Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Jane Clift Case Highlights

Jane Clift Case Highlights

This case is great. She was placed on a list. She used the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act to sue and win her case.

6# The words complained of contain personal information relating to Ms Clift. That is data which is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). This Act implemented in English law some of the rights recognised by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Later those rights were more fully incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”). The Council is a public authority. HRA s.6 (1) provides:

“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right”.

Physical Contact. This is an area that some targets might be able to build a case on, in regards to who was given access to their data.

Data Protection Act. Human Rights Act. These are the two acts that she was able to use to file her case.

8# The question in this case is whether, and if so how, the Council must demonstrate that it has complied with its public law duties under HRA (and incidentally DPA) if it is to be able to assert that it has the interest or duty required at common law for there to be a defence of qualified privilege.

This is what the case came down to. The same would likely be true for the Acts in other countries.


9# As a responsible employer the Council has a policy to protect its employees from violence at work. The policy is set out in a document headed “Safe System of Work (Codes of Practice) H&NS/COP/1.14 Version 1.0 date issued 11/3/03 Violence at Work (Inc Potentially Violent Persons)” (“the Policy”).

This also fell under Violence at Work

15# Mr Kelleher then conducted a number of other interviews. One was with Mr Gulfraz, a friend of Ms Clift. She was accustomed to helping him in making telephone calls and filling out official forms. She was at the time also helping him in a complaint he was making against the Council on a housing matter. He was present at the time Ms Clift made her call to Ms Rashid on 11 August. He heard the whole conversation over the speaker phone. Other witnesses were fellow employees of Ms Rashid. Ms Rashid did not have the phone on loud speaker but her colleagues sitting near her heard her side of the conversation. It was sufficiently unusual to attract their attention.

Witness close to Jane Clift were interviewed. Just like witnesses, family, friends, would be interviewed.

21# Also on 1 December 2005 Mr Kelleher filled out a standard form prepared in accordance with the Policy. It is known as a Violent Incident Report Form.

Same type of reporting form used in other countries as well to document incidents.

22# Mr Satterthwaite is the author of the Policy and the officer of the Council responsible for compliance with Data Protection and other related matters. He maintains the Register. It is a document prepared on Excel spreadsheet software. It contained ten columns and, at the relevant time, about 150 rows. Each row related to a person identified by name and address given in the first two columns. Ms Clift’s name was entered on the Register by Mr Satterthwaite upon information provided by Mr Kelleher. Details of the incident are given in column 5 as “threatening behaviour on several occasions”. The duration for which the person is to remain on the register is given in column 8 and in respect of Ms Clift the period is 18 months. The ninth column contains a title “Risk Rating VH, H, M and L” the entry for Ms Clift is M for medium. Two entries are admittedly inaccurate. The location of the incident is given at column 4 as “via correspondence”. The date of the incident is given in column 6 as “30/11/2005”.

All your information get’s documented.

24# The precise means by which the Register was circulated did not emerge clearly in evidence. Ms Clift protested immediately at her inclusion on the Register and asked if there was a right of appeal. She was informed there was not. In a letter dated 13 December 2005 Mr Satterthwaite (signing himself as Data Protection/ Health and Safety Co-ordinator) explained his decision in terms which implied that the Register had already been circulated by that date, as might be expected. Some information as to whom the Register had been shared with was given in that letter. More detailed information as to the publishees is not recorded in the form of an email before one that has survived dated 27 January 2006.

Health and Safety Co-ordinator did not give her the chance to appeal, so she took it to court.

30# The letter dated 13 December 2005 from Mr Satterthwaite to Ms Clift includes the following:

“Re – your letter dated 10 December 2005 – PVP Marker

A request for information that you sent to the Council, has been passed to me to answer, as I am the Data Controller for the PVP register.

Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1992), we have a duty of care to ensure that we do not put our employees into situations that may cause them physical or mental harm…

This register is shared between the Council’s Health and Safety co-ordinators to distribute on a need to know basis to managers, (especially those services that interface with our customers) so they can take the appropriate actions to protect their staff. This register is also sent to our partner organisations that may provide a service on our behalf (i.e. Slough Accord, Interserve, NHS Primary Care Trust and The Community Safety Partnership). Once the time limit has expired, using the same communication chain, a request is made that all traces of the warning marker is removed from the individual’s name.

This is what get’s distributed, and this is the same wording in most of the documents that I have been reading up on.

31# That letter reflects guidance from two sources. Whether it does so correctly is another matter. The first source is the Policy. This includes what, in another context, would be called sentencing guidelines, listing the activities that may render a person liable to have a violent person marker placed on their file and the “set period” said to be commensurate with the activity. The second document is one issued by the Information Commissioner covering five pages, entitled “Data Protection Act 1998 Compliance advice Violent Warning Markers: used in the public sector” (“the Compliance Advice”).

32# Ms Clift pursued her rights of access and sought further information under the Data Protection Act. By a letter dated 11 January 2006 Mr Satterthwaite wrote as follows:…..

Mainly social services related activities – Supporting People, Community Mental Health Team and Community Nursing

– Community Safety Partnership

Neighbourhood Wardens

Disclosure was made to the above organisations as they may all have cause to visit your address, for face to face contact. A good example of this is one of the many satisfaction surveys carried out.

She wrote the request under the Data Protection Act. Note her file was shared and distributed to quite a few people.

42# After further submissions on the questions to be asked of the jury counsel agreed that I should direct them as follows:

“If you assess damages, then you take into account circulation to 30 people for the e-mail and 150 for the Register. You leave out of account the remainder of the 66 to whom the e-mail was addressed unless you answer question 2 yes [in other words unless they find malice].

If you answer yes to question 2, you take into account all 66 people to whom the e-mail was sent and 150 for the Register”.


These two acts played heavily into her defense.

43# The first proceedings brought by Ms Clift were in the County Court under the DPA. She commenced those proceedings on 13 January 2006 alleging that the Register was inaccurate. Those proceedings have been stayed to await the outcome of this libel action.

This is what Jane Clift had to do to clear her record.

(a) The widespread publication of information that a person is ‘violent’ and their inclusion on a register of ‘violent persons’ is a serious interference with that persons Article 8 rights which requires cogent justification.

(b) Ms Clift had never used violence towards the First Defendant’s employees and had never threatened any such employee with violence. No employee had complained about Ms Clift’s conduct and no contemporaneous ‘Violent Incident Report’ relating to Ms Clift had been completed by any person.

Point 46. interference with a persons Article 8 rights.

47# There followed a plea of malice which is summarised in para 2 above. The plea of publication set out the facts I have already recited in relation to the circulation of the e-mail with the Register as an attachment on 27 January 2006. The next paragraph material to be cited reads as follows:

“10 The Register entry and the e-mail were distributed excessively widely to persons and bodies with whom [Ms Clift] had no contact and had no interest in [Ms Clift].

When I have no contact with individuals across boarders, why is my information shared with them? Clients or associates in other countries should not have this information disseminated, but they are.

50# Nevertheless, it is appropriate to set out the terms of the draft amendment as follows:

“12A Further by publishing the e-mail and the Register Entry the [Council] has interfered with [Ms Clift]’s rights under Article 8 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights without such interference being justified under Article 8 (2) and as a result its actions were unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The targets in European countries could start to look into this via data protection and Human Rights Conventions, Articles 8 and 6. See a lawyer first.

66# It is understandable that Mr Beggs should have ordered his arguments as he did. The Council has policies on both health and safety, and on data protection. Mr Kelleher and Mr Satterthwaite made the decisions they did make after considering these policies. Mr Satterthwaite directed himself on the law of health and safety at work, and on data protection, as set out in the Policy and the Compliance Advice. He did not mention the law of libel. Whether or not Mr Satterthwaite directed himself correctly is an issue for the court. But it is understandable that the Defendants should wish to be judged by the law which they understood to be applicable. Mr Beggs may also have taken the view that the course I adopted in the Westminster case at para 151 would be difficult to support. If so, he did not say that.

Health and Safety at work.

75# Mr Beggs submitted that the Council owed a duty to ensure the safety of their staff. He cited Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 ss.2 and 3 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3242), in particular regulations 3-5 and Schedule 1.

Health and Safety consistently cited throughout this whole case, used for justification.

90# The absence of a system of monitoring to whom the Register was published means that the Claimant may not be able to prove the full extent of the publication. The onus of proof is upon her, and if she is unable to discharge it, that cannot be relevant to the defence of qualified privilege that might be available in respect of other publications which she can prove.

A disgraceful lack of oversight is what I like to call it.

94# Para 16 provides that:

Data controllers should ensure that only those members of staff who are likely to come into physical contact with a potentially violent individual, through visits or by meeting in open plan reception areas, or who can otherwise demonstrate a need to know, have access to violent warning marker information. So for example where a member of staff is required to visit a potentially violent individual, at this point they should be advised of this fact”.

Physical contact. There is that word again.

98# The Compliance Advice does not assist on the definition of violence or violent behaviour. The Policy gives what it states are “Examples of violent behaviour covered by the Code of Practice”. They include: “Shouting, Swearing, Racial / Sexual Abuse, Threats, Pushing, Spitting, Object Thrown, Damage, Hostage and Actual Violence”. These are all things which an employee should expect to be protected from. But to refer to them all as examples of violence, or even potential violence, gives an extended definition of that word. It normally connotes at least a threat of physical force, and one which is meant seriously.

An expanded definition of violence. So shouting by someone’s standards could get you and did help to get Jane Clift on the list. You have to be so very careful with these individuals.

109# Documents are now normally held and communicated electronically. It is easy and common to circulate by e-mail to very large numbers of people, within (and outside) an organisation, information which, in the past, would have been addressed in a letter or memo to very few. It is therefore much more likely than in the past that information will be communicated to persons to whom no duty is owed, or who do not have a legally sufficient interest in receiving the information. It was in order to address this change in practice that the data protection legislation was introduced, first in a limited form in 1984, and then as it is now in DPA. HRA was not specifically targeted at this issue, but it undoubtedly applies to it.

How far and wide is information getting shared? This is going to be an interesting question to look into. I get the feeling with limited oversight, they are using this to smear targets left, right and center.

112# The historical cases show that the values set down in the Convention in 1950 as rights under Articles 8 (including the right to reputation) and Article 10 (including the right of freedom of expression in the giving of references and warnings) were not invented in 1950. These and some other Convention rights can be traced back, not only to the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration in the eighteenth century, but also to the very beginnings of English law. So one thing that HRA has achieved is to provide a means through which the courts can review the relative priority that the common law gave to those rights (which it already recognised), and adjust those priorities to meet contemporary needs.

This case was very interesting. Lot’s of good points, targets might be able to use. Check with a legal expert.


On the one hand looms the probability, often amounting to a certainty, of damage to the individual, which in some cases will be serious and may indeed be irreparable. The entire future prosperity and happiness of someone who is the subject of a damaging reference which is given carelessly but in perfectly good faith may be irretrievably blighted. Against this prospect is set the possibility that some referees will be deterred from giving frank references or indeed any references.”

Yes slander can ruin your life.

120# The DPA has created new statutory rights which are in no way related to employment or other relationships, although they affect such relationships. That Act requires attention to be focussed on the rights of those who are the subjects of references and warnings, as well as on the rights of those to whom the references and warnings are addressed. Personal data must be processed (which includes disclosed) “fairly and lawfully”, and it must be accurate: see Sch I. There are extensive provisions on the interpretation of these and other principles and a number of statutory instruments containing further provisions. I shall not consider these further, because Mr Tomlinson made no submission based upon them. He confined his submissions to the new rights and duties created by the HRA, which apply to the defendant council, but would not apply directly to a private sector employer.

Wow you mean people can’t just create fake incidents, data must be accurate? Guess it’s time to start reviewing some files and see what is actually out there. What has been said, attributed to individual files vs what is accurate. There has to be a way to do a class action for inaccurate information, especially if there is a systemic practice that is occurring.

128# The jury answered No to each of the first three questions: they rejected the defence of justification and the allegation of malice. They awarded damages of £12,000 to Ms Clift. So, Ms Clift left court with her reputation vindicated and Mr Kelleher left court without a stain on his reputation.

Click to access 140CLIFT_58136.pdf

March 28, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, Health and Safety, Isolation, Laws, Minorities, Monitoring, Record keeping, Social Control, society, Spying, Stalking, State target, violent persons registry | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Taking Stock

Taking Stock

Some of us were just thinking that the situation has changed, but the situation in some ways remains the same. Eg. They use to call us crazy in the community, and poke fun at us openly, or attempt to gaslight us, gangstalk, attempt to make us think that we were crazy.

We have yet again come a lot way. We are now clear in some cases, that  threat assessment files, can and are created, in the Jane Clift case, and others, a situation was crated, where they placed a warning on her file, and advised, may be a danger to self and others, only to be seen in pairs. These situations may seem small, but they had a devastating affect on us, and our community, and we are that, we are a community, we seriously be making sense to ourselves, we are logical, practical and we seriously be making sense.

We have worked hard, we have strived, struggled, to be eligible, to see that promised land at the end, or some form of sanity, or eligibilty, and that has to shine through, our efforts to make sense. We need to be thee eligible. We need our REM sleep back, or REM sleep cycles, we need to be sure, and clear how processes work. How a system could have been employed, that had that much access and capactiy to destroy, and desimate an entire populace, community, individuals. For we are global in nature are we not? Thus populace.

We not only need to move forward, we need to go back, we need to go backwards in time, and see how this could happen, which processes, eneligibled this. What could have enabled, individuals at work, in play, from all over the place, to be on these types of files, lists, who and which entity, and is that person, place, or thing still out there?

We can not just let this go, but we should not hold onto it either, should not eneligible it, to hold us down. We must come together, (not neccecerily group meetings.) eneligible ourselve, empower ourselves, cause that is what it’s about, and that is what it is still about, it has to seriously be making sense, and if it does not, these we, we still must be making sense.


Find your strength in love.

May 12, 2014 Posted by | activism, Awareness, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , | Leave a comment

Miracle is at hand

Today is the day we all get our files cleared up. I have it on good authority, that the files are being cleared up, and I am to phrase is it this way, that there was a backlog, and someone, God bless them, actually took the time, to go through the files, and the situation suitably, suitably, be making sense.

Basically the files are being cleared up, and if some packages that were sent are out there too, well that seriously be making sense. Take care, take care.


I have it on good authority, from someone who is or is not familiar with the Jane Clift case, that even her files were or were not reviewed, and the situation is or is not be making sense.

March 23, 2014 Posted by | Gang Stalking | Leave a comment

The Day We Fought Back

The Day We Fought Back

Remember our years of being systemically harassed, and targeted,

remember when we use to have to just put up with it a little bit, and
The Day We Fought Back

Remember our years of being systemically harassed, and targeted, remember when we use to have to just put up with it a little bit, and wonder if anyone believed that vigilante gangs were stalking us, or if we did believe it, if we could get others to believe it. But then we learnt, we learnt to fight back.

We learnt to not take it, we learnt to speak out about it, but we learnt to do it in credible fashions, at least some of us did, and not to give into any myth or lie. Vigilante gangs, really. We learnt over time to investigate, to become researchers, to observe, to be our own sources of fact finding, in some cases. Then we also learnt how to disseminate information, so that we could go up against the things that they were saying and doing to us. We found the hard facts, the research.

We learnt that a whole entire and I do mean this, society could be involved with a big lie, some were clear, some were not, but all or most could be involved. Our media for the most part at first would not report it without calling us crazy, those mentally ill individuals, who believe they are being follow around. Those poor paranoid people them, oh the sad souls and so forth. Let’s be honest, some of them or most of them would have happily put a bullet in us, those poor paranoid individuals.

Then we really did research, and we discovered lists, cases like the the Jane Clift case, threat assessment files, how they work function, and that yes those around do follow you, you are placed on lists with warning markers, it can disrupt your life in the ways that we have mentioned, people started to take use more seriously, we organized in rational ways.
We became active, in ways that made sense. Exposure and awareness, it gave us the chance to survive, well some of us, cause some did not make it. The usual outcomes.

When we started to socially fight back, is when we claimed the victory, or any small victory. Also sometimes in other situations, circumstances of our lives, or the lives of others, it might mean physically having to fight back, but that is often when you have a better chance of survival. Because there are those, who will place innocent individuals, in the incorrect situations, doing the incorrect things, that will systemically target and destroy an innocent person.

