Targeted Justice Files Lawsuit Alleging Crimes Against US Citizens - Is it a Bombshell or a Fizzle?

By Janet Phelan

On January 12, 2023, Targeted Justice, which holds itself out as a resource for those who claim to be targeted with covert weaponry, filed a lawsuit in US District Court claiming that FBI head Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland—among others—are responsible for these attacks on selected US citizens. The lawsuit cites the “Havana Syndrome” and at least one of the plaintiffs, a Dr. Len Ber, has been cited elsewhere as a “Havana Syndrome” victim.

The “Havana Syndrome” has been widely covered by legacy media. It refers to what has been termed as “mysterious” attacks on CIA and Embassy officials in China, Cuba and elsewhere — attacks which have been in some cases profoundly disabling.

The causes of the “Syndrome” remain in dispute, with some attributing them to covert directed energy and/or microwave attacks. As it now stands, the US government has passed a law recognizing and giving medical assistance to diplomats and officials who have been attacked in this manner. The US government continues to maintain the stance that other than the vetted officials, no US citizen is being attacked with this weaponry.

At this juncture, there are virtually thousands of US citizens who are claiming to have been so attacked, including NSA whistleblower extraordinaire William Binney. The US government continues to deny the veracity of these citizen claims, insinuating that those who make these claims are mentally ill.

As filed, the lawsuit contains fatal errors, which may result in its dismissal. For one, the lawsuit is named “First Amended Complaint,” which leads one to question where the original Complaint was lodged. In fact, it appears never to have been entered into the record.

However, the intrinsic problems with the lawsuit do not end there. While the lawsuit waxes on about covert weaponry, fusion centers and the terrorist watchlist, it falls down irrevocably in the section named “Causes of Action.” This section is pivotal to the success of any legal effort as it names (or should name) the laws that have been violated and therefore provide an underpinning for a successful legal action.

However, whoever constructed the lawsuit (and we will get to that in a moment) appeared not to understand what a “Cause of Action” is and how important this inclusion would be to a successful suit. The lawsuit lists a total of six “Causes of Action,” some of which are not causes of action and may end up rendering the lawsuit null and void. The lawsuit lists “Damages” as a cause of action (this is not a cause of action) and also lists “Mandamus” as a cause of action, which it is not — without a prior lower court government decision.

In other words, the lawsuit falls down in listing the laws broken which justify the suit.

Also of concern is the focus of the lawsuit on the alleged inclusion of what are called “targeted individuals” on the terrorist watchlist. The lawsuit seems to make an assumption that the inclusion takes place under the banner of “Non-Investigative Subjects.” However, when queried as to how this conclusion was reached, the attorney for the lawsuit, Ana Toledo, declined to respond. If one looks closely at the verbiage in the lawsuit, it appears that the lion’s share of the discussion (26 pages) relates to the alleged inclusion of individuals in the terrorist database. Very little verbiage (a total of around three pages) is given to the allegations of the use of “Havana-syndrome type” weapons against targeted individuals.

Going to the Causes of Action, which list the laws broken and thereby justifying the lawsuit, we come away with the impression that the sole basis for filing the lawsuit was 1) a failure of the government to timely reply to FOIA requests and 2) allegations of inclusion of the seventeen plaintiffs on the terrorist watchlist, for which no proof is provided.

The attorney for the lawsuit, Ana Toledo, was contacted with questions about the lawsuit, including the question as to its authorship. Given the sloppy construction of the lawsuit, this question would of necessity be asked, as it is possible that another party wrote the lawsuit and Toledo simply put her name on it.

Toledo neither confirmed nor denied this reporter’s questions, responding in the following manner—

Dear Ms. Phelan:

I have been awfully busy. Excuse my delay in responding.

I believe you have reached your own conclusions regarding the lawsuit and have nothing further to discuss about it.

Your tone is not conducive to a productive communication.

Best regards,

A. Toledo

Further queries were tendered as to her work history and her apparent hiatus from the practice of law between 2010 and 2019. No response was received.

