Randy Quaid is claiming to be a target of what he calls Hollywood Star Whackers.
He claims that other stars on on a similar type of hit list. Stars such as Britney Spears, Mel Gibson, and ofcourse Lindsay Lohan.
Randy Quaid claims that he has been followed around, and that he has been scammed out of money by lawyers and others. He claims not to be mentally ill, and that close friends such as Heath Ledgar, and David Carradine, were killed not by accident, but as part of a conspiracy.
The claims sound almost too outlandish to believe, but if you did a bit deeper into the story, a pattern starts to immerge.
I don’t know about Hollywood Star Whackers, but I do believe that Mr. Quaid is in fear for his life, and he could well be in some kind of danger. He says he has been harassed for at least the last 20 years. This is what I think is going on.
I think Randy and wife Evi at some point in their past likely landed on a list. Eg. Under occupational health and safety laws, you can be placed on a monitoring list via what’s called a Threat Assessment Team.
The team will contact those around you and explain why you have been flagged. Unfortunately this type of monitoring can also systemically destroy your life. This is the part that leaves many claiming conspiracy.
A lot of people are on these lists, some who should be there, many others who should not. I think what the Quaids should do is hire a lawyer, one who is familiar with privy laws, occupational health and safety laws, and mental health laws.
From what I have read the downward spiral really started after 26 of his co-workers complained of verbal and physical harassment. Claims such as this in today’s society get reported, and this can get you placed on one of these lists by the threat assessment teams, and it can also serve to blacklist your life. The other sad reality is that people on these lists die, because the monitoring often crosses the line to targeting, and a conspiracy of sorts.
I don’t know for sure if this is what’s going on with him and his wife, but I do have a strong suspicion that this is the case. The targets of what I just described, refer to this as Gang Stalking. You can read more about threat assessment teams and Gang Stalking at this link.
To learn more about this phenomenon you can visit Amazon.com
I know many do not yet take the concept of Gang Stalking seriously, many others live it every day and know all too well the conspiracy does exist. Being on these lists are leading to individuals being targeted systemically. In many cases the systemic targeting ends in death, suicide, institutionalization, jail, or social poverty.
This is the time that Targeted Individuals can now make a difference. November is Indigo Ribbon Month, it is the time to raise awareness of what is happening. http://www.IndigoRibbon.com
Only by sharing our stories one by one, till they can no longer be ignored can we get this exposed. When you can name it, then you can claim it. Gang Stalking sites have been working tirelessly to expose this conspiracy, with the help of those around us, this can be exposed, and the needless suffering of innocent Targets can hopefully stop, or be curtailed.
Gang Stalking and Freedom Of Information.
I put my sleuthing brain to the task and this is what I came up with. It’s a bit of a data dump right now, but I wanted to get the information out there.
4. Threat assessment files should be maintained in the law enforcement or security records of the institution rather than in the subject’s educational records or employment records.
5. Threat assessment files should be protected for security purposes as investigations of possible criminal behavior. The release of threat assessment information could jeopardize efforts to prevent an act of violence and it could disclose practices that nullify or reduce the effectiveness of threat assessments in future cases.
Because threat assessments are essentially investigations of criminal behavior, most, if not all, of the records created by a threat assessment should not be eligible for release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Reports generated by the threat assessment team may be exempt under Va. Code §§2.2-3705.2(4), 3706(F)(1)(3), and 3706(G)(1). A response by the team that includes a criminal arrest and prosecution may be exempt from release pursuant to Va. Code §2.2-3706(F)(1) and (3). This protection from disclosure applies to records generated by the threat assessment team for threat assessment purposes.
Records obtained from other sources, such as student academic reports, employee records, or medical records, should be protected under existing laws and regulations regarding redisclosure of protected information. For example, student scholastic records maintained by a university may Virginia College Threat Assessment 21
be exempt under Va. Code §2.2-3705.4. Employee personnel records may be exempt under Va. Code §2.2-3705.1.
The Office of the Virginia Attorney General has provided guidance to the Department of Criminal Justice Services on the exemptions from FOIA that apply to threat assessment records, but recommends that each threat assessment team consult with its own institutional legal authorities. It would be desirable if the General Assembly would pass legislation that specifically excluded the records of threat assessment teams from FOIA release.
6. Institutions that do not have an internal law enforcement agency may designate a particular office or school official to maintain threat assessment records. In all cases, threat assessment records should be regarded as law enforcement/security related records, even if the person in charge of maintaining the records is not a sworn law enforcement officer. The person designated as the campus safety official for the purpose of fulfilling Clery Act requirements may be appropriate.
7. The creation of a threat assessment file will not prevent use of other records according to existing practices. For example, disciplinary actions that would ordinarily be included in the subject’s educational or employment record should continue to be placed in those records. Incidents of threatening behavior that would ordinarily be recorded in an institutional file, such as an employment record, should continue to be placed in those locations.
G. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
1. According to the U.S. Department of Education, HIPAA does not apply to education records: “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a law passed by Congress intended to establish transaction, security, privacy, and other standards to address concerns about the electronic exchange of health information. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule excludes from its coverage those records that are protected by FERPA at school districts and postsecondary institutions that provide health or medical services to students. This is because Congress specifically addressed how education records should be protected under FERPA. For this reason, records that are protected by FERPA are not subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule and may be shared with parents under the circumstances described above.” (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-parents-postsecstudents.html
2. HIPAA allows disclosure of protected health information, including psychotherapy notes, concerning a patient when it is considered necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to others. This can include disclosure to law enforcement, family members, potential victims and others if the disclosure can be justified as reducing the risk of violence. See CFR §164.512(j).
2. Institutions of higher education, such as some community colleges, which do not have mental health professionals who can serve on a threat assessment team should contract with a mental health agency or independent practitioner in the community who can serve as a team member.
3. Institutions of higher education, such as some community colleges, which do not have an institution-based law enforcement staff that can serve on a threat assessment team should contract with a local law enforcement agency to obtain a team member.
D. Threat assessment records
Threat assessment teams should maintain confidential records of all cases for legal and security purposes. The records will not be part of a subject’s academic, medical, mental health, or employment records, if any exist at the institution. This policy does not alter any other policy regarding the placement of information in a subject’s academic, medical, mental health, or employment records.
§37.2-808. Emergency custody; issuance and execution of order.
A. Any magistrate may issue, upon the sworn petition of any responsible person or upon his own motion, an emergency custody order when he has probable cause to believe that any person within his judicial district (i) has mental illness, (ii) presents an imminent danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself, (iii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iv) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment.
F. A law-enforcement officer who, based upon his observation or the reliable reports of others, has probable cause to believe that a person meets the criteria for emergency custody as stated in this section may take that person into custody and transport that person to an appropriate location to assess the need for hospitalization or treatment without prior authorization. Such evaluation shall be conducted immediately.
Virginia Criminal Information Network system established and maintained by the Department pursuant to Chapter 2 (§52-12 et seq.) of Title 52. Where practical, the court or magistrate may transfer information electronically to the Virginia Criminal Information Network system. A copy of an emergency protective order issued pursuant to this section shall be served upon the respondent as soon as possible, and upon service, the agency making service shall enter the date and time of service into the Virginia Criminal Information Network system.
E. Each threat assessment team shall establish relationships or utilize existing relationships with local and state law enforcement agencies as well as mental health agencies to expedite assessment and intervention with individuals whose behavior may present a threat to safety.
Under current regulations, personally identifiable information (PII) includes a student’s name and other direct personal identifiers, such as the student’s SSN or student number. PII also includes indirect identifiers, such as the name of the student’s parent or other family members; the student’s or family’s address, and personal characteristics or other information that would make the student’s identity easily traceable. The final regulations add biometric records to the list of personal identifiers that constitute PII, and add other indirect identifiers, such as date and place of birth and mother’s maiden name, as examples of identifiers that should be considered in determining whether information is personally identifiable. In response to public comments, the final regulations define “biometric record” to mean a record of one or more measurable biological
Virginia College Threat Assessment 82
or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual, including fingerprints, retina and iris patterns, voiceprints, DNA sequence, facial characteristics, and handwriting. The definition is based on National Security Presidential Directive 59 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 24.
The final regulations remove from the definition of PII the reference to “other information that would make the student’s identity easily traceable” because the phrase lacked specificity and clarity, and possibly suggested a fairly low standard for protecting education records. In its place, the regulations add that PII includes “other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.” This change brings the definition more in line with recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies, with modifications tailored to the educational community. (See OMB M-07-16, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” at footnote 1:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf.) Under the final regulations, PII also includes “information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.”
In a nut shell, these threat assessment teams take in anonymous reports that are used to assess if an individuals is dangerous, mentally ill, what have you. They also take in reports from those around the target. False information can come in, but the target does not have the access to clear false information, which is allowed under most privacy laws. This is similar to what the Fusion centers do, and this is what companies like the A.C.L.U. were essentially fighting against with the fusion centers, but then here are universities and companies getting away with hiding this information from the people who need access to it, so that they can legally clear up any misinformation on their records. Not only that, but these threat assessments are being used to slander the individual in many cases, but under these guidelines they might not have information or access to the records.
This is really wrong, and legally this has to be challenged. This is one area that targets might be able to start in with a privacy lawyer. Request the information it’s your right, but when it’s denied, then then legal challenges can begin. I don’t know if this is the case in all States, or other countries such as Canada, but it will be interesting to find out. In the U.K. the laws do allow the request and disclosure of information, but I have not yet found a similar clause that hides the information away.
Threat Assessment Teams and success rates.
The Threat Assessment Teams remotely evaluate people from a distance, but how do they know that they are not just dishing out junk science? How do they know that the assessment actuaually work? I imagine it’s in part due to the success ratio. Eg. You diagnose someone as schizophenic, and within two months of your diagnosis, they start complaining of vibrations in the home, being burnt and tortured, clearly they were suffering from a persecution type syndrome. Right?
Let’s say the team evaluates someone and they end up in jail, homeless, instituationalized, dead, start to hear voices or they freak out and shoot someone, the team feel justified in their original diagnosis. The complete disconnect from the end results allows them to enjoy a false reality of their success ratio, just like in Russia. There removal from the targets sphere allows them to ignore, belittle, and dismiss the dozens upon dozens of stories of torture, and human rights violations, set up’s, gaslight, smoke and mirrors that are being used to achieve those end results. They are getting these successful outcomes because in many cases the monitoring teams, and those around the target are driving and creating these end results by harassing the targets.
Remember the team likely use the DSM guidelines to assess someone in the first place. In Russia they use to also do that. The DSM guidelines then, much like now are being set up to target and remove specific people from the workforce, or society. The outspoken, whistle-blowers, maybe independent thinkers, single people, etc. When a person is being evaluated to begin with, we are ending up with more single individuals, because some of their guidelines and profiling tell them that those who are single, with few attachement are more likely to be a danger. The guidelines do not allow for individuality. Eg. Many adults in modern society lead healthy, active, productive and single lifestyles. Being single is only a danger if you truly are lonely, but many people this is a new norm, which the guidelines don’t properly recognize.
What needs to start to happen is some accountability. Either targets need to start to sue these teams for false diagnosis, misrepresentation, slander, or a combination of things. I don’t know how much legal protection these teams are given, but enough lawsuits and publicity aimed at their heads, and the DSM guidelines they use and that might make a difference.
The people at the end level are not that smart. This is a generalization, and I am sorry if that hurts the feelings of some, but they are not. Eg. For one of my apartments, they use to constantly have the maintainance man, opening my door. They utilized him, and had him consistently abusing his power. Remember they get a variety of people on this, they are so sure that they are helping to keep an eye on someone truly disturbed, that they often forget common decency, but more importantly many forget, or have a false belief that they are not bound by the same laws they were previously bound by. After advising this person of my displeasure with their actions, this person advised me that it was their right to enter at will. Really? So I had to contact the upper managment and detail what was happening, what my actual rights were, and this is what got the sitution rectified. Many of them do not know the law, they think that because they are helping to monitor, they have a right to go above and beyond what is legal and the reality is that they do not. That is why if you can catch them in illegal activities they often get upset.
It can take a while, filing noise ordanances with the city, since this goes on for years at a time, if you manage to be in one location for a specific period of time this might give you a bit more leverage to prove some of what is on going.
Jane Clift for her situation was abel to have her records exponged, but without the right lawyer, or someone who knows what they are doing, you likely will not get the same results. What is needed are lawyers who know the law, understand the limits to what these Threat Assessment Teams are bound, and then continue from there. Also because they work in teams, writing down the times of specific harassments might work. Eg. On April 03, 2009 this person used or subjected my person to…. then you can fill in the blanks. I know a lot of targets believe that radiation is being used, it’s a possibility. Because they do change who is on shift, if you pay attention, you will notice that different people have different styles, some are just plane sadistic, so making them accountable should be possible in future by documenting times, dates. I do believe however if we skip the lower level individuals and focus on the Threat Assessment Teams, and their legal obligations to the individual that this might be a more successful way to go.
