Pamela Curry vs. The Ledger Publishing Company, The New York Times. 1989 Title VII , Retaliation using Computerized Records and electronic surveillance.
In 1989 I had experienced two years of intense hazing, electronic surveillance, telephone interceptions and others public retaliations before I filed a Lawsuit, pro se and informa pauperis in the Middle District Court of Florida.
In 1988, after I had filed the EEOC claim, I fled the country on an instinct I had as a tourism brat. The Poster for SwissAir that hung on my bedroom wall for decades took me to downtown Geneva. I stayed steps away from the church on the poster. That summer the UN Palais Library opened my imagination to the most serious violations of human rights using electronic records.
As a fact the New York Times was the parent company of the newspaper I sued. The NY Times had not only been quoted as an authority in some of the United Nations records I was researching on electronic surveillance but they reported on other areas of technology regulated by the United Nations, like Satellites at the I.T.U., International Telecommunications Union.
When rocket docket Judge Robert Mehridge came to the Florida Federal Court to clean it out fast. I took a stand against technology. He would not let me in the courtroom with a computer, that was 1990.
The following paper was an addendum to one of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Committee meetings.
The Contents are from the Human Rights and Scientific and Technological developments record of E/CN.4/1986/SR.21 26 Februart 1986. English Version. Chairman was Mr. Charry Samper of Columbia and Mr. Klenner of the German Democratic Republic.
This report contained alarming futuristic predictions that now at the departure of the United States from the Human Rights Commission appear even more prophetic.
I had asked the Federal Judge for Judicial Notice, in a paper filed on the court. of the documents of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, particularly the study on the use of comperitzed personal records. That study had become a resolution by the time of my expected trial by jury.
President Bush vetoed the Civil Rights compromise, my trial was cancelled.
OPEN DIALOGUE about the issues of electronic computerized records and individual behavior control was the most I wanted from the Title VII. Transparency was not to available in the Federal Courts in 1990, nor would my appeal to the Supreme Court turn that around.
This document is stamped on Page 1 and Page 17 with the STAMP of the PALAIS Library and initialed by I believe a man named RIVAS.
Like most researchers I have to beg for funding, but now my life depends on it so I am selling this document for $100 or the best offer to survive.
Send all offers to email@example.com
and Payment to
More information to come