Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

How did I become a Target?

How did I become a Target?

Scenario 1 Work.

Jane has been employed at Mcat Technotronics for several years, recently her and some co-workers have not been getting along. They have started rumors, moved her stuff around, and been hostile. Jane has complained to HR and finally an investigation was opened. All the co-workers denied any harassment was ongoing. HR to keep the situation quite has placed the blame on Jane. She has been referred to the company psychiatrist. She has refused to go. The HR staff is now getting reports from those that Jane complained about, saying that they fear for their safety, and that she is a problem. HR worried about getting sued if Jane does act out violently has referred her to the companies, Threat Assessment Team.

The team reviews Jane’s file, past employers, social networking sites, family, friends. Jane lives alone, has few associations. The team has decided that Jane requires further monitoring. She is assigned a threat level, and monitored at work. A company psychiatrist has evaluated her remotely and diagnosed her as possibly suffering from a persecutory disorder, and suffering from a false belief that she is being persecuted.

Jane later acts out, get’s into a verbal confrontation with one of her harassers, and is put on probation. Jane decides to leave the job. The employer decides that Jane was very disgruntled, and alerts the Threat Assessment Team. The team decides that Jane requires further monitoring. If she acts out violently in anyway, and they did not alert those around her, they can be sued. Remote monitoring is soon to be set up around Jane. She is also given an elevated threat level.

Scenario 2. School

Raul has started college. He is getting comments and taunts, they don’t like his accent, he is a stranger to many people around him. Raul makes it clear that he does not appreciate the taunts, but this spurs on his harassers more. Eventually Raul and one young man get into a psychical altercation. All the harassers come to the defense of the harasser, placing all the blame on Raul. The student affairs department is notified. After this Raul notices increased harassment, and starts to complain. Complaint after complaint is ignored. Complaints to staff or about staff who are also taking part is ignored, and his mobbing continues. Eventually the Student Affairs department have his file sent to their threat assessment team, after some of the students express concern about his being around them, and that they feel uncomfortable or threatened. Raul is unaware of this, and just trying to get his mobbing stopped.

The Threat Assessment Team review his file, determine that he owns guns, and could be a real threat to the campus. They determine he might be suffering from schizo-affective disorder.The campus and those around Raul are put on alert, they are asked to not say anything, and to report any actions that might be deemed suspicious or problematic. Eventually Raul decides to leave the program due to the overwhelming harassment and lack of support, but since there is no way to tell if this now disgruntled young man will return, he is assigned to remote case file monitoring.

This means that those around him will be alerted, and asked to be the eyes and ears, and report any little incidents, or odd behavior. All the information will be logged and stored in a central database for processing, and review, by the team. Those around Raul are contacted made aware of the situation, and comply with the request for none disclosure as they are legally bound to do.

Scenario 3. Community

Emily Claft see’s a child ruining a flower bed, she confronts the parents, the father tells her off. She goes to her local council to complain, and the customer service rep over the phone is no help. Emily slams down the phone in disgust. She writes a letter saying that the woman was very unpleasant to deal with, she says she wishes the woman would drop dead, and feels that if they had been in person, she would have hit her.

The council review the letter, determine that Emily could be violent, and she is assigned a medium risk classification, only to be seen in two. Emily has noticed that she is seeing strangers around her where they should not be, such as the clinic, and other previously private places. The strangers are alerted every time her name comes up, that she is dangerous and should only be seen in pairs. They are asked to report any future incidents. Her information is disseminated to a wide variety of agencies.

She is placed on a community notification list. The list is also used to alert the community of pedophiles and other violent criminals.
Emily finds it impossible to function, and decides to move.

Later I will review how the local monitoring team functions. How individuals are moved in around the target as part of the monitoring process. Also understanding the role that Community Oriented Policing likely plays, and how community notification lists function.

The information is all there, and the reality is it’s all backed up. The above information can be found by reviewing the Threat Assessment Teams guidelines, and a real life case scenario.

Please keep in mind there are likely dozens upon dozens of ways that an individual could become a target, the above are just a few scenarios.

October 21, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Activism Efforts

Freedom of Information Act Requests

These are suggestions that might be useful when making F.O.I.A. requests.

I think it would be a good idea to request freedom of information act information. Not only trying to obtain personal records, but also systeimic records.

Eg. 1. How many cases do Threat Assessment Teams have open and actively being monitored?

2. How many females vs males are currently and activily being monitored?

3. What is the cultural and or ethnic make up of those currently being monitored on these lists?

4. How many cases over the years ended up in institutionalizations? How many in arrests? How many in suicide? How many in homelessness? (They must have these figures if they are actively monitoring the cases, even if someone becomes homeless, the files would stay open.)

5. How much funding do these threat assessment teams get?

6. What is the guidelines for the remote monitoring and information gathering?

7. Where are the local monitors collected from? Are they local community members or others?

8. Who oversees the local monitoring? What guidelines are in place to ensure abuses do not happen?

9. What measures are in place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is not being trampled upon?

These are some of the Freedom Of Information Act Requests, that I would like to see directed to these threat assessment teams and any other agencies that they interact or liason with.

Human Rights Organizations

Some basic suggestions that might work.

For the human rights appeals, I think those should be redirected at local and other levels, but in addition to your other efforts, you might also wish to ensure that you point to these Threat Assessment Teams and their active and open case file monitoring.

Eg. I am what is known as a Targeted Individual. I am writing in regards to some ongoing surveillance and monitoring that I am currently experiencing. I believe that it is a possibility that I have been placed on a monitoring program at some point in the past by what is known as a Threat Assessment Team or similar entity, as per their case file monitoring guidelines.