Eg. You are misdiagnosed as having a mental illness, and for the last 5 years they have contacted your facebook friends, twitter followers, myspace friends, co-workers, friends, etc. That is slander and defamation of character if the accusations are false, which since they are doing remote assessments, using DSM guidelines they well could be. Remember recently a woman won the right to sue Youtube to reveal the identity of those who had called her a name. Targets might be able to take similar legal actions for those going around behind our backs, defaming our reputations, based on a false or inaccurate remote diagnosis.
Also how much of this violates the privacy laws? This is one area that I would like to examine, I believe many lines are being crossed in this area, and this might be one more area to bring a legal challenge.
The other thing that those in countries with human rights commissions might start to do is see if they can find a way to take these commissions to task. I believe in the U.K. and Canada you can sue for discrimination for race, gender and if you are being discriminated against due to a mental illness. I have to double check, but if that is the case, and these teams are listing targets as menatlly ill, then going after targets, and poisioning every perception around them, this might be another area where legal challeges can be brought. The situations are ongoing, so that would be within the timeframes. Targets without money and other means, might try to find a legal way to see if these commissions can be used in this way.
Then in the U.S. the ACLU is free, and could maybe be petitioned in similar fashion. At this stage I don’t know if these approaches will work, or if they will work across the board, but if we have 12 cases going through the system, each attempting different angles, then we can get an idea of what works, almost works, etc. However targets should be aware of sabatage, and many of these commissions are corrupted, or have questionable practices, as Tim Field his research into obstruction.
Those are some thoughts and actions that we might try in future, and the more attention these teams get, bad attention the better.
How did I become a Target?
Scenario 1 Work.
Jane has been employed at Mcat Technotronics for several years, recently her and some co-workers have not been getting along. They have started rumors, moved her stuff around, and been hostile. Jane has complained to HR and finally an investigation was opened. All the co-workers denied any harassment was ongoing. HR to keep the situation quite has placed the blame on Jane. She has been referred to the company psychiatrist. She has refused to go. The HR staff is now getting reports from those that Jane complained about, saying that they fear for their safety, and that she is a problem. HR worried about getting sued if Jane does act out violently has referred her to the companies, Threat Assessment Team.
The team reviews Jane’s file, past employers, social networking sites, family, friends. Jane lives alone, has few associations. The team has decided that Jane requires further monitoring. She is assigned a threat level, and monitored at work. A company psychiatrist has evaluated her remotely and diagnosed her as possibly suffering from a persecutory disorder, and suffering from a false belief that she is being persecuted.
Jane later acts out, get’s into a verbal confrontation with one of her harassers, and is put on probation. Jane decides to leave the job. The employer decides that Jane was very disgruntled, and alerts the Threat Assessment Team. The team decides that Jane requires further monitoring. If she acts out violently in anyway, and they did not alert those around her, they can be sued. Remote monitoring is soon to be set up around Jane. She is also given an elevated threat level.
Scenario 2. School
Raul has started college. He is getting comments and taunts, they don’t like his accent, he is a stranger to many people around him. Raul makes it clear that he does not appreciate the taunts, but this spurs on his harassers more. Eventually Raul and one young man get into a psychical altercation. All the harassers come to the defense of the harasser, placing all the blame on Raul. The student affairs department is notified. After this Raul notices increased harassment, and starts to complain. Complaint after complaint is ignored. Complaints to staff or about staff who are also taking part is ignored, and his mobbing continues. Eventually the Student Affairs department have his file sent to their threat assessment team, after some of the students express concern about his being around them, and that they feel uncomfortable or threatened. Raul is unaware of this, and just trying to get his mobbing stopped.
The Threat Assessment Team review his file, determine that he owns guns, and could be a real threat to the campus. They determine he might be suffering from schizo-affective disorder.The campus and those around Raul are put on alert, they are asked to not say anything, and to report any actions that might be deemed suspicious or problematic. Eventually Raul decides to leave the program due to the overwhelming harassment and lack of support, but since there is no way to tell if this now disgruntled young man will return, he is assigned to remote case file monitoring.
This means that those around him will be alerted, and asked to be the eyes and ears, and report any little incidents, or odd behavior. All the information will be logged and stored in a central database for processing, and review, by the team. Those around Raul are contacted made aware of the situation, and comply with the request for none disclosure as they are legally bound to do.
Scenario 3. Community
Emily Claft see’s a child ruining a flower bed, she confronts the parents, the father tells her off. She goes to her local council to complain, and the customer service rep over the phone is no help. Emily slams down the phone in disgust. She writes a letter saying that the woman was very unpleasant to deal with, she says she wishes the woman would drop dead, and feels that if they had been in person, she would have hit her.
The council review the letter, determine that Emily could be violent, and she is assigned a medium risk classification, only to be seen in two. Emily has noticed that she is seeing strangers around her where they should not be, such as the clinic, and other previously private places. The strangers are alerted every time her name comes up, that she is dangerous and should only be seen in pairs. They are asked to report any future incidents. Her information is disseminated to a wide variety of agencies.
She is placed on a community notification list. The list is also used to alert the community of pedophiles and other violent criminals.
Emily finds it impossible to function, and decides to move.
Later I will review how the local monitoring team functions. How individuals are moved in around the target as part of the monitoring process. Also understanding the role that Community Oriented Policing likely plays, and how community notification lists function.
Please keep in mind there are likely dozens upon dozens of ways that an individual could become a target, the above are just a few scenarios.
I think I understand a bit more about some communities and why they function the way they do. See as Targeted Individuals we sort of a minority in society, meaning not too many people listen to our concerns, complaints, cries, etc.
Many see targets as crazy and so it’s ok to abuse them. What many of us experience in our daily lives is like living in a sort of war zone, and many just don’t or can’t understand this simply because it’s just not their experience. So they expect the normal societal rules to apply to us, but they just don’t.
Till they experience what we experience, they can’t understand why a target might lash out, get angry. Why a target might act in way, or take actions that many find unacceptable. They do not live in the reality that we do, but they still expect the same rules to apply. We face a type of war zone in many ways, they do not. Our survival is a struggle, for many they just have the normal things to live with, their lives are not being systemically destroyed.
I think I just gained some insight into poor and disadvantaged communities. They too live differently than the rest of society. The conditions that many poor live in and the daily circumstances and conditions are not the same as the rest of society live in, and until you are in their situations and circumstances, you can not judge their actions, or choices that they make.
