right to the privacy of one’s mind and body is sacred. The government has crossed the line by turning rights into privileges and subjecting innocent citizens to covert interrogation and neurological torture. We demand immediate cessation, full accountability, and restoration of constitutional protections.”
📚 Conclusion
This defense—rooted in Carl Miller’s teachings and landmark U.S. case law—gives every innocent citizen a fighting chance to protect their mind, dignity, and humanity from unconstitutional government actions.
✉️ If you or someone you know is affected, share this post. The law still stands on your side.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information provided on this page is for educational and informational purposes only. It is based on publicly available legal documents, constitutional case law, and teachings from legal researchers such as Carl Miller, who is not a licensed attorney.
🧠 We are not lawyers, and nothing on this site should be interpreted as legal advice, legal representation, or a substitute for consulting a licensed attorney.
The content is intended to empower individuals to understand and assert their rights under the U.S. Constitution and relevant legal precedents — particularly in situations where conventional legal recourse has failed or been denied.
⚠️ Always do your own research and, if necessary, seek counsel from a qualified legal professional. Use of any information from this site is at your own risk.
✊ We believe in the right to self-education, self-representation, and freedom of speech — all of which are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.