Under this program I have experienced human rights abuses that i woudl like to bring to your attention.

I have experienced community monitoring, stalking and harsssment.

I have been terrorised and stalked within the communities where I reside, and my belief is that it’s in direct corrolation to the monitoring associated with this program.

I have experienced what our Targeted Individual community has coined Electronic Harassment.

The individuals who are taking part in the monitoring are using a variety of items which are remotly causing great physical pain, and discomfort. Though I have not visually seen the items being used, it has been suggested, and it is my belief that items such as:

Police radar guns are being used. -I have been advised that these might be getting used as part of the monitoring to remotely identify the targets location in their apartment. This casue a great deal of pain and discomfort.

Laser guns -I have been advised that laser guns such as the ones sold via the wickedlaser company might also be employed as part of the stalking. -According to the companies website these might be able to burn holes in items. It is my belief that these may be getting employed and used on Targeted Individuals.

Accoustic Weapons -I have been advised accoustic weapons that are capable of remotely manipulation of the nervous system might also be employed and used upon targets to assist with the monitoring. According to the current research this is capable of causing emotional disruptions of a nervous systems as well as placing individuals into unwilling states, such as relaxation, and drowsiness, and others.

Bass -I have been directed to the fact that times the sound compnent such as speakers with the sound component removed might be getting used. The vibrations are felt, and experienced, but no sound is heard. This also causing ringing in the ears, disrupts sleep, and has other ill health effects.

Transducers -I have been told and lead to believe that transducers might be also employed below the drywalls of apartments to cause heat and vibrations. Which create a great deal of pain and suffering as they disrupt sleeping patterns for days, weeks, months at a time.

RFID -It is my belief that RFID items in my possession are being illegally used to monitor my location while out in public. It’s a well proven fact that warrentless surveillance of some targets has been allowed in the past by some governments. RFID surviellance can include cellphones, door passes, passports, any communication device or other item that uses RFID to monitor and track a targets location.

(At this stage targets can add their own research to what they believe is being used upon them. Other forms of assault, such as sexual. I have left off things like satalight in this example, but if you have a compelling case, or good information, feel free to include it. A lot of what I have listed might not be things known to these agencies, things that are 100% proven, but the things that I have listed, should hopefully be within their realms of possibilities, and hopefully might prompt someone to open an investigation, or at least take the claims seriously.)

You may also wish to include a link to sites such as this which have things that might be designed to cause pain and discomfort. Tangable items that a human rights agency could be directed to.

Will this make a shred of difference? With enough letters, and the finger being pointed at these threat assessment teams, maybe it will lead to a review of some of these practices. Some of the things they are doing in my opinion seem to be just at the border at what some of these laws allow, and I am sure many other things are quite outside of the border of what the laws allow, and would disgust some if the dirty dealings came to light, but my recommendation is stick to the tangable.

Sure other things are going on like the V2k, or audio spotlight, but they are harder to prove. If you really need to include this element include information about the audio spotlight and how it can send sound to one person at a distance.

October 16, 2010 Posted by | activism, Electronic harassment, Gang Stalking, government corruption, GPS tracking, Surveillence, Targeted Individual, Voice to skull | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gang Stalking and Threat Assessments

The Video

October 16, 2010 Posted by | activism, Gang Stalking, Health and Safety | , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Threat Assessment and Gang Stalking

Threat Assessment Teams & Gang Stalking

A closer look

Many Targeted Individuals wonder how they could be placed on a list in the first place? Who has the power or the authority to do such a thing? If you live in a country such as the U.K. your local councils have this ability as displayed in the Jane Clift case. If you live in the U.S. or Canada it might be the task of what’s called a threat assessment team.

This team can be comprised of just a few individuals, to a team of individuals. It depends on the company, educational facility, or community they are representing and what the specific needs are.

Some examples include members of Human Resource, Police Officers, Psychiatrists, Mental Health Professionals, Senior members of the department or division. In some cases there might be just a small team, who then liaison with various other departments. The team members are pre selected, so the team is already in place. The team should generally be trained in assessing workplace violence, violence on campus, what to do, who to call, and they might also be trained in profiling an individual, to enable them to make an assessment of wither an individual is a threat vs a none threat to the environment around them.

The threat assessment teams and who they are comprised of seem to make no concessions or allowances for being evaluated by a team of peers. Eg. In court cases they try to encourage a variety of jurors, so that a person being judged can be evaluated by a peer of their jurors. This in theory allows for fairer trials and outcomes. With the threat assessment teams there are no such guidelines for who the team is comprised of, or what the make up of the team should be. This may or may not account for why the Targeted Individual community has seen an above average targeting of females and minorities. In addition dissenters such as whistle-blowers, extremist site members, and conspiracy site members are also starting to show up above average.

Once in place the team is ready to take tips from the community around them. Generally the team will liaison with Human Resources, The police, Employee Assistance Program, Mental health, and when a report comes in they use these other resources to assist with their assessment of the Target.

Reports can be filed via a form, the reports can be filed anonymously. This means that the person making the accusation need not have any accountability for making a false report. This might not be the case in every area, but in most of the threat assessment guidelines I came across, reports could be filed anonymously. Keep in mind that report are likely primarily initiated by human resources, campus resources, etc. However anonymous reporting of any kind leaves an organization open to abuses of the system that might be difficult to identify or remedy.

The threat assessment team works in a four part process.