The person I was several years ago is not the same person that I am today, how could it be if I expect to survive. I have had to learn new rules, and change how I live, because the situation is that critical. How many average people have to take their important docs with them all the time? How many have to come back to their home and worry about home entries, or break in’s while they were out? How many have to worry about home entries while they are asleep? How many have to worry about food being poisoned? How many have to worry about being sprayed with chemicals? Gasing, poisoning? How many have to learn to shield their bodies so that they won’t be burnt while they try to sleep, acoustically attacked and manipulated? How many have had to go through trauma like that for a day, a week, a month, years, decades? Not too many people that I can think of. A lot of targets end up being hypervigilant, some even have symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being targeted for so many months or years.
As targets we have to have different rules to survive, different ways of living. Going to the police is often not an option. Finding people to care about our cause often does not happen, cause they would rather blame us, and believe that we have done something, deserving or worthy of our actions, or that we are somehow mentally ill, and that these conditions are deserving and worthy of us. I don’t think the same way that I did a few years ago. I don’t trust state powers, I understand and believe that there is indeed a global agenda, for a united world. I think sometimes the only way to come to a place of understanding is to live a specific situation.
Years ago many would have been of the opinion that the police are your friends, but now in today’s society with so many clips of misconduct, and or brutal arrests of citizens, many are revising that opinion and worry that the police might not be performing the same roles, that they were known for years ago.
I think that being poor and socially disadvantaged is different. I think that is why some people live by different rules, their experiences are different, and so is it fair to judge and apply the same rules to others, who’s day in day out is so vastly different than your own?
Eg. Some people live in communities with high drugs, crime, prostitution, unemployment, higher mortality rates, lower standards of living, etc. Then the rest of society want to apply wall street or corporate rules to communities like that, it just does not work that way. People adapt to their living circumstances, and when your daily living is worrying about wither the police will shoot your son, wither your child will be prostituted out, or become a drug dealer, or if you will get a job, or if your spouse will get out of jail, or if your kid will go to jail, you are going to have different values and rules that you live by if you want to survive. You are not in a war zone with bullets flying by, or (actually some people are, in poor communities, and they also have airplanes overhead.) ok maybe they don’t have grenades, but the point is, their lives are like a mini war zone of another kind, and so people that are disadvantaged in that way, may well not act, think, respond like every other member of society. We don’t have the same living, economic, social conditions for everyone, but we have the same societal rules for everyone, and that is just not always going to work. The rules should be reflective of the social conditions that people find themselves in, standards of living, and societal norms for their area.
I think being a Targeted Individual has given me a bit of perspective into the lives of others. In Stasi Germany, you did not talk your business to anyone, you trusted no one, you minded your own business, and the society became very closed off that way, but that is what it took to survive, many did not want to live that way, but the chance in behavior was necessary for survival.
Some of us as Targets learn that you protect your data the best way that you can, that you don’t give out your private details, and to be very guarded. Targets mentally go through degrading, dehumanizing things, that other people just don’t see or have to experience.
A poster on Youtube just posted a delightful comment. I don’t know if this is something that happened to them directly, but it’s fully possible.
11 hours ago
Does the threat assessment team decides who places the bodily fluids inside the targets home. Like semen inside a glass? or urine on the floor?
I mean I get people writing in with unpleasant things like this all the time, people who have have been sexually assaulted, all sorts of sick things. I was just reading one woman’s blog, and how she had to learn to accept the fact that they were watching her. As she dressed, she talked about how violating it was, comments they would make about her anatomy, but then she had to learn to try to get on with her life. Lot’s of targets have come to the realization that yeah they probably see ya naked, and it’s no better for men than women, because everyone values their privacy, unless you are an exhibitionist. I encounter stories like this, people leaving water in a child’s diabetic medicine etc. Targets live in mini pscyo, social experiments. Mini war zones if you will, they experience things that others just do not go through, and it’s day in, day out. These Threat Assessment Teams basically give an all out access to our persons, and horrendous things happen to targets, and it’s really unfair. So I understand a little bit more about what others go through, and I understand when you are a soldier in a war zone, the normal societal rules, and trappings just do not apply, well the same holds true for targets, who daily are psychologically ravaged, day in and day out. It’s truly unacceptable, but I now also realise that for years, others have been going through other types of mini war zones, where survival is also not assured, and they have learnt different set’s of rules for survival, but then the same rules are suppose to apply to everyone and they just can’t, and they should not. Till there is some level of equality in standards of living, then it’s not fair to expect the same actions, or outcomes.
Freedom of Information Act Requests
These are suggestions that might be useful when making F.O.I.A. requests.
I think it would be a good idea to request freedom of information act information. Not only trying to obtain personal records, but also systeimic records.
Eg. 1. How many cases do Threat Assessment Teams have open and actively being monitored?
2. How many females vs males are currently and activily being monitored?
3. What is the cultural and or ethnic make up of those currently being monitored on these lists?
4. How many cases over the years ended up in institutionalizations? How many in arrests? How many in suicide? How many in homelessness? (They must have these figures if they are actively monitoring the cases, even if someone becomes homeless, the files would stay open.)
5. How much funding do these threat assessment teams get?
6. What is the guidelines for the remote monitoring and information gathering?
7. Where are the local monitors collected from? Are they local community members or others?
8. Who oversees the local monitoring? What guidelines are in place to ensure abuses do not happen?
9. What measures are in place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is not being trampled upon?
These are some of the Freedom Of Information Act Requests, that I would like to see directed to these threat assessment teams and any other agencies that they interact or liason with.
Human Rights Organizations
Some basic suggestions that might work.
For the human rights appeals, I think those should be redirected at local and other levels, but in addition to your other efforts, you might also wish to ensure that you point to these Threat Assessment Teams and their active and open case file monitoring.
Eg. I am what is known as a Targeted Individual. I am writing in regards to some ongoing surveillance and monitoring that I am currently experiencing. I believe that it is a possibility that I have been placed on a monitoring program at some point in the past by what is known as a Threat Assessment Team or similar entity, as per their case file monitoring guidelines.
Under this program I have experienced human rights abuses that i woudl like to bring to your attention.
I have experienced community monitoring, stalking and harsssment.
I have been terrorised and stalked within the communities where I reside, and my belief is that it’s in direct corrolation to the monitoring associated with this program.
I have experienced what our Targeted Individual community has coined Electronic Harassment.
The individuals who are taking part in the monitoring are using a variety of items which are remotly causing great physical pain, and discomfort. Though I have not visually seen the items being used, it has been suggested, and it is my belief that items such as:
Police radar guns are being used. -I have been advised that these might be getting used as part of the monitoring to remotely identify the targets location in their apartment. This casue a great deal of pain and discomfort.
Laser guns -I have been advised that laser guns such as the ones sold via the wickedlaser company might also be employed as part of the stalking. -According to the companies website these might be able to burn holes in items. It is my belief that these may be getting employed and used on Targeted Individuals.
Accoustic Weapons -I have been advised accoustic weapons that are capable of remotely manipulation of the nervous system might also be employed and used upon targets to assist with the monitoring. According to the current research this is capable of causing emotional disruptions of a nervous systems as well as placing individuals into unwilling states, such as relaxation, and drowsiness, and others.
Bass -I have been directed to the fact that times the sound compnent such as speakers with the sound component removed might be getting used. The vibrations are felt, and experienced, but no sound is heard. This also causing ringing in the ears, disrupts sleep, and has other ill health effects.
Transducers -I have been told and lead to believe that transducers might be also employed below the drywalls of apartments to cause heat and vibrations. Which create a great deal of pain and suffering as they disrupt sleeping patterns for days, weeks, months at a time.
RFID -It is my belief that RFID items in my possession are being illegally used to monitor my location while out in public. It’s a well proven fact that warrentless surveillance of some targets has been allowed in the past by some governments. RFID surviellance can include cellphones, door passes, passports, any communication device or other item that uses RFID to monitor and track a targets location.
(At this stage targets can add their own research to what they believe is being used upon them. Other forms of assault, such as sexual. I have left off things like satalight in this example, but if you have a compelling case, or good information, feel free to include it. A lot of what I have listed might not be things known to these agencies, things that are 100% proven, but the things that I have listed, should hopefully be within their realms of possibilities, and hopefully might prompt someone to open an investigation, or at least take the claims seriously.)
You may also wish to include a link to sites such as this
http://www.amazing1.com/ultra.htm which have things that might be designed to cause pain and discomfort. Tangable items that a human rights agency could be directed to.
Will this make a shred of difference? With enough letters, and the finger being pointed at these threat assessment teams, maybe it will lead to a review of some of these practices. Some of the things they are doing in my opinion seem to be just at the border at what some of these laws allow, and I am sure many other things are quite outside of the border of what the laws allow, and would disgust some if the dirty dealings came to light, but my recommendation is stick to the tangable.
Sure other things are going on like the V2k, or audio spotlight, but they are harder to prove. If you really need to include this element include information about the audio spotlight and how it can send sound to one person at a distance.
Below are some questions, comments are popular believes that the aveage person often has to overcome in order to believe that Gang Stalking is happening to other citizens.
It’s Costly. Who has the time?
1: When you think about it, gang stalking is illogical. First, it is costly. Secondly, who has the time, unless they’re paid a lot, which brings us back to “it’s costly.”
(Skipp Porteous. http://www.Sherlockinvestigations.com)
A: The reality is that Gang Stalking is not costly. The network for surveillance and monitoring a Targeted Individual is already in place. When a name is added to the notification registry all that has to be done is send out the targets information. Resources are simply reallocated to keep the latest target under surveillance.
The Stasi were successfully able to control and monitor East Germany society using this method. The citizens have the time to monitor their communities, and to protect their communities from what they believe are dangerous, or unstable people in their neighborhoods.
The listings work the same way that listings do for violent offenders, in the U.K. Jane Clift was placed on the exact same list for violent sex offenders, she was listed as medium risk only to be seen in pairs, even though her offense was primarily writing an unkind letter, with strong wording.
Someone would blow the whistle
2. If my own files were tagged “violent individual, only approach in twos or more” I know that my GP would be questioning it, sor starters.I don’t believe that we yet live in a world where some ‘entity’ could contact everyone I know and make them believe that I’d flipped my lid and must therefore be watched and reported on 24/7 without SOMEONE saying something directly to me about it, or querying it with authorities sufficiently to raise questions about the origin of the flagging/notification.
A: The reality is that if you recieve a notification letter you are bound by a none disclosure agreement and are forbidden from saying anything to the person the letter is pertaining to or discussing the details with everyone else. Think of it as the same way others have found themselves bound to secrecy due to the national security letters. When the request is from an authority figure, and it comes with a possible penalty, people will keep silent.
In the scenario above your GP would be bound by law to not give you the details. Though your GP may have questions, they may not be able to do anything other than trust the system to conduct it’s own investigation. If you were flagged as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs. Your GP would simple ask an assistant to accompany them during your visit.
Many targets falsely believe that friends and family would disclose something like this, but the reality is many do not. Many follow the directions that they have been given.
Targets are narcissistic to believe that groups would track them.
3. But seriously…who are these stalkers? How are there large, organized, groups of people that set out to just go after YOU. Do you think you are so important that a whole squad of people spend their waking hours (getting paid, I assume) to stalk and harass you? It’s a very narcissistic attitude. How could anyone even justify the expense of maintaining such surveillance?
A: Targets are often accused of being crazy, narcissistic, or wanting to be the center of attention to believe that groups of strangers would spend 24/7 tracking them. The citizen informants are just average community members in some cases, while others might be paid informants with very specific agendas.
Targets are not narssaistic. Most targets do not believe they are that important that groups of people would follow them around, that is why it often takes years for the target to clue in and believe that this is happening to them.
Again there is no expense when you have a network already set up to monitor individuals in a community. It simply becomes a matter of shifting resources. Monitoring an additional person is no more difficult than setting a place at the table for one more, when you have everything already in place.
Targets are making it up.
4. Gang Stalking and being targeted is just in the mind of the targets.
A: This is also not true. Not only are these notification lists true, but individuals such as Jesus Mendoza have filed lawsuits in federal court to have the harassment stopped. They have presented video and photographic evidence of their harassment, and some lawsuits have successfully revealed information that was not available before, such as the fact that some forms of electronic surveillance has been approved for the monitoring of targets.
Targets are mentally ill
5. I have heard that Targeted Individuals are mentally ill?
A: Many Targeted Individuals are being portrayed as mentally ill. They are being remotely assessed, and people that they have never meet or come face to face with in many cases are listing them as mentally ill.
In many cases something that was used in the former Soviet Union is being used in many democratic countries. The psychiatric reprisal. This practice was used to list innocent members of society that the state did not like as mentally ill. They would often then be sent to a state psychiatric facility. The practice continues today in many democratic countries.
Why would a stranger go along with this?
6. Why would a complete stranger do such harmful things to complete strangers?
A: Obedience To Authority. When reserchers tried to understand why the citizens of Germany went along with the Hitler agenda to remove their neighbours, or to do horrible things to them, many had just been following orders, doing what they were told by an authority figure. People find it hard to believe that strangers would do horrific evil things to strangers, but the reality is as long as they believe it has the blessing and approval of an authority figure, people are willing to do horrific things.
If you watch the video above, you will see that strangers are willing to steal the wallet, drug, and kidnap the child of a complete stranger. They are willing to do this simply based on the word of an authority figure. In the video it was not even a real authority figure, just a stranger pretending to be one, the target in the video was a complete stranger.
Targeted Individuals in their communities are listed as a possible danger to themselves or others, they are possibly listed as mentally ill, or other unwarrented labels. How much more easy would it be for strangers to do horrific things to targets, when many might see them as deserving of such treatment?
Who funds these vigilante gangs?
7. Who are these Vigilante gangs? Why would they go after targets?
A: It is the opinion of Gang Stalking World that the Vigilantee gangs was a myth perpetrated by those who wanted targets to appear mentally ill when they went to the police for aid and assistance. It is the opinion of Gang Stalking World that words such as Gang Stalking, Targeted Individuals, were originally created by those who wanted to keep the information about these occupational health and safety notification lists secret. Thus when targets went to the police they could just claim that Gang Stalking did not exist and continue to list the Targeted Individual as mentally ill.
Today what has happened is that Gang Stalking World and many in the Targeted Individual community have adopted these terms. Through proper research, the terms much like the term mobbing, has now been given the correct connotation. In many circles the finger is now being pointed correctly at occupational heatlh and safety laws, mental health laws, and the official policies used by the state to place individuals on notification lists.
There are individuals that do follow targets everywhere they go, for the most part they are just the average citizens of the state, who are going about their everyday lives. They have been trained under these occupational health and safety programs how to communicate with the one handed sign language, and many recieve notifications if there is anyone one a notification list in their area. They they will place the target under surveillance, monitor them, and report them if an incident happens. Within this structure there are illegal elements who go out of their way to provoke targets. It is the opinion of Gang Stalking World that these deliberate elements are often used for the express purpose of making the target appear to be mentally ill to the eyes of society, ensuring that they will not be believed when they do go for help.
I don’t believe that Gang Stalking is systemic.
8. Gang Stalking is not systemic. It’s only being done by a few people, not the hundreds and thousands some of these sites claim.
A: The reality is that these listings are systemic. They are used for various situations in many cities, town, companies, universities, and communities.
A recent example of such a system being used, was when Colton Tolley recently brought a gun to school. The emergency text messaging system which most students are signed up for went into effect. It was credited with saving lives.
The sad reality is that similar warnings are going out about targets, and they are either on the exact type of listing used in the Tolley case, or similar. These systems are being used right across the board. Targets are being listed with a variety of designations such as: “Medium Risk, only to be seen in pairs.” or “May be a danger to self and others”, plus a variety of other designations.
When a target goes into a community, and a similar warning is issued saying the person has a possible mental illness, or other label, then those who get these phone calls, or text messages, naturally go into a state of panic, or frenzy. The target is then followed around. The average citizen does not have the time to find out if a target has been falsely labeled, or if they are a true danger, they just react. Once the identity of the target is established, and they travel the same route daily, they are then easier to identify. If a target changes routes, they might have a slightly easier time of traveling, until they once again become easy to pick out of the crowd.
Text Warning System
Arkansas Tech University has an early warning text messaging system as an additional means of communicating with the campus community during emergency situations on the Russellville campus. Students who register for the service will receive a text message warning in the case of a serious campus emergency. Signing up for the system is optional, but it is strongly encouraged.
Police informed campus officials, and in 15 minutes the entire campus was alerted via text messages, warning sirens, and Twitter updates.
As outrageous as it sounds, all Jane Clift did was write an unpleasant letter and she ended up on such a system as medium risk, which is a high risk warning.
Intelligence agencies don’t stalk average citizens.
9. Why would intelligence agencies want to target average citizens?
A. Various agencies including intelligence agencies and police share information via a process called deconfliction. This allows them to share information at a local level with federal forces. They take a holistic approach to policing, believe that today’s petty criminal, could become tomorrow’s terrorist, or assist with funding terror, drug, or other federal level criminal activities.
Why would the government stalk you?
10. Who would anyone including the government want to put someone on a list to be stalked?
A. It is the belief of Gang Stalking World that individuals are being targeted and placed on lists via these Threat Assessment Teams. In the following report it details how the agencies use a four part process to determine if the target is eligible for case management monitoring.
Under these occupational health and safety laws Threat Assessment Teams have this capacity and ability. The threat assessment teams works in a four part process.
1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation
Some of these stories are too outrageous.
11. The stories range from very mundane to very outrages, why the variation in targeted stories?
A. It’s the belief of Gang Stalking World that the stalking and harassment experienced by the Targeted Individual is dependent on the area in which they reside. Under the Community Policing program, each area operates the way they see fit.
The harassment in this regard and capacity tends to be very territorial. Thus in one area a Targeted Individual might experience very urban level types of violence to their targeting, in another area the harassment may be more subtle. Each area operates the way they see fit, so you will get a variety of different targeting depending on where you go.
One part of the city could be very unfriendly, and you walk into another area a few blocks over and it’s a completely different atmosphere, that is because of the community police aspect.
I don’t believe that there is a network of criminals
12. Why do some targets claim that criminals are responsible for this targeting?
A. It’s the opinion of Gang Stalking World that there is a criminal level involved in this targeting, but the programs are still officially operated by law enforcement at the upper echelons. At lower levels, you can find a variety of different groups and members operating within this structure. That will include cults, religious groups, criminal elements, various sectors of society. There will be different networks operating within this element. Remember a large part of what this does, and how this functions is that it keeps people in line. On a lower level there are a myriad of illegal and unjust practices that are occurring, but since this aspect of the targeting is unofficially sanctioned, then it’s far more difficult to prove.
I don’t believe all the mind control claims.
13. Why do some Targets claim that this is part of MK Ultra?
A. That is because within the targeting itself there are illegal aspects that are happening to many targets, which are deeply reminiscent of past psychological operations, eugenics and behaviour modification programs that have been carried out on prisoners, the poor, mentally ill, women, and others. These past experiments have all been conducted by governments.
Threat Assessment Teams & Gang Stalking
A closer look
Many Targeted Individuals wonder how they could be placed on a list in the first place? Who has the power or the authority to do such a thing? If you live in a country such as the U.K. your local councils have this ability as displayed in the Jane Clift case. If you live in the U.S. or Canada it might be the task of what’s called a threat assessment team.
This team can be comprised of just a few individuals, to a team of individuals. It depends on the company, educational facility, or community they are representing and what the specific needs are.
Some examples include members of Human Resource, Police Officers, Psychiatrists, Mental Health Professionals, Senior members of the department or division. In some cases there might be just a small team, who then liaison with various other departments. The team members are pre selected, so the team is already in place. The team should generally be trained in assessing workplace violence, violence on campus, what to do, who to call, and they might also be trained in profiling an individual, to enable them to make an assessment of wither an individual is a threat vs a none threat to the environment around them.
The threat assessment teams and who they are comprised of seem to make no concessions or allowances for being evaluated by a team of peers. Eg. In court cases they try to encourage a variety of jurors, so that a person being judged can be evaluated by a peer of their jurors. This in theory allows for fairer trials and outcomes. With the threat assessment teams there are no such guidelines for who the team is comprised of, or what the make up of the team should be. This may or may not account for why the Targeted Individual community has seen an above average targeting of females and minorities. In addition dissenters such as whistle-blowers, extremist site members, and conspiracy site members are also starting to show up above average.
Once in place the team is ready to take tips from the community around them. Generally the team will liaison with Human Resources, The police, Employee Assistance Program, Mental health, and when a report comes in they use these other resources to assist with their assessment of the Target.
Reports can be filed via a form, the reports can be filed anonymously. This means that the person making the accusation need not have any accountability for making a false report. This might not be the case in every area, but in most of the threat assessment guidelines I came across, reports could be filed anonymously. Keep in mind that report are likely primarily initiated by human resources, campus resources, etc. However anonymous reporting of any kind leaves an organization open to abuses of the system that might be difficult to identify or remedy.
The threat assessment team works in a four part process.
1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation
Identification of person of concern
Once a target is chosen, or a concern is forwarded to the threat assessment team it’s time for them to liaison and start to profile and assess if that target is a concern for further evaluation or monitoring, or if the case can be closed.
This threat assessment guide from the post office is interesting. Here are some of the criterias it uses to assess if a target could be a threat.
Obsessive focus on grudge — often quick to perceive unfairness or malice in others, especially supervisor.
Especially for males, great concerns or emphasis on sexual fidelity of mate.
Recent stressful events or severe losses.
Perceived loss of options.
Direct or veiled threats of bodily harm toward supervisory personnel, coworkers, or customers.
Physical deterioration (head injuries, cancer, disability, kidney failure, etc.).
Extreme sense of moral righteousness about things in general as well as believing that the organization does not follow its own policy and procedures.
Inability to handle constructive criticism well and projecting blame on others.
Demonstrated disregard for safety or coworkers.
Tendency to be a loner with little family or social support and often having an excessive investment in the job.
Another University uses these criteria for their threat assessment and fit for duty guidelines.
A. Expression of bizarre and inappropriate thoughts. B. Excessive absenteeism without prior approval or rationale. C. Degenerating physical appearance. D. Acts of insubordination. E. Poor work performance. F. Poor workplace relationships with others. G. Indications of alcohol/substance abuse. H. Excessive complaining.
Once an assessment is initiated information is gathered on the Target in question.
Gathering of information and Investigating
To gather information on the target, these threat assessment teams use a variety of sources. They use the persons friends, family, social networking circles, co-workers, neighbours, and other resources.
Triage questions can include:
• Has there been indications of suicidal thoughts,
plans, or attempts?
• Has there been indications of thoughts/plans of
• Does the person have access to a weapon or are
they trying to gain access?
• Are there concerns about the well-being of the
• Are there concerns about the safety of the
• If yes, a full inquiry is recommended.
Gather Information (Full Inquiry)
• Think broadly and creatively about those who
might have information:
• Other staff
• Online friends, web sites, etc.
• Previous schools / employers
• Document information and use it to answer the
Key Investigative Questions.
Many Targeted Individuals express concerns often that their families, friends, people online, others are playing a role in their monitoring, or are taking part. That they are somehow in on it, well according to what this threat evaluation guideline dictates, they are often in on it, and asked to be a part of the monitoring and evaluation process.
Need for Collaboration
“Most important, dangerous people rarely show all of
their symptoms to just one department or group on
campus. A professor may see a problem in an essay,
the campus police may endure belligerent
statements, a resident assistant may notice the
student is a loner, the counseling center may notice
that the student fails to appear for a follow-up visit.
Acting independently, no department is likely to solve
the problem. In short, colleges must recognize that
managing an educational environment is a team
effort, calling for collaboration and multilateral
They use a variety of sources in the targets environment, but because reports do come in remotely, there is cause for error, or even false reporting of events. These reports are used to keep targets on monitoring for years to come.
Many people believe that the social networking sites that they use are harmless, but when it comes to being evaluated as to wither you are a threat to your social circle, you will see that these sites have now begun to play a critical and integral role in assisting these teams to make their initial assessments.
Helpful Internet sites include:
(search the relevant city/town)
If unaware of the guidelines being used to assess them, targets could well be entrapped or tricked into making suggestive statements. Also once those around the target perceive that the target is under investigation, normal everyday behaviours that would have been brushed aside, become significant, and everything the target does is cause for alarm.
2. Have there been any communications
suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
• What, if anything, has the person
communicated to someone else (targets,
friends, co-workers, others) or written in a
diary, journal, email, or Web site concerning
his or her grievances, ideas and/or intentions?
• Has anyone been alerted or “warned away”?
Source: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, (2002)
Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates.
Key Investigative Questions
The threat assessment team will also circumvent laws such as FERPA and HIPAA to get around laws that would usually prevent an invasion of the targets rights and privacy.
Information Sharing: FERPA
• FERPA is not an impediment to effective threat
assessment and case management.
• FERPA governs records only, not observations,
• FERPA does not govern police records.
• If created & maintained by law enforcement, for
law enforcement purpose.
• New guidance from ED encourages information
sharing where public safety is a concern.
• FERPA does not permit a private right of action.
Information Sharing: HIPAA
• Check with legal counsel as to which laws
govern counseling center records.
• Confidentiality is held by client, not MH provider.
• In cases where privacy laws apply, can try these
• No legal prohibition against providing
information to health/MH professionals.
• Inquire about Tarasoff – type duty.
• Ask subject for permission to disclose.
• Centralized incident tracking database;
• Document reports and actions – include date,
time, subjects, targets, behaviors of concern,
• Preserve evidence: Keep copies of email,
Incident tracking database;
• Incident Information:
• Date, location, nature of incident, means of approach;
• Subject information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Target / Victim Information;
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Witness/Reporting Party Information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
Assessing Information and Situation
Once all the reports are in from the eyes and ears around the target, then the assessing of information begins.
Think creatively about resources, as well as
“eyes and ears.”
• Anticipate likely change in the short and midterm,
and how the subject may react.
• Monitor using available resources. Who sees
the person regularly, inside work/campus,
outside, on weekends, online, etc.?
The threat assessment team use the information gathered together to determine if the target should be referred any third parties, this could include law enforcement, Employee Assistant Program, Mental Health Workers or others.
They evaluate if the person might be a danger to themselves or others, if the person is able to take care of themselves. Eg. Do they pay rent on time, do they buy groceries, are the suicidal, a threat to others, etc. If these criteria are not met, they might try to convince a judge or other health care worker that a mental health hold is required, or some other form of intervention.
Information is recorded and reported 24/7 and often stored in some form of centralized database. The records are crossed referenced with police and other contacts.
Now this procedure was in place well before the fusion centers ever came into existence, however it is not out of the question to assume that fusion centers might well be used in future or linked into this process, even if they were not initially used.
Once a Targeted is listed for monitoring, even if they move away from the university, place of employment, or community, if they are still perceived to be a threat to others the remote monitoring, or case management will continue.
While the case is open the team should:
• Continue to monitor and modify the plan as long as the individual still poses a threat
• Recognize that a person can continue to pose a threat even after he/she ceases to be a Closing a Case
member of the campus community
• Continue to monitor the situation through its relationship with local law enforcement agencies and mental health agencies, as well as in direct cooperation with the person, if possible
The Target will be monitored as long as they are perceived as a threat. There is no current limit to how many years the state can continue this monitoring, imposition and disruption of the targets life.
If someone who has been reviewed by the Threat Assessment Team leaves the area, do you continue to monitor him/her?
If the situation warrants reviewing the case after the subject leaves the area, the team will continue to do so. It is important to remember that when the subject has relationships in his/her life, there is a lesser chance for violence to occur. A failure to communicate or interact with a subject encourages problems to fester, which could lead to violence.
Also under many of these occupational health and safety guidelines, the Targets information can and will be shared with those that they are likely to come in contact with.
“In the service sector this may require identifying to employees persons who have a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior in the store, bar, mall or taxi.
The identity of the person and the nature of the risk must be given to staff likely to come into contact with that person. While workers have the right to know the risks, it is important to remember that this information cannot be indiscriminately distributed.
Remember as the case is being monitored, any incidents, perceived threats, strange behaviour, anything at all can be reported to this team for assessment and evaluation. If the team feels that a change in behaviour constitutes a threat the team might upgrade the targets to something along the lines of medium risk, danger to self or others, should only be seen in pairs.
Manage The Situation
The threat assessment team might also add specific quirks of the target to their files, things that the general public might be made aware of, such as if the target starts to pace it could be a sign of imminent attack.
Assessment: Case Priority Levels
PRIORITY 1 (Extreme Risk): Poses clear/immediate threat of violence or self-harm and requires immediate containment, law enforcement involvement, target protection, and case management plan.
PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.
PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.
PRIORITY 4 (Low Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm at this time, but may exhibit some disruptive behavior and/or need for assistance. Requires passive monitoring. Utilize case management and referrals as appropriate.
PRIORITY 5 (No Identified Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm nor is there evidence of disruption to community. No case management or monitoring required.
It can be clearly shown that monitoring is indeed a part of the guidelines that these threat assessment teams do follow.
Once the plan is developed, it needs to be
implemented and monitored.
• Team should include implementation and
monitoring responsibilities as part of the case
• Further referrals may be necessary.
• Team should continue to follow up as
What targets may wish to do in future is redirect F.O.I.A. (Freedom Of Information Act) requests to these agencies.
Targets may also wish to have their lawyers make a cease and desist request to these threat assessment teams in regards to the overly invasive monitoring that is allowed. In future Targeted Individuals might even be able to come together and aim class action lawsuits or individual, and human rights lawsuits at these teams. Slander suits and others might also be suitable.
What would also be nice is to gain some statistics on who is being monitored via these threat assessment teams. Which case files were closed, vs which are still open. How many years does the average case stay open for? Ages, genders, race, how many were whistle-blowers, or belonged to a dissident, extremist, conspiracy or protest group. How many cases ended in suicide? Incarceration? Institutionalization? Homelessness?
These might be things that future Targeted Individuals look into as they seek assistance in stopping the monitoring, surveillance, and life disruptions, and curtailling the abuses that are being experienced under these programs.
With these threat assessment teams it’s extremely important to realize that if the threat assessment team is composed of one group, and they are assigned to make a threat assessment of another group or individual, you might not have fair and balanced assessments, because these teams than do not take into considerations cultural norms, gender, racial, sexual, or other biases that might be present, or underlying within the assessment team. The assessment team is essentially playing judge, jury, and executioner with their assessments of these individuals, thus if courts are required in many cases to use a fair and balanced jury of peers, should Threat Assessment Teams be morally or legally required to do the same in future?
- Above top secret
- Abu Ghraib
- Active denial
- Active Denial Weapons
- as the world turns
- Asain Male
- Asian Female
- Astral Plane
- Background records checks
- bad luck
- Black female
- Black Females
- Black Male
- black women
- Brain reading device
- Britney Spears
- brown coats
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- changing vibrations
- Citizen Informants
- Civilian Spies
- Community harassment
- community mobbing
- community policing
- concentration camps
- constitutional change
- Controlled society
- Covert investigations
- Cultural diversity and multiculturalism
- david icke
- devinci code
- domestic spying
- East Germany
- electromagnetic frequency
- Electronic harassment
- Emotional Vampires
- False Prophets
- files updated
- Gang Stalking
- government corruption
- GPS tracking
- Guantanamo Bay
- Health and Safety
- Heath Ledger
- High technology
- Honey Trap
- Indigo Ribbon
- Intimate Infiltarations
- Jeremy Blake
- Joan of Ark
- John Lennon
- Kilmeer Gill
- Lord Of The Rings
- Marian Fisher
- Mark M Rich
- Markus Wolf
- Martin Luther King Jr
- Meat production
- mental concentration camps
- metropolitan police
- militarized police force
- Mind Control
- Mind Reading
- Minority women
- Naomi Ebersole
- National Security Letters
- Neurolinguistic programing
- New World Order
- one handed signals
- Online Stalking
- Passive Aggressive Manipulative
- Personal Identifiers
- Police Abuse
- Police Corruption
- Police State
- Production Company
- psychological harassment
- Quantum Physics
- Record keeping
- records updated
- Red Squads
- Robot Sentient Project
- Rosa Parks
- School Shooting
- sexual harassment
- sign language
- Skin Heads
- Social Control
- Spy cameras
- spy satellites
- State target
- Stop snitching
- Targeted Individual
- The Matrix
- Theresa Duncan
- Third wave
- Thought Police
- Threat Assessment Teams
- time travel
- twilight zone
- violent persons registry
- Voice to skull
- walls of jericho
- whistle blower
- white female
- White Male
- workplace mobbing
- Young and the restless
- zero tollerance