The judge in this case requested a memorandum from both plaintiffs and defendants as to whether the venue (Southern District of Texas) was the correct venue for the lawsuit. In the first response filed by the government, the lawyer for the defendants stated that it was expected that the lawsuit would be dismissed “at the earliest stage” and was essentially comprised of “baseless allegations and conspiracy theories.” The venue was then discussed and both parties seemed to agree upon its locus of filing.

For a number of years, Targeted Justice has been claiming that it intends to file a class action lawsuit and has encouraged “targeted individuals” to join the organization. The fact that a lawsuit is now on file naming only seventeen defendants has surprised some of the members, many of whom paid a donation on joining the organization.

Targeted Justice is currently being sued by its former legal director, John Christiana. His lawsuit, filed in both Arizona (the former locus of Targeted Justice) and Texas (its current locus) alleges that the organization has attempted to encourage targets in “doxxing” public officials for the alleged purposes of creating legal difficulties for the targets. The doxxing claims come from the fact that Targeted Justice publicly lists names and home addresses of public officials which the organization claims are involved in the use of weaponry and/or gangstalking of ordinary citizens. The lawsuit also alleges a coordinated effort at defaming Christiana once he objected to the doxxing.

In fact, Christiana’s mother, Charlotte, who is ninety years old, received a demand letter signed by lawyer Ana Toledo and the principal with Targeted Justice, an “Owen Calvert” who also goes by the name of “Richard Lighthouse.” The letter, which was curiously not dated, demands over $3 million dollars from Jack’s mother, who is listed as a joint “tortfeaser” along with Jack. This reporter has reviewed the tracking information attached to the letter and believes it was sent on or around December 30, 2022, after the lawsuit against Targeted Justice was filed by Christiana.

In a subsequent letter to the “Targeted Individual Community,” Robert Brown, who is Targeted Justice’s defense attorney for the Arizona lawsuit against TJ, stated that Jack’s mother was known to be his sole support and therefore liable for the demanded damages. The letter from attorney Brown states “It is our understanding Christiana does not have any meaningful employment and he covers his living expenses, and any expenses related to a lawsuit, with money received from his mother.”

In fact, Jack Christiana, who has a MA in Legal Studies works more than one job and is currently also attending law school. He has told this reporter on prior occasions that he is working long hours in order to save money for a move from California to DC, where he intends to further his activism.

Christiana has responded to the letter, which he alleges constitutes elder abuse and extortion, by filing a restraining order against lawyer Ana Toledo and Owen Calvert, barring them from further contact with his mother. The hearing on this is pending.

In a recent interview, TJ attorney Ana Toledo spoke harshly of those she claims “defamed” Targeted Justice. Toledo put forward that those who are are critical of Targeted Justice are fronted by the CIA or NSA. She disputed claims by the interviewer that “Targeted Justice has done nothing but take money,” and claimed that she has “a really important endeavor, which is stopping this, (targeting) and making this work—the case—and… putting the elements of evidence out there …in order to have that list declared illegal and unconstitutional.”

Image: The Telegraph

Janet Phelan has been on the trail of the biological weapons agenda since the new millennium. Her book on the pandemic, At the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of US Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic, has been published in 2021 by Trine Day and is available on Amazon and elsewhere. Her articles on this issue have appeared in Activist Post, New Eastern Outlook, Infowars and elsewhere. Educated at Grinnell College, UC Berkeley and the University of Missouri Graduate School of Journalism, Janet “jumped ship” and since 2004 has been writing exclusively for independent media. Her articles previously appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Oui Magazine, Orange Coast Magazine, the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Santa Monica Daily Press and other publications. She is the author of the groundbreaking expose, EXILE and two books of poetry. She resides abroad. You may follow Janet on Parler here @JanetPhelan and Twitter @JanetPhelan14. To support her work, please go to JanetPhelan.

Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Telegram, HIVE, Flote, Minds, MeWe, Twitter, Gab, What Really Happened and GETTR.