We lived, we learnt, we watched, we waited, and we learnt. They do not change, cause they do not have to. A whole entire society, you understand this, a whole entire society can lie, or at least be mislead, and can cover up, a world of deceits, literally, and this is what we went through. lived through, still continue to live through, in many cases. We learnt, we learnt to fight back in ways that made sense. We took to Youtube, wrote articles, books, appeared on the news, in credible fashions, till the situation changed somewhat, became acknowledged, online, as well as offline.

We also now have the Reporting Forms, so we can figure out some of the targeting and figure out who is doing some of this stuff. The reporting forms are a world of difference for most of us, and when used correctly, that is another avenue that we now have available to us, along with spiritual based products that also assist us.

The situation changed, because we ineligible it to change. We fought back and we won, and that situation begun to change, we could then speak more openly about it. We could then enable those around us, to arrive into a suitable comprehension of what we were experiencing, and what was happening to us, and around us. Wither they believed it or not, we have factual documentation, and credible accounts. The situation in that regard changed, because we did fight back, individually, and as a community.

We have what we have because we fought back, without it, we would have had the outcomes they wanted for us, and the inevitable ends, or ending.

January 20, 2014 Posted by | activism, Awareness | , | 1 Comment

Where do you file a request for the threat assessment file?

Where do you file a request for the threat assessment file? Thanks.

This was a question sent in from, endgangstalking.

Thank you for writing in. To request your files, follow the instructions, below.

Spiritual Files

If you have one, and are eligible to have your information or details, you can remotely request your spiritual files, and they can be sent.

There is a spiritual based, threat assessment office, the request is made remotely, and is voice activated. If you have a file, and are eligible, then you can request to have the file sent. Eg. You will verbally say, my name is such as such, (You do not have to say, your real name out loud.) you do need to have a unique identifier. Request your file, eg. I am making a verbal request, to see my threat assessment file.

Provided you are in an eligible situation, the files are sent to you, similar to making a virtual request, except you can see, and hear your files, in some cases, it’s interactive.

So just choose a comfortable place, and verbally request to see your files, if you have any, you might have to say it more than once, and the files get sent, usually within 24 hours.

Earth Files

The files can be requested in some cases by sending in a Freedom Of Information Act request, just to see if there are any threat assessment team files, that you are eligible to have access to. If there are, great, if not, then it’s something slightly different.

You can use the online program to request FOIA request files.


The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives you the right to access information from federal agencies. FOIAonline allows you to submit FOIA requests to all participating agencies from this website, track the status of requests, search for requests submitted by others, and generate up-to-the-minute reports on FOIA processing.

The files could be started via a former employer, through a local agency, etc even if it was an accidental run in, eg. Jane Clift and the local council that created a file on her.

Legal options, can also be reviewed, as was the case in Jane Clifts case.‎

September 19, 2013 Posted by | activism, Awareness | , , , | 1 Comment

You have not the truth.

Sometimes you don’t have the truth, because you don’t want the truth. I was just watching another of those charming, yet so annoying articles that actually had the adacity to get printed recently, like November or something like that.

Now I often say it, no press is bad press, but today at this moment at time, I’am thinking it, sometimes you just don’t have the truth, because you don’t want the truth. You don’t have the credence, or the respect you deserve to have because you as a community, and a society are enabling them to print joke articles such as this, the article was just annoying, it’s another article where T.I. Targeted Individuals are hearing voices, sure you hearing freaking voices, but if the articles doesn’t do you credit, then be all over it. It’s the type of article that sites such as FFCHS, typically sponser and their minions and I am tried of it, I litterly read the article and I seriously wanted to reprove someone from their situations, I seriously wanted to remove them from situations, I seriously wanted to reprove them from their outcomes. After how hard some of us have
worked in our situations, after how hard some of us have worked in our outcomes, I serioiusly wanted to be in the correct situations, and have the correct situations, thus occuring, and thus co-happening to me.

Instead I am greeted by another article that was sutable for the inside of a birdcage, or the local washroom fascilities if you managed to forget your toilet tissue. The fact that the Threat Assessment Teams are behind this has been documented, court cases, you have them, you have a stunning court case in the form of the Jane Clift case. I am cognizant that Targeted Individuals
are out there, you typically still make sense, but you need to be in the correct situations, and have the correct situations thus occuring, and thus co-happening to you. This means when articles that are fit for the trash compactor are printing, and the latest govenment sponsored websites is noted that trying to, or attempting to take over the situations are out there, and stepping up to us, they need to be stepped back to, they need to be responded to.

Instead what I see and veiw at times is a community enabling us to go backwards in time to the stone age, the bloodly stone age, for gosh sakes, I couldn’t even believe the article, or that any editor with any credibility whatsoever enabled that to be printed as a well researched article, there were so many glaring errors, and omissions, not only that, but honestly simple mistakes as to what Gang Stalking is, vs what Electronic Harssment is, though they are losely affliated, and often one does thus occur with the other, they need not be mutually exclusive, in and in and of themselves.

I use to think that most articles, most press was suitable, even if it was not the best represented, but I have personally moved forward, so have so many others, they have the truth, and they much like myself are not willing to return to the stone age, or the bed of lies and deceptions. It’s not going to be that type if situation, but it so often is, because in those moments, if you won’t stand up for it, claim it own it, and and defend it, then others will, and they all too often still do not do justice to the Targeted Individal community, those stories have a specific spin, and bent for a reason, the moment I saw who had posted the link, i was clear that it was going to be that type of story, that type of situation.

The bloodly lameness has to stop, it has to discontine, because it does not make sense to me, it does not make sense to anyone else. You had enlightenment, any and everytime, I see or watch you deliberatly going back to the dark age, it will be that type of situation, cause I am frankly bloodly well tired of dealing with it.

The article, yeah I couldn’t even bother, just more fod for the fire, or like whatever, but the truth, not that has substance, and when I see it, and when I find it, then it makes sense, in the mean time, down with the sickness, the stupidity, and things that don’t make sense.

April 3, 2013 Posted by | blackwomen, dissident, Electronic harassment, future, Gang Stalking, Targeted Individual, Threat Assessment Teams | 3 Comments

The DT STockton Document Reexamined.

The DT STockton Document Reexamined.

Several years ago someone under the name of DT STockton posted a document about his investigation into the informant system. Quite a bit of it agreed with information that I had already come to agree with, but how much could be verified?

Do the informants really have communication via a special frequency? Are most people in major cities on the informant system?

Are some of the businesses being taken over by government agents?


The answer to the above questions, in my opinion, estimation, and investigation is confirmed, and then some. The world is scarier than we realize. To investigate any of this information, without being familiar with the informant system or government agencies is almost impossible. For a normal, fairly sane person to try to investigate the information can be cumbersome, but in this community of Targeted Individuals, to stay alive and survive, many have had to become minor investigators in their own capacities.

Threat Assessment Teams, the topic has been covered several times, that’s what the community was up against, for case history, I give you the Jane Clift case.

Her case is exactly what most people on a minor scale are up against. In Jane’s case she was advised she was getting listed as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs, and that a warning would come up every time she was in any situation.

The case is what we end up seeing in the Gang Stalking community, on a minor level.

Eg. Threat Assessment Team, evaluated her as a danger to the community, in her case it was the local council, in other cases HR get’s the person listed, however it happens. Once the person is listed, they are monitored by the local monitoring units, or individuals in the community, in her case she was monitored for trying to be a good citizen. Others have complained about monitoring for arguments with those in the community, or workplace, who have the know how to get individuals listed.

Once the local monitoring unit is called in, you have positions in some countries, such as community advisors, unit commanders, shift commanders, who are responsible for the monitoring, of the individuals. The unit and shift commanders or in some cases “case workers” as one liked to fancy himself as, are responsible. In too many cases some are criminals themselves, and organize a deliberate campaign of harassment, against the individuals.

Thus people on the street are literally being given directions, the ones that are on the informant system, or in some simple cases co-workers are being given a warning about the person. Mostly however it’s the informant class, and the government agent class that create the problems for innocent individuals.

Deliberately trying to destroy their lives, and removing them all too often from their existences.

NOw try coming into any of the above positions without being on the informant system, or agency and those in charge have no idea what to do with you. It would be almost impossible to get into a community advisor role, unit commander role, or shift commander role without being in one of these situation, but if you could get into one of these roles, slip in unnoticed, or accidentally come into the role, then those who interface with these units, have no idea how to interact with the individual, because the systems are now creepishly designed to work with the informant system. Period.

Government Agents


Whenever I read the case of John St Clair Akwei, and what governments are capable of doing, or allegedly capable of doing as per the lawsuit that the signal intelligence agent filed against the government, pertaining to aspects of his work, it always sounds so futuristic, so Matrix like in some ways, but it’s a lawsuit that’s been there for over 15 years now?

The stuff that could be done back then, would scare most people now, but image what they are capable of now, if brain mapping, remote neural monitoring and other situations were common place when he worked for NASA.

John St Clair Akwei VS Nasa


Detecting EMF fields in humans for surveillance A subject’s bioelectric field can be remotely detected, so subjects can be monitored anywhere they are. With special EMF equipment, NSA cryptologists can
remotely read evoked potentials (from EEGs). These can be decoded into a person’s brain-states and thoughts. The subject is then perfectly monitored from a distance.

NSA personnel can dial up any individual in the country on the Signals Intelligence EMF scanning network and the NSA’s computers will then pinpoint and track that person 24 hours-a-day. The NSA can pick out and track anyone in the U.S.

NSA’s Signals Intelligence use of EMF brain stimulation NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF brain stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MK Ultra program of the early 1950′s, which included neurological research into “radiation” (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development.

Tracking a person via their emf fields. Brain mapping technology that allows you to map a persons mind, but at a distance. [quote]

The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain mapping can monitor all the electrical activity in the brain continuously. The NSA records aid decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for
national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly used by the military for Brain-to-computer link (in military fighter aircraft, for example).

For electronic surveillance purposes, electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject’s verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain’s auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use
this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations, characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia.

Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject’s brain and show images from the subject’s brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject’s eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can
send images direct to the visual cortex, bypassing the eyes and optic nerves.

NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject’s brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain-programming purposes.

Remember it’s been claimed that this stuff has been available for decades. The lawsuit that brought this technology to light was almost 20 years ago, and this is a person who worked for the agency, and I think with this technology.

If this is being used remotely and at a distance on people, how many people in society might not even be aware that such programing has been used on them until it’s too late?[quote]

Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM There has been a Signals Intelligence network in the U.S. since the 1940′s.