1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation

Identification of person of concern

Once a target is chosen, or a concern is forwarded to the threat assessment team it’s time for them to liaison and start to profile and assess if that target is a concern for further evaluation or monitoring, or if the case can be closed.

This threat assessment guide from the post office is interesting. Here are some of the criterias it uses to assess if a target could be a threat.

Obsessive focus on grudge — often quick to perceive unfairness or malice in others, especially supervisor.

Especially for males, great concerns or emphasis on sexual fidelity of mate.

Recent stressful events or severe losses.

Perceived loss of options.

Direct or veiled threats of bodily harm toward supervisory personnel, coworkers, or customers.

Physical deterioration (head injuries, cancer, disability, kidney failure, etc.).

Extreme sense of moral righteousness about things in general as well as believing that the organization does not follow its own policy and procedures.

Inability to handle constructive criticism well and projecting blame on others.

Demonstrated disregard for safety or coworkers.

Tendency to be a loner with little family or social support and often having an excessive investment in the job.

Another University uses these criteria for their threat assessment and fit for duty guidelines.

A. Expression of bizarre and inappropriate thoughts. B. Excessive absenteeism without prior approval or rationale. C. Degenerating physical appearance. D. Acts of insubordination. E. Poor work performance. F. Poor workplace relationships with others. G. Indications of alcohol/substance abuse. H. Excessive complaining.

Once an assessment is initiated information is gathered on the Target in question.

Gathering of information and Investigating

To gather information on the target, these threat assessment teams use a variety of sources. They use the persons friends, family, social networking circles, co-workers, neighbours, and other resources.

Triage questions can include:

• Has there been indications of suicidal thoughts,
plans, or attempts?
• Has there been indications of thoughts/plans of
• Does the person have access to a weapon or are
they trying to gain access?
• Are there concerns about the well-being of the

• Are there concerns about the safety of the
• If yes, a full inquiry is recommended.

Gather Information (Full Inquiry)
• Think broadly and creatively about those who
might have information:

• 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.

Many Targeted Individuals express concerns often that their families, friends, people online, others are playing a role in their monitoring, or are taking part. That they are somehow in on it, well according to what this threat evaluation guideline dictates, they are often in on it, and asked to be a part of the monitoring and evaluation process.

Need for Collaboration
“Most important, dangerous people rarely show all of
their symptoms to just one department or group on
campus. A professor may see a problem in an essay,
the campus police may endure belligerent
statements, a resident assistant may notice the
student is a loner, the counseling center may notice
that the student fails to appear for a follow-up visit.
Acting independently, no department is likely to solve
the problem. In short, colleges must recognize that
managing an educational environment is a team
effort, calling for collaboration and multilateral

They use a variety of sources in the targets environment, but because reports do come in remotely, there is cause for error, or even false reporting of events. These reports are used to keep targets on monitoring for years to come.

Many people believe that the social networking sites that they use are harmless, but when it comes to being evaluated as to wither you are a threat to your social circle, you will see that these sites have now begun to play a critical and integral role in assisting these teams to make their initial assessments.

Initial Screening
Helpful Internet sites include:
(searches blogs)
(search the relevant city/town)

If unaware of the guidelines being used to assess them, targets could well be entrapped or tricked into making suggestive statements. Also once those around the target perceive that the target is under investigation, normal everyday behaviours that would have been brushed aside, become significant, and everything the target does is cause for alarm.

2. Have there been any communications
suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
• What, if anything, has the person
communicated to someone else (targets,
friends, co-workers, others) or written in a
diary, journal, email, or Web site concerning
his or her grievances, ideas and/or intentions?
• Has anyone been alerted or “warned away”?
Source: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, (2002)
Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates.
Key Investigative Questions

The threat assessment team will also circumvent laws such as FERPA and HIPAA to get around laws that would usually prevent an invasion of the targets rights and privacy.

Information Sharing: FERPA

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

Assessing Information and Situation

Once all the reports are in from the eyes and ears around the target, then the assessing of information begins.

Think creatively about resources, as well as
“eyes and ears.”
• Anticipate likely change in the short and midterm,
and how the subject may react.
• Monitor using available resources. Who sees
the person regularly, inside work/campus,
outside, on weekends, online, etc.?

The threat assessment team use the information gathered together to determine if the target should be referred any third parties, this could include law enforcement, Employee Assistant Program, Mental Health Workers or others.

They evaluate if the person might be a danger to themselves or others, if the person is able to take care of themselves. Eg. Do they pay rent on time, do they buy groceries, are the suicidal, a threat to others, etc. If these criteria are not met, they might try to convince a judge or other health care worker that a mental health hold is required, or some other form of intervention.

Information is recorded and reported 24/7 and often stored in some form of centralized database. The records are crossed referenced with police and other contacts.

Now this procedure was in place well before the fusion centers ever came into existence, however it is not out of the question to assume that fusion centers might well be used in future or linked into this process, even if they were not initially used.

Once a Targeted is listed for monitoring, even if they move away from the university, place of employment, or community, if they are still perceived to be a threat to others the remote monitoring, or case management will continue.

While the case is open the team should:

• Continue to monitor and modify the plan as long as the individual still poses a threat

• Recognize that a person can continue to pose a threat even after he/she ceases to be a Closing a Case
member of the campus community

• Continue to monitor the situation through its relationship with local law enforcement agencies and mental health agencies, as well as in direct cooperation with the person, if possible

The Target will be monitored as long as they are perceived as a threat. There is no current limit to how many years the state can continue this monitoring, imposition and disruption of the targets life.

If someone who has been reviewed by the Threat Assessment Team leaves the area, do you continue to monitor him/her?

If the situation warrants reviewing the case after the subject leaves the area, the team will continue to do so. It is important to remember that when the subject has relationships in his/her life, there is a lesser chance for violence to occur. A failure to communicate or interact with a subject encourages problems to fester, which could lead to violence.

Also under many of these occupational health and safety guidelines, the Targets information can and will be shared with those that they are likely to come in contact with.

“In the service sector this may require identifying to employees persons who have a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior in the store, bar, mall or taxi.

The identity of the person and the nature of the risk must be given to staff likely to come into contact with that person. While workers have the right to know the risks, it is important to remember that this information cannot be indiscriminately distributed.

Remember as the case is being monitored, any incidents, perceived threats, strange behaviour, anything at all can be reported to this team for assessment and evaluation. If the team feels that a change in behaviour constitutes a threat the team might upgrade the targets to something along the lines of medium risk, danger to self or others, should only be seen in pairs.

Manage The Situation

The threat assessment team might also add specific quirks of the target to their files, things that the general public might be made aware of, such as if the target starts to pace it could be a sign of imminent attack.

Assessment: Case Priority Levels

PRIORITY 1 (Extreme Risk): Poses clear/immediate threat of violence or self-harm and requires immediate containment, law enforcement involvement, target protection, and case management plan.

PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.

PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.

PRIORITY 4 (Low Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm at this time, but may exhibit some disruptive behavior and/or need for assistance. Requires passive monitoring. Utilize case management and referrals as appropriate.

PRIORITY 5 (No Identified Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm nor is there evidence of disruption to community. No case management or monitoring required.

It can be clearly shown that monitoring is indeed a part of the guidelines that these threat assessment teams do follow.

Once the plan is developed, it needs to be
implemented and monitored.
• Team should include implementation and
monitoring responsibilities as part of the case
management plan.
• Further referrals may be necessary.
• Team should continue to follow up as

What targets may wish to do in future is redirect F.O.I.A. (Freedom Of Information Act) requests to these agencies.
Targets may also wish to have their lawyers make a cease and desist request to these threat assessment teams in regards to the overly invasive monitoring that is allowed. In future Targeted Individuals might even be able to come together and aim class action lawsuits or individual, and human rights lawsuits at these teams. Slander suits and others might also be suitable.

What would also be nice is to gain some statistics on who is being monitored via these threat assessment teams. Which case files were closed, vs which are still open. How many years does the average case stay open for? Ages, genders, race, how many were whistle-blowers, or belonged to a dissident, extremist, conspiracy or protest group. How many cases ended in suicide? Incarceration? Institutionalization? Homelessness?

These might be things that future Targeted Individuals look into as they seek assistance in stopping the monitoring, surveillance, and life disruptions, and curtailling the abuses that are being experienced under these programs.

With these threat assessment teams it’s extremely important to realize that if the threat assessment team is composed of one group, and they are assigned to make a threat assessment of another group or individual, you might not have fair and balanced assessments, because these teams than do not take into considerations cultural norms, gender, racial, sexual, or other biases that might be present, or underlying within the assessment team. The assessment team is essentially playing judge, jury, and executioner with their assessments of these individuals, thus if courts are required in many cases to use a fair and balanced jury of peers, should Threat Assessment Teams be morally or legally required to do the same in future?

October 15, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments


I notice a new post that I felt needed to be addressed.

Now I contacted Jeremy recently, he had reviewed some of the books relating to Gang Stalking and I shared my feedback with him. I don’t believe the comment was posted to his site, so let me repost it here. He had listed Gang Stalking World and felt that it was a red flag that only some links were posted, while others were not. Just like a certain other person has tried to paint that site as a poison pill. Either way, they come and…

gangstalking said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:21 am

The only red flag is that I don’t promote informant sites. If that’s a red flag too bad. I have watched informants come and go, a new kid be crowned, and then dethroned. I have watched informants pitch the Lawson book, and the idiotic nonsense in the book about vigilante gangs. I have watched as some listed my site as a poison pill, while supporting the Lawson book without any proof.

I am familiar all too well with how this system works. The shrills all work together, pitch who they want to pitch and slowly discredit who they want to discredit. All under the guise of doing the community a favor. I have watched them come and go, and fought my battles for the community, and will continue to fight them.

If you missed it by the way, it’s sites like Gang Stalking World that even have these forums taking the topic seriously. I have personally fought most of the battles over the years, to ensure that the topic could be discussed in a rational manner, to ensure that the topic got “normalized”, while watching every newly crowned shrill take pot shots at my site.

I continue as I am, most times they come, they are the flavor of the month, they sell themselves, and then God willing they go again.

If that’s a red flag, then I suggest targets start waving it proudly. I have proven myself, and I have proven the test of time, while withering the slander, that’s been more than unjust. Anyways, let the Karma balance where it may.

I believe the proof is in the pudding, some of the only decent articles like psychological harassment in a group setting happened because of Gang Stalking World, it actually got a none target to sit up, pay attention and write a decent article.

I can only imagine that other similar material will also do the same.

Now Jeremy dear has a new article that again seems to pinpoint the Gang Stalking World website. I have seen worst, and I could ignore it, I could write some professional response, or I can take it there. So which response should I go with?

Well let’s see what Jeremy Stalked has said. Oh before I do that, I just want to say that I think it’s great that Jeremy as a target manages to be able to afford google ads seven days a week, most targets I know can not do this, but it’s great that he can.

