Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Gang Stalking and F.O.I.A.

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.

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/threat-assessment/pdf/college-threat-recommended-practices.pdf

http://www.nabita.org/docs/whitepaper_risk_mitigation.pdf

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.

October 27, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Monitoring | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Community Notifications and Gang Stalking

At this stage it’s assumed that the targets friends or family are contacted via mail or some other method, given the notification, and then they probably have some kind of confidentially agreement or none disclosure agreement that they have to adhere to. Via Occupation health and safety workers have the right to know how to protect themselves from individuals who have a history, or who have displayed inappropriate or violent behaviour.

To give you an idea of the emotional impact that keeping quite on a similar topic would have, there was a story in the paper about a man who received a national security letter. This is completely different than a none disclosure agreement. He emotional felt like he was having a breakdown by not being able to say anything to his girlfriend, and was often forced to lie. That’s the sort of impact that sort of required confidentially can have on an individual.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html

What targets are asked to sign once they get notification would be more of a none disclosure agreement.

[quote]Not only will this program used the civil servant already mentioned, but it will expand who is used in the program. They will have secret sources of communication available to them. The members of these programs will connect with the fusion centers. None disclosure agreement or a confidential disclosure agreements will be signed by many in these programs to ensure that the information is protected.[/quote]

They might feel empowered to make a citizens arrest even. The workers would be trained in proper methods of communicating safety codes and sign language. I know this notification system is suppose to be a wonderful thing, but parts of it remind me of my research on the Stasi and how the one handed sign language was used there. Eg. Snitches were taught the one handed sign language and then they too became a part of the system.

They use this secret code the same way any cult does, Gang, or secret society does and for those on the outside they are harassed, or the citizens who have been taught these health and safety signs choose not to work with those who are not a part of the system. In England where Masons used a similar structure of silence and secrecy, they are now forced to disclose if they are Masons, because the allegiance went above and beyond the loyalty to the law and in many cases maybe even above and beyond doing what was right.

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/britishmasons.html

[quote]The following instruction sets out guidance governing the membership by members of the armed forces of societies such as freemasons: there is no intention or policy to preclude service personnel from membership of any lawful and benevolent organisation. However, involvement in organisations of a secretive nature, such as the freemasons, carries with it the risk of establishing disparate loyalties which may have a destabilising influence on the chain of command, not least by the perception of preferential treatment and undue influence. While membership of such organisations is clearly a matter for the individuals concerned, serving personnel should not encourage or promote membership amongst their colleagues, meetings should not be held on MOD premises, and use should not be made of any MOD property.

Ministry of Defense
United Kingdon
New 2001 Department Policy on Freemasonry in the Military
[/quote]

This is nothing against Masons, I am just pointing out that in the U.K. it became a real problem and disclosure for a time became mandatory.That recently changed for Judges again, where it’s no longer mandatory.

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/phpnews/show_news.php?uid=154

I also suspect, but at this stage can not prove that this is probably what triggers some of the bullying in schools, and the mobbing in the workplace. Targeting those not taking part in this system.  “However, involvement in organisations of a secretive nature, such as the freemasons, carries with it the risk of establishing disparate loyalties which may have a destabilising influence on the chain of command, not least by the perception of preferential treatment and undue influence. ” Preferential treatment for members of the one handed sign language gang would be bad enough, but they are bullying, mobbing, harassing and systemically destroying those who are not a part of this and that is wrong.

I have and can bear witness of this preferential treatment for these club members or whatever they think of themselves as, and it’s not a club that I want anything to do with, because I have seen what they do to none club members, the last decade of my life has been a testament to that. In court hearing they try to use this to influence judges to curry favor, by identifying themselves as part of this program (system). It also happens in everyday life, like waiting and keeping a bus door open for someone who is a member vs someone who is not. I get that people want to support others who are part of this structure, remember the majority of people think that this is a good thing. There are aspects of this that are good, don’t get me wrong. A community coming together to look after itself and protect itself can be a beautiful thing, but from the side that I have lived, it’s been a nightmare, and no one should have to experience such systemic destruction. This happened to me because officially because I fought back about some workplace harassment, but unofficially I think someone who knew how this system worked had a grudge against someone else used it to get revenge. Eg. If you know how this system works, you provoke the person till they yell or lash out, bait them, then report them. Get them flagged.

After spending over 10 years mobbed, and Gang Stalked, I can truly say that this is the most evil thing that I have ever seen.

I also believe that this is similar to the end time structure. What I have seen of the conformaty, the way they try to bully people to take part reminds me of that same structure that has been spoken about.

Right now what happens to targets is their lives are systemically destroyed. People don’t want to work with them etc. The end time structure is not just a mark of (the beast) a person, it’s also a system were you can not buy, trade, sell without it. This notification system is conditioning people to comply, and to harass those who are not complying, or taking part with this system.

I think in a generation, they could socially condition people to believe that only those with the external mark in the forehead or hand are people who they should do business with, and what socially they can not enforce, there will be laws to back up.

Thousands of people are being eliminated from communities, usually the outspoken, and others, those not falling in line, via these notification systems. Can you imagine how many innocent people are in jails, institutions, homeless, committed suicide, or killed people because of this system? Will there ever be an apology? Will they review the files of those in mental wards who claimed that they were being followed around? The police and other agency reports of Gang Stalking?

People want the elites to take responsibility for their actions, but what about taking responsibility for their own individual actions? No it’s far easier to say that an authority figure made me do it and I was just following orders. That excuse worked in Germany as well, it’s the same types of structures repeating, where people get rid of those that  they are told are undesirable.  You get an excuse to do mean things to those the state has a problem with.

I can’t right the wrongs of the past, but I would ask that those in the know do something, ask for a review of this system, because the way it’s working right now, is not right. The systemic destruction of innocent individuals is just wrong, and the way it’s being used in that capacity is just evil.

April 29, 2010 Posted by | Citizen Informants, Community harassment, community mobbing, Conformity, Conspiracy, Corruption, Cults, Gang Stalking, Informants, one handed signals, sign language, Social Control, State target, Targeted Individual | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments