![]() |
| Makeover by Melissa Erickson and Leah Fauntleroy, Lori isn't in this kind of shape!!! |
All posts on this blog should be considered allegations. They represent my experiences and opinions alone. The information contained is for the victims of illegal remote neural monitoring. I seek a peaceful and non-violent solution to this crime. DO NOT commit any illegal acts because of this blog. This is for public safety and for warning about the crime that the police won't. Be SAFE, Be Aware...Law&Order only
![]() |
| Makeover by Melissa Erickson and Leah Fauntleroy, Lori isn't in this kind of shape!!! |
Habeas cogitationem is a proposed legal remedy designed to protect the right to freedom of thought and related “neurorights” in the context of emerging neurotechnologies www.lawneuro.org. It is part of a growing family of habeas writs that include habeas corpus (protection against unlawful detention) and habeas data (protection against unauthorized access to personal data) Opinio Juris+1.
The writ would allow individuals to challenge direct, harmful interference with their thought processes — whether by public or private actors — using technologies such as:
Brain-computer interfaces or deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices that can be hacked or manipulated www.techpolicy.press.
Electroencephalography (EEG) headsets or other neuroimaging tools used for purposes like brain fingerprinting to extract confessions without consent www.techpolicy.press.
Coercive neurosurgical interventions (e.g., “moral enhancement” surgeries) aimed at altering behavior www.techpolicy.press.
It is intended to safeguard cognitive liberty, mental self-determination, and related neurorights, which are increasingly relevant as neurotechnology moves beyond clinical use into consumer and private applications www.lawneuro.org.
The concept builds on:
Habeas corpus — a long-standing emergency remedy for unlawful detention.
Habeas data — a modern procedural tool for protecting personal data rights.
Neurorights — emerging human rights frameworks that include freedom of thought, free will, and mental privacy www.lawneuro.org.
The Girardi v. Emotiv ruling in Chile (2023) is a landmark precedent. The Supreme Court ordered Emotiv to delete a senator’s brain data collected via an EEG headset and suspended the device’s sale in Chile until compliance with health and customs regulations was proven www.techpolicy.press. This case illustrates the real-world relevance of habeas cogitationem.
Advances in neuroscience make scenarios involving unauthorized reading of brainwaves, manipulation of neural implants, or coercive brain surgery possible today. Without a dedicated procedural mechanism, legal systems may struggle to respond effectively to such abuses www.techpolicy.press+1.
Broad applicability to both state and private actors.
Focus on thought processes rather than just physical or data privacy.
Procedural agility similar to habeas corpus and habeas data, enabling rapid legal action Opinio Juris+1.
Enforcement of neurorights as a complement to existing human rights frameworks.
In short, habeas cogitationem is envisioned as a third habeas writ — “you shall have the thought” — to ensure that the right to think freely is protected in the neurotechnology era www.lawneuro.org.
We also learned that stopping these neuroweapons was harder than a person might think. You learn about Faraday cages and crystals. You learn about clothing and protective devices. The problem is that none of them stops the voices on the phone line connected to your head. Now we are exploring the need for neuroshields that can actually work.
We have also found the perpetrators, so that the need for shielding becomes moot when you consider that we could just stop them from broadcasting altogether with that kind of information and a writ of cogitationem. We have the tools now to stop Lori Jean Marie LaFond. Doesn't that feel good?
| Click on the above for the article |
What happens with discarded technology once the military has experimented with it and found it to be rather useless? I'm not sure what goes on in most cases, but I can tell you the case of Lori Jean Marie LaFond to give you an idea of who is behind electronic harassment in the Palm Springs area of California! She used me as a focal point, so I think I should have the right to take what she said, correct it, and tell you as much as I know about her. First, it is important to start with the technology, as it is usually the thing that keeps doctors from understanding that neurotechnological devices are in your area, and without government authority, which Lori claims to have.
It is important to note that I've been told that Lori's ties to this technology include its theft from the military base and a basic knowledge of how to make this system work because of her father's position in the personnel division of the military. He was the base "welcome wagon" as a Sgt. Maj.
The author argues that microwave and sonic weapons (including infrasound) can damage internal organs, cause neurological symptoms, and even trigger carcinogenesis.
He links these ideas to the so‑called Frey effect, a real phenomenon where certain microwave pulses can create auditory sensations—but extends it far beyond accepted science.
The paper claims that Naphazoline nitrate, a nasal decongestant, can treat internal organ damage and cancer supposedly caused by these weapons.
References U.S. diplomats in Cuba and China who reported mysterious symptoms (the “Havana Syndrome” cases).
Suggests these symptoms were caused by microwave or sonic attacks from foreign governments.
Describes historical research on microwave auditory effects, including work by Allan Frey.
Claims multiple nations (Russia, China, India, etc.) possess or use “psychophysical” or “sonic” weapons.
The author claims:
Infrasound and microwave exposure can cause:
Hearing loss
Nausea, headaches, vertigo
Organ vibration
Cancer (colon, pancreatic, colorectal, etc.)
LRAD devices (long‑range acoustic devices) used by police could cause long‑term health effects.
Organized crime groups and intelligence agencies may use “bio‑acoustic deterrents.”
These claims go far beyond established scientific evidence.