Now I don’t know a lot about Jeremy, I think he is loosely affiliated with the FFCH group, or does his own thing, and does something conference call like a lot of them do today.

Either way, I am going to examine his latest post.

The top search results for gang stalking or organized stalking are sites that lead targets to believe one variation or another of these manpower-intensive theories must be true. For example, Gang Stalking World takes it for granted that a Stasi-like organizational structure is behind what targets are experiencing, allowing targets to believe that any signs of hostility exhibited by a person are proof that person has been “recruited” or “threatened”.16 A targeted individual who acted on this belief, and accused mind-controlled patsies of being “in on it”, would end up ruining his reputation by his own hand; meanwhile, the web sites he got his belief from would simply egg him and others like him on, saying the incredulous reactions of accused parties just shows how extensive the cover-up is.

Jeremy Stalked probably doesn’t realise this, but unlike a lot of other sites, Gang Stalking World gives you proof. Gang Stalking World tells you point blank, do your own research. Use the information there, but do your own research, trust your own judgment, think for yourself. All the other sites tell you what to think, or in subtle ways they tell you who you should follow, and who not to follow. If you can say the government is doing this, or not doing this. Gang Stalking World points to the government programs, under occupational health and safety, but then you are presented with proof.

Eg. The Jane Clift case, that was not a rabbit pulled from a hat, and further investigation, unlike others, pointed out that these lists exist in every single city. The lists are given out to those around the target. Letters are sent out. So to say that those around the target are in on it, is not wrong or inaccurate.

It’s not manpower intensive when you realise that many people who own stores, work in the community, in the colleges, etc, are aware of this program. Many do not realise how widespread it is, but it is everywhere. Do your own research.

Oct 6th, 2010, 10:18pm

Warning System, Fast Action Saved Lives At UT
Posted 9/29/2010 6:30 am by Ron Hogan

When a gunman dressed in black was spotted on the campus of the University of Texas, there was no hesitation on the part of school officials. In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech, and UT’s own history with crazed gunmen going onto the campus for shooting sprees (Charles Whitman), Texas does not mess around with this kind of stuff, and the quick actions of campus officials and the coordinated responses of campus security, school staff, and the Austin, Texas, police department saved many lives yesterday.

The gunman, 19-year-old Colton Tooley of Austin, was a UT student majoring in math and actuarial studies. At just after 8 in the morning, students spotted the armed man wearing black, firing bursts of gunfire into the air and at the clock tower where Charles Whitman went on his famous killing spree. They panicked and called the police. Police informed campus officials, and in 15 minutes the entire campus was alerted via text messages, warning sirens, and Twitter updates. That kept students out of the way, kept people alive, and made the job of the police easier as they tracked Tooley to the sixth floor of the Perry-Castañeda Library. At 8:50, Tooley committed suicide.

This prompt response it heartening, in that it shows officials can handle these sorts of situations when they come up with the proper training, but isn’t it kind of disheartening that we need these sorts of disaster preparedness plans for people going crazy on our college campuses? It’s a sign of the times, I guess.

Warning System, Fast Action Saved Lives At UT
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.

here have been several attempts to use text messaging as an alert system, with universities, including Boston University, making it mandatory for students to sign up to such a system. This is despite the notable failure at Louisiana State University when a misunderstanding prevented alerts being sent out to students.

Students, faculty, and employees sign up and opt in for text alerts by providing their cellphone numbers. When an emergency situation occurs, administrators at the college can use a web-based service to send text messages to every phone on the list, reaching people who are sitting in class, walking around on campus, or in mid-commute.

Already, the services have been used in emergency situations. Mobile Campus Inc., based in Austin, Texas, is available on 11 campuses and has used its service to notify students and faculty of everything from a campus closure because of a severe ice storm this year at the University of Texas, Austin, to an emergency closing due to tropical storm Ernesto at University of Central Florida in 2006.

Omnilert LLC , a Leesburg, Va., company that delivers emergency text message alerts for colleges and businesses, already offers a text-messaging alert product, called e2Campus, to 30 universities. Florida A&M University used the service to alert students when a pit bull was loose on campus. g.php

(9) Communication is the heart of a good emergency plan. When a traumatic event occurs in the workplace, employees expect to be informed immediately about the nature of the event and the measures to take to protect themselves. To respond to this vital need for information, lines of communication must be established ahead of time between you and:

* Your employees
* Your senior manager
* The workplace health and security team on your floor
* Your Departmental Security Officer
* Others as appropriate.

Do you and your employees know the names and telephone numbers of those listed above? If this information is not readily available, precious time may be lost. Finding vital information in the middle of a crisis can be complicated by anxiety and fear.

(10) Set up a warning system (code) so co-workers can alert one another if urgent help is required. Possible scenarios include a physical assault, or the presence of a disgruntled employee or an angry client in the workspace. The building’s security response team is responsible for deciding the types of code to be used. The warning system should be standardized and all employees should be informed. Colour codes can be used, for example, to describe various dangers. This will help reassure employees that help can be accessed quickly in case of danger.

(11) Warning messages. In addition to increasing fear and anxiety, waiting for a warning message can lead to confusion and disorganization. Insist that the building’s security response team know how to write brief, clear and accurate warning messages. Standard warning messages need to be written ahead of time and kept on file so people can access them readily when danger threatens. They also need to be updated periodically.

The goal of a warning message is to empower people by providing accurate and appropriate information on what has happened, where it has happened and what protective measures people need to take immediately. If exits are blocked or filled with smoke, or there is a chemical substance in the ventilation system, employees need to know immediately what measures to take (i.e., whether to exit or stay in the building, when to leave, how to protect themselves).