The NSA, Ft. Meade, has in place a vast two-way wireless RNM system which is used to track subjects and non-invasively monitor audio-visual information in their brain. This is all done with no physical contact with the subject. RNM is the ultimate method of surveillance and domestic intelligence. Speech, 3D sound, and subliminal audio can be sent to the auditory cortex of the subject’s brain (bypassing the ears), and images can be sent into the visual cortex. RNM can alter a subject’s perceptions, moods, and motor control. [/quote]


The informants are contacted on the street with a special frequency, and they do get instructions, if you could hear the stuff they are advised, literally walk really close to this person, we just want to see if he reacts, we just want to see if she has a reaction to it, mostly the average person would just do what they are told, because most do not see the bigger picture. They are innocent in a way, but some are pretty specific, eg. Driving close enough to cause an accident, deliberately, some are all too knowing, and cognizant, meaning fully aware. It’s a scary balance, and I can now personally attest to the fact that they do have in most cases, directions that are being conveyed to them. A frequency is being utilized, and that’s pretty scary.

Could a variety of individuals be on the informant system? I mean to be an informant don’t most people have to be criminals? It’s pretty scary, because in most people’s mind’s informants are criminals, at least in my mind they were, but in today’s society, they get all sorts onto the informant system. I do feel that some groups are targeted more than others, just based on attitudes and mentalities of those that are deliberately assigned with ensuring school children get placed on the informant system. High School and the informant system, jr high and the informant system. Yes that’s the fate of some of our school children, isn’t that nice.

You would think that people have to commit some major crime, but even with just the items I’ve researched online, eg. Rachel Hoffman.

Or even the girl who got stopped for parking tickets, had no drug use or drug selling history, from a small town, and was placed on the informant system as a confidential informant. In that specific case, her dad went back with her to the station, and removed her from the informant system, in that case she had a lawyer in the family. The point is innocent people who have no idea how this working, are being destroyed, converted, etc. So when a document appears online explaining that many in major cities are already on the informant system, don’t be surprised, because the above example, was from a small town, and if the small towns are this far gone, then that becomes problematic.

{November 10, 2009
Posted by Alexandra Natapoff at 06:27 AM
Recruiting new informants

Here’s a revealing article in the Buffalo News: Walking thin line in Village of Attica: Would-be informant says police coerced her into cooperation. It’s about Bianca Hervey, a 20-year-old college student who got pulled over by police for failing to pay her traffic tickets. The police threatened to put her in jail for the night, unless she agreed to become a drug informant. Although Hervey did not use drugs or have any connections to the drug world, police told her it didn’t matter–she could still work as a snitch and try to set people up. Frightened of going to jail, Hervey signed the informant agreement. When she told her father, attorney Richard Furlong, what had happened, however, he “went ballistic.”

Furlong went to the police and to the City of Attica and complained about the recruitment of young people into the world of drugs, but the police and the Village Board refused to change the policy.

This story illustrates how snitching has quietly become such an immense part of the criminal justice system. Many cities have policies like Attica’s, in which police can recruit any potential offender as a drug informant–even a 20-year-old guilty of nothing more than a traffic violation. It was this same
type of policy that led to the death of 23-year-old Rachel Hoffman in Tallahassee, Florida, and triggered Florida’s ground breaking legislation on the subject of informant-creation. See post: Florida’s “Rachel’s Law” offers some protections for informants.}

Alexandra Natapoff, has done some wonderful research into the informant system, she is a lawyer, and the above summary is from her. Her statistics more importantly, back up much of what has been said about the numbers, and figures of those on the informant system in most major cities, and some communities.

In summary, it’s not paranoia when they are out to get you, as the saying goes, and it’s not paranoia to believe that too many people are on informant systems, and in or a part of government agencies. The things Targeted individuals blog about, satellite tracking, etc, that’s common knowledge, because their are articles which cover, how local police and others have access to these minor technologies, and have had access for years. The items less well known, but that have also been pretty common are things like the John St clair Akwei case, and the technologies used there. The figures on the informant system are understated, to say that have or above that in cities are on the informant system, is understated.
To say that school children are being stopped, interrogated for minor things, and then placed on the informant system, similar to how Bianca Harvey was, is not an exaggeration. “Weed” children is not a good look, and it’s also, one of the ways these kids in today’s society are getting themselves into these situations, but also at times they are foolishly, and unwisely being set up by their little friends, who are already on the informant systems.

October 22, 2012 Posted by | Awareness, CIA, Citizen Informants, Civilian Spies, Community harassment, Conformity, conspiracies, Cults, Echelon, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Threat Assessments 101

Threat Assessment 101

It recently came to my attention that someone wrote a post titled “It’s not community notifications, either,” and this person thought that that they had discredited the theory of the Threat Assessment Teams and how they work.

I had not previously realized the limited understanding some targets have of these teams and how they are used and how they function. I thought I would address the issue in a post titled Threat Assessment 101, and try to help the community understand how this process works a bit better. Try to apply the stages below to your own targeting, if you have any questions, please feel free to drop a line, and I will do my best to answer the question.

I do not claim to be an expert, but I do like to believe my years of research have been a bit more detailed and indeepth, compared to what some others have done.

Now the person wrote a post where he believes that he has discredited Jane Clift as a Targeted Individual because her stalking ended after she moved, and she was advised that she was to be added to the notification, but what this poster did in reality is akeen to saying, well person X does not have electronic harasssment therefore they are not a Targeted Individual, or or person B is not getting Voice To Skull so they must not be a Targeted Individual.

It shows that this person does not have an understanding of how the process works. If this person is having a hard time with the concept then other targets are also likely having the same difficuluties and I hope that this will clearify some of that.

I am going to start with how the team works.

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

In the case of Mrs. Clift it was her local council that was responsible for the task of evaluating individuals and placing them on the list. In other cases this will be done via a Threat Assessment Team or similar out let.

In the Jane Clift case she was identified as a person of interest because of a letter that she wrote.

Each team does things differently. But they go about gathering information as part of the next stage.

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:

• Co-workers
• Other staff
• Friends
• Family
• Online friends, web sites, etc.
• Previous schools / employers
• Others?
• Document information and use it to answer the
Key Investigative Questions.

Threat Assessment Teams when gathering information speak to those around you, as listed above. They speak to your friends, family, co-workers, online friends, websites, etc. Places that you frequent. This is why those around the target become involved in what is ongoing.

In the Jane Clift case they would have reviewed her history and decided that she was likely someone they felt comfortable with issuing a letter letting her know that she was going to be on a list. Most people are never issued letters, again everyones targeting will be different, and have various levels. Some targets never get electronic harassment or voice to skull.

In the Jane Clift case it was decided that no further active monitoring was needed once she left the area. In other cases these teams or individuals will often decide that further monitoring is needed to ensure the safety of the community, and once the person leave the area the monitoring will continue.

In the Jane Clift case they felt that her anger had primarily been directed at individuals in her local council, so once she left, they felt safe enough to not have her further listed. If they did not feel safe she would have been followed in other areas, like many other targets are.

<blockquote>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</blockquote>

I can not strees this part of the targeting enough. They do communicate with everyone around the target. So when targets say that everyone is in on it. They are fully correct. They are not allowed to say anything to the person being investigated. Also it’s scary because they become aware of how serious the situation is. The target depending on which level of monitoring they are on, will have their information distributed to the community. Anyone who is a part of these community, workplace, notification, initiatives, will then get a warning about the person.

Information Sharing: FERPA

• FERPA is not an impediment to effective threat
assessment and case management.
• FERPA governs records only, not observations,
communications, etc.
• 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.

Record Keeping
• Centralized incident tracking database;
• Document reports and actions – include date,
time, subjects, targets, behaviors of concern,
• Data;
• Assessment;
• Plan;
• Preserve evidence: Keep copies of email,
memos, etc.
Record Keeping
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.

In a nutshell they bypass privacy laws that would normally be in place, which allows them to have those around you spy on you and give their observations and communications. Very cleaver.

This also means that strangers, and those with grudges, those who want to keep the investigation opened, such as those in the community getting paid, can have anyone submit false information. Let’s say you were originally given 18 months or 5 years on one of these lists, if there are no incedents, or something significant happens in your life, they might close the case file. If on the other hand something extreme happens, such as these people provoke you into punching them out, or falsely report that you did, then that is more time added more monitoring.

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.?

People need to understand that this becomes like a full Stasi investigation. For those around the target many with nothing better to do, this can become addictive and fun, some people love to play spy, and if there is a target in their area a lot of them will sit and wait for reports to come in, and if the target is in the area, they run to the bus stop, cause they want to see an incident go down. A lot of people just have no lives. Others are just genuenly scared and when the community notifications go out, danger to self or others medium risk, only to be seen in pairs, or whatever is being reported, others are just looking to protect themselves or their communities.

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

As the threat assessment team work your file, and reports come in, reports can either bring down your threat level, or increase your threat level, they continue to monitor you, as long as they feel you are a threat, or that there is something in your life that makes you less of a threat enough for them to close your file, and your file even when closed, can be reopened, or the previous records accessed. Everything is going and starting to be feed into central databases, similar to fusion centers.

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.

Again in the Jane Clift case, she left and her monitoring stopped because the coucil only felt that she was a threat to that one area, but in most other cases, they will warn everyone and every area that you come in contact with, because it is felt that you could be a danger to any area.

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.

The above chart is the most important thing that targets need to understand about their targeting. Most of us are on what is called active monitoring, but we can slip down to passive monitoring, or up to higher levels. I believe most targets who notice the surveillance fall into the Priority 3, 4, or 5.

This means active monitoring and they feel that you could be a threat. The active monitoring is where we are likely to notice the Gang Stalking and Gang Stalking activities as the community has termed it.

Now on their blog the person wrote, that no one broke into Jane Clifts house, nobody vandalized her belongings, and nobody assaulted her. That may or may not be accurate. There is a lot that was not said about the case, what is known is that Jane even though she was aware of the listing, the social ostercism, being followed to places she was not followed before, and other factors became so bad that she had to move. Remember she did not want to move, she had to move, she infact hopes to move back there someday. It was her home, she loved it, and hoped to be a foster parent, but being on the list absolutely disrupted her life and seriously enough that she moved.

The reality is the poster in the post that I read assumes a lot about the Jane Clift case, we don’t know the full extent to what Jane experienced. Eg. There are aspects of my own targeting that will not be publically mentioned, but it does not mean that they did not occur. What the poster of the article entiled “It’s not community notifications, either” fails deeply to understand about the targeting is that every target get’s different levels of harassment. Some will be followed, but never notice the Gang Stalking till several years into the targeting. How many times online have you seen a target write that when they checked their diaries or journals they realised that the targeting had actually gone back several years, but they had never put the pieces together? Eg. The targeting at the time was there, but not bad enough for them to notice, meaning that they were likely under passive forms of monitoring, which then slipped into active forms of monitoring.

That is likely when you noticed the mood in the community change, when you noticed the home break in’s, the harassment, and on higher priority of monitoring and targeting, that is also likely where you noticed the electronic harassment, vs just Gang Stalking. It’s all part of how these teams function. The young man in his post felt that he had discredited the notion, but the post just showed how limited his understanding was of these teams work and function in relationship to our targeting.

Once you have the most basic understanding of how these threat assessment teams work, and function, you can likely see how this is working in your own life, and the life of other targets.

Again the poster of the article felt that targets had to act out in the workplace to run afoul of anti-violence initiatives, again this poster has no idea of how zero tolerance is now working, how the psychiatric repirsials are working in conjunction with these teams. You do not have to act out, constantly complain about harassment, and you can be added to one of these lists, and be listed as having a mental health issue, this is the point that must get across to Targeted Individuals and others, this is what is happening in many cases, thus we see a lot of whistle blowers. In the community arguing with an authority figure could get you on such a list, it does not take as much as most people think it does.

Now as the research continues, I hope to introduce targets to the opperations manuals that are used for the remote monitoring, that should hopefully shed some additional light on some of the targeting that is experienced, but please feel free to do your own research in the mean time. Unlike others I do not claim to be an expert and my research into these teams continue.

I hope this gives most Targeted Inidividuals a basic understasnding of how Threat Assessment Teams work. If you truly understand the process, then you have a better idea of what is happening behind the targeting.

So let’s look at some cases.

1. Theresa Duncan. She had a workplace altercation where she had to be escorted from her building. This was the second altercation with the same individual, but they blamed Theresa. Under these violence prevention programs the incidents must be reported.

As everyone knows Theresa Duncan went on to blame her targeting on Scientology, complained of conspiracies, and she and her boyfriend Jeremy Blake later both died, listed as suicides, but many believe they were murdered.

If Ms. Duncan was evaluated as a threat to the company after her outburst and escort from the building, that could have cause passive, or active monitoring. Then start to blame a community or show a belief that they are out to get you, and these teams will increase the monitoring, and inform everyone around you, thus you notice this conspiracy and accuse everyone of being in on it. She thought it was Scientology, but the reality is that it likely began with the workplace incident. I am not discounting this group in any of her targeting, because depending on your area, each area uses different types of groups, and individuals for the monitoring. If she felt Scientologists were after her, the Threat Assessment Team would alert this group, and they would be thrown in her path without a doubt.

2. Randy Quaid. He had an incident where he upsent some coworkers. They filed a complaint and he was banned from the actors union. Now he has never said he is a Targeted Individual, but assuming that he is, this incident likely lead to his elevated Threat level and thus noticeable targeting. After he was banned, a restraining order was I believe filed against his spouse, so the company likely had them placed on active monitoring.

His brother has suggested he get a mental health exam. This is likely because he is hoping an exam will clear his brother. Most times those around you can not say anything. They believe that the system is legit and will clear the target if they get a mental health check. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Targets know that the system and company paid psychiatrist can and are often used to list targets as mentally unwell.

If Randy is a target, he was likely at some point evaluated and listed as having a mental illness. They do this and can do this legally. It’s wrong, but this is what targets have to realize. Please see the article entitled the psychiatric reprisal if you are unclear how this process works, and how someone can be listed as mentally ill without having a face to face exam.

3. Gloria Naylor. She accidentally poisoned her neighbors cat. They had been arguing for a while, having disputes, so the woman felt that it had been done on purpose. Well in that area if they felt that you deliberately murdered a pet, and well what about a person, what if you did the same to a person? Remember pets to many are like family members. The neighbor according to Gloria had connections, but the reality is even if she did not have connections, but a deep concern, and in an area like that a report, and a review of the history could have started passive, or active monitoring depending on what was reported.

The rest is as they say history. I don’t know if Gloria had anything else going on, if this woman had anyone else file a report, but at some point after this incident Gloria noticed the small things, started to complain, they likely listed her as paranoid, higher threat level, higher forms of monitoring, and so forth.

4. Ramona Lopez. She was trying to stop people from selling drugs. She realized the cops were in on it and essentially blew the whistle. Well Ramona depending on where you live, accusing the cops of dealing drugs is a paranoid disorder. We all know the police would never do that. Anyways, she also I think reported being set up for drugs, she argued with the cop if I recall correctly, which can get you listed as EDP. Emotionally Disturbed Person. Infact most of the times when we file these reports with the cops, if you get your records, you might just see them listed as EDP, no further action needed at this time.

A Targeted Individual recently posted his police report, and his complaint about the neighbor above burning him with lasers, got him listed as EDP and referred for mental health. Apparently being burnt from the neighbor above is an impossible scenario.

Remember he was reporting something simple and got listed as EDP, and referred for psychiatric assessment. Ramona Lopez was crossing the blue wall of death and in many areas, especially less affluent areas, you just can’t do that. Reporting the police as selling drugs is a paranoid belief, or so it would have been listed. Anyways she reports her targeting started shortly after trying to blow the whistle, and the rest is history. The more she complained, the more she acted out, the worst it got.

These are just a few cases, I am not an expert, I do not at this moment have conclusive proof that this is exactly how the targeting happening, but when you understand how these teams work, you can go back and get a pretty good idea of what started the targeting and why, and how these teams view the target.

The same is true for Gang Stalking, once you understand how Gang Stalking works, you can hear a target complain about surveillance, being followed, life disruptions, and get a pretty good idea or feel that this is what is likely what is happening to the target. I hope this has given some a better understanding of Threat Assessment Teams and how they work in relationship to Gang Stalking.

November 3, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Threat Assessment Teams and success rates

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.

October 27, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , | 2 Comments


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.

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.

October 16, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , | 1 Comment