It’s been shown time and time again that this interconnected network exists. It’s been shown how the listings are used. The fact that the warnings on a targets files are transfered when they move from one location to the next location. That the warnings with personal information can go out into the community. That’s pretty Stasi like. It’s not labour intensive, because the system is already in place, and most people are required to be aware of it, or take part in advance.

“In the service sector this may require identifying to employees persons who have a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior in the store, bar, mall or taxi.

The identity of the person and the nature of the risk must be given to staff likely to come into contact with that person. While workers have the right to know the risks, it is important to remember that this information cannot be indiscriminately distributed.

These listings work in conjunction with community threat assessment teams, which can be and are often comprised of officers, health professional, psychiatrist, etc. If they get a report that a target has done something is acting irregular, or an event happens, they might well send out a new notification. Eg. Target is medium risk, only to be seen in pairs. So you are at work and suddenly the boss who’s office you use to be able to go into by yourself, you now are required to have another person present, and this did not happen before. This is an example of how the warnings could work. It does not mean everytime someone else is in the boss’s office with you, you are on a list, but that is how the listings can and do work. It’s like when they had those crazy terror alerts for terrorists, today it’s code orange, tomorrow it’s yellow, the terror alerts kept people in these states of stupidity, but trusted the terror alerts, and people trust the listings and the warnings. Don’t forget this system does work sometimes, it’s not all bad, but if you are an innocent person, wrongly accused, wrongly listed, with a bunch of people in the background making assessments based on third party evidence, people who have never met you face to face, there are going to be problems. Period.

For example, Gang Stalking World takes it for granted that a Stasi-like organizational structure is behind what targets are experiencing, allowing targets to believe that any signs of hostility exhibited by a person are proof that person has been “recruited” or “threatened”

The occupational health and safety lists are real, they operate in every country, and community, and the individuals on those lists are treated the same as if you had a pedophile lose in the community. Period. Anyone who has ever been a part of a community or neighborhood watch program knows how this works. Someone is dangerous and lose in the community, you get a phone call, be on the look out for such and such. These programs use email and phone message, now many also will be using text messages.

People might be hostile on their own, who knows, but what has been said is that trust your own judgment. It’s not paranoia when they are out to get you. I would rather take things seriously and err on the side of caution, than not take things seriously enough, and end up like Randy Weaver who the state destroyed. People assume that these agencies don’t lay deep traps to destroy people, but I can tell you example after example from years of research that they do. They plot and they lay deep cover to trap people.



the unethical recruitment of drug informants
Submitted by bobbie (not verified) on September 19, 2008 – 4:34am.

[quote]My son was targeted by local law enforcement simply because they valued him as a potential drug informant.

They were interested in him because he did construction work for someone who had a permit to grow marijuana plants.

He had no drug violations. The detectives targeted his specific vulnerabilities, and played on his sympathy with an older informant who said he was going through a bad divorce, and needed marijuana for his anxiety.

The 4 detectives witnessed and videotaped the sale, but did not arrest him. They waited until he reported for a scheduled jail time for a DUI, and rearrested him without publicity, and without family support.

They told him he was “screwed”, and would he work for them? When he didn’t want to consent without talking with his girlfriend, they went after her at work and threatened to prosecute her. He pleaded guilty and got 2 years prison, leaving his 8 yr old son without a dad. Please take a stand against this unethical activity.[/quote]

These systemic setup’s have been going on for many years unchecked. The above example should be helpful in comprehending how these set up’s are being conducted. If you think there is no such thing as a conspiracy in society you would be wrong.

The local law enforcement wanted this woman’s son as an informant. I am not sure if they asked him first, but most likely they just created a scenario where a set up could happen.

They were not really interested in her son, the true target was his employer, look at the steps they went through to get to this person.

1. They profiled her son, to figure out what his vulnerability would be.

2. They hired an Informant who had access to her son. It’s hard to say if they set up the Informant first or not.

3. They used the Informant to entrap her son, assuming that he would become a snitch.

4. Had they been successful, it would have been a matter of time before this woman’s son would have been asked to either set up his employer, or do something to make him look guilty and set him up in that manner.

That’s the way it’s working, and has been for some time now. This happens in society a lot. It’s systemic. If you don’t think this way, operate this way, you might not know it when you see it, or experience it.

People don’t have to be recruited or threatened, in too many cases, they are already a part of this network, and believe anything that they are told. Remember people are willing to do terrible things if they feel that an authority figure is telling them to do it. Many times they will do it without any after thought.

Watch the video, this is what your average unthinking person is willing to do to a complete stranger. Now imagine if they know that you are on a list and think that you are crazy, a druggie, a pervert, or whatever. What do you think the good people of the community are going to be willing to do then. There are so many stories of communities organizing to rid themselves of perverts, well unfortunately, anything on these listings get’s the same treatment, but most targets do see themselves that way, and believe that they are innocent.

Since Jeremy can take pot shots at the Gang Stalking World website and the information presented there, perhaps he could present a better theory, or since he seems so keen at doing research, I am sure with the information presented, he could just CSI this theory in no time. There is enough information there, he loves exposing information that’s already been exposed by others, so this should be fairly straight forward.

Otherwise the information remains the same. Do your own research, learn the one handed sign language, or the bits that have been pieced together, test it out, research the threat assessment teams, occupational health and safety, research the other theories out there. What makes sense, what is plausible, what is logical, what instinctively feels right? Then stop letting others think and speak for you. They work as a network, a group, and they seem to be independent, but all too often are not, and while they can be happily sitting back, while real targets are often having to defend themselves from their little barbs here and there, while they sit back ranting about harmony in the Targeted Individual community.

The reality is Gang Stalking World gives something else that the others do not, it gives you the truth. How many of them are discussing the occupational health and safety laws, and these lists? How many are doing extensive investigations into it, even to just disprove the theory?
I will leave it at that for now.

I will leave you with the lovely Beyonce, I think the video is fun.

I have worked hard for this. I took the bumps, bruises, burns, attempts at my person, slander, betrayal. I have researched this, and I have a huge personal stake in this, especially right now, when they are working every angle around me. I can not afford to sit back like I sometimes do. It’s too important now more than ever, this has to get exposed, and the sooner, the better.

October 14, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Sherlock Investigations

Sherlock Investigations.

I just had a visit from Skipp Porteous from Sherlock Investigations. He dropped by to assure me that his company is real, and not fake. He says that he still thinks that Gang Stalking is fake. Now I really respect that he took the time to drop by, so I wrote a response, and I hope he will do me the favor of reading the quick links, and looking over the Jane  Clift case.

I suspect like many other good people Mr Porteous has been mislead into thinking that Gang Stalking is vigilante Gangs or Groups of some sort. I hope the information provided will disavow him of those beliefs, and I hope the correct information will provide him with new and informative insight into this phenomenon.

Here is his post, and here is my response.

Skipp Porteous

Sherlock Investigations Inc. is real, but gang stalking is not.


Hi Skipp, thank you for taking the time to stop by, I really appreciate it. Are you telling me that people are not being placed on occupational health and safety lists? That they are not being followed around after being listed? Are you telling me that the psychiatric reprisal is not being used? Because i have a whole whack of evidence that says that it is. Now Skipp, I am not going to ask you to do anything as difficult as read a book on this topic. I am going to ask you to politely humor me, and have a quick look at the Jane Clift case, and the Gang Stalking quick guide. If you can read these over, and tell me this stuff is not happening, I will be very surprised.

Again thank you for dropping by, here are the links.

Now Skipp the evidence in the Jane Clift case is not information from my site, this is an independent investigation into what happened to this woman. After being placed on a list for sending a nasty letter to a customer service rep, her information was populated everywhere she went, and she was followed around. She was listed as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs.

I don’t know what your impression of Gang Stalking is, but the information that comes from the main Gang Stalking site is pointing to these occupational health and safety lists, which are very real. Threat assessment teams are putting people on lists, who they suspect have a mental illness. Notice the word is suspect? Meaning that they might not, yet these people are being treated as if they do, and their names are being flagged the exact same way that Jane Clifts was. As they go from community to community, an automated notification is sent via phone, or email, and the members of those communities do follow them around. Under these laws, the workplaces are sharing these listings with other workers, the community, and family members. For those closer to the target, a letter is sent out, just like it was with Jane Clift. Remember Skipp, this innocent woman was listed as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs, and added to a registry with violent sexual offenders.

So Skipp if you were lead to believe that Gang Stalking was something else, or that it does not exist you are dead wrong. As a private investigator, I honestly hope that you will give your clients the service they deserve and take a through look into the information that is being provided to you. It’s been well researched, well documented, and it is fact. If you have any points you are unsure of, please feel free to drop by again.

I do once again appreciate you taking the time, and I would love to hear back from you, after your review the information provided.

More Jane Clift case file references.


I think this case does have some relevance to housing law. It touches on a situation that (in my experience anyway) comes up in practice where a client has information about them, possibly highly prejudicial to them, shared between organisations. The case requires an authority to consider the proportionality of that distribution lest it be vulnerable to a claim for defamation. No HRA claim was brought, so this decision is, strictly speaking, confined to a claim for defamation, but in my view the reasoning on the duty of public bodies has wider application.

In practical terms it means that public bodies should be rather more careful about keeping records of alleged criminality or anti-social behaviour and about any distribution of those records. That, in my view, can only be a good thing. Calling a document a “Violent Persons Register” if you know full well that some of those persons have never used violence.

Clift Case additional reading
Clift Case additional readings 2


She sensed that, everywhere she went, there was “whispering, collaboration, people scurrying about”. “Everywhere I went – hospitals, GPs, libraries – anywhere at all, even if I phoned the fire service, as soon as my name went on to that system, it flagged up ‘violent person marker, only to be seen in twos, medium risk’.”



“These people have this ability to do this and they can abuse it. Not many people know, I didn’t even know, that such a register existed.



Jane CliftJane Clift: Libel victory after a four-year legal battle

Jane Clift saw it as her public duty to report a drunk she saw trampling flowers in a park.

But her efforts led to a surreal nightmare in which she was branded potentially violent and put on a council blacklist with thugs and sex attackers.

Her details were circulated to an extraordinary range of public and private bodies, including doctors, dentists, opticians, libraries, contraceptive clinics, schools and nurseries. Their staff were advised not to see her alone.

The 43-year-old former care worker was forced to withdraw an application to become a foster parent and, eventually, to leave the town where she had lived for ten years.


September 25, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Yvonne Hiller and Gang Stalking

The case of Yvonne Hiller demonstrates that many fail to understand the causes and affects of  these workplace shootings.

Yvonne Hiller in my opinion was most likely a Gang Stalking target. What this means is that at some point in her work history she had likely been placed on a notification list. A list that would alert those around her that she had displayed violent or threatening behavior in the past.

Ms. Hiller did have a history of verbal and possible physical altercations in the last few years it’s been reported. Many people will see this and go, well then the list works. Surly if she killed people then she was violent and it was right to put her on the list, but this is the wrong conclusion. The pattern that has been seen, and that is happening is the same pattern the mobbing community identified. Years and years of  psychologically abusive targeting, will cause violent outcomes. Putting people on these notification lists, exposes them to years, and months of harassment. They are exposed to harassment such as being sprayed with chemicals, consistent rumours and slander, such as Ms. Hiller complained about. Harassment that is often very real, but so subtle that it’s almost impossible to prove.

Ms. Hiller had made complaints about workplace harassment, being sprayed by chemicals and other items by co-workers. At home she had the same complaints that chemicals were being sprayed in her home. Her calls to fire departments, and police went ignored. The harassment is meant to be subtle, hard to prove, but this is the same type of targeting that is happening to many others that are listed under these workplace occupational health and safety notification lists. Remember you can end up on these lists via work, school, or the community. Once added your life becomes hell, a systemic cycle of abuse that is hard to prove, and even harder for others to imagine. Cries for help are seen as a sign of mental illness, and every complaint there after is viewed as a need for psychological help. The reality is that once placed on these lists, people are being harassed.

There is a system, a deliberate organized system that is connected, coordinated, and capable of destroying a persons life, with harassment’s that are so subtle, the target can often not prove that any of it was ever happening, and that is the reality. Once added to these community notifications, and workplace listings, you almost create a self fulfilling prophecy.

TAG originated with the recognition that organizations and individuals need help coping with the irrational, abnormal, and dangerous behavior of others. Whether the problem is a threatening employee, domestic violence, stalking, a defamation campaign designed to discredit a product or person, an impaired executive or officer, an irrational neighbor or tenant, a sexual predator circling a loved one, fiduciary abuse of an elder, or a kidnapping, TAG meets the need for rapid, expert, confidential guidance.

Organizations such as this probably view cases such as Ms. Hiller and feel that their practices are justified, that their threat assessments do work. The reality is the very nature of these programs are often times driving the end results all over various countries. That is why Gang Stalking targets have popped up all across the internet, and in a variety of countries.

To date awareness has been part of the key to trying to combat what is happening. It took years for it to be recognized that bullying lead to school shootings, more years to realized that workplace mobbing leads to shootings, and how much longer will it take to realize and draw the correct correlation that putting people on these lists are leading to some of these violent community situations and circumstances? You can not put people on lists, and notify those around them, without expecting the harassment and mobbing that it inevitably creates. Individuals have a right to know that they are on such listings. Legally it would give them the ability to fight back, and be properly assessed, but that would likely undermine the agenda that is currently at play.

The listings are often deliberate, they target females and minorities above average. They also target whistle-blowers and those who stand out in some fashion, to a higher degree. Conspiracy sites and extremist sites, are starting to have members pop up with these complaints above average as well. The more outspoken you are, the less you are the type to go along with the status quo, the sad reality is that you have a greater chance in future of being added to one of these lists, by some member of some distant threat assessment team you have never meet. Using these occupational health and safety laws, your reputation and everything you worked for is open to defamation of your character, and the scary part is just like in the former Soviet Union it’s all behind your back, you don’t get to see the evidence against you, whither it’s true or false.

In future as creepy as it sounds, they could even use what people are thinking against them, and it could have no basis in their actual actions. These remote assessments are junk science at best, and dangerous at worst. The reality is they often target people who are being victimized at work and  in the community, etc. These assessments then put all the blame on the victim, saying that the events can’t be proven, it’s all just in their heads, when the reality is the harassment is often happening, and often very real.

The only way this will change is when these lists affect more and more members of society, and they start to encompass a wider scope of individuals, but until them, we are likely to face an increasing number of tragedies such as the one witnessed recently.

The only way this will change is if people speak out, stop keeping the secrets of this system, it’s destroying lives, and it’s causing these end results, that the society then pretends to be so shocked and horrified by.

September 13, 2010 Posted by | Awareness, Black female, black women, Bullying, Community harassment, community mobbing, Conspiracy, Controlled society, discrimination, Female, Gang Stalking, harassment, Minorities, Minority women, mobbing, psychological harassment | , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Gang Stalking Vs Occupational Health and Safety

Regarding occupational health and privacy. A great Q & A

Question: Hi, my name is Peter Williams. I’m with the Workplace Consulting Services with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and I just have a question for Mr. Roher regarding a couple of things. One, the sharing of information between organizations, you mentioned about the example of the student that had sexually assaulted someone and then went to another school and there wasn’t sharing and I’m just wondering in terms of the whole privacy act, how that – how much one employer can share that with another and also in terms of police checks, whether an employer has the right to mandate a police check to prevent possible violence?

Eric Roher: Excellent questions. Let me address the first question – ……

The sharing of information of course is a very complex and sensitive issue. Let me break it down into two aspects. First confidential documents or records and clearly documents are protected and in the province of Ontario, if you are working for a government agency or a government department, the Freedom of Information Act, the Freedom HCHSA Teleconference: How to Develop and Implement a Workplace Violence Prevention Program of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will have an impact or if you are working in a school board or power commission in a municipal, the municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will have an impact and that is of course that you cannot disclose personal information that is recorded information without the consent of that individual.

You have to be very very careful about any kind of recorded information. You won’t be able to disclose it or produce it. However that being said, if someone calls you, if someone – if someone calls you about the status of a particular employee and you know that there are violent tendencies, I mean you cannot – I encourage you to be frank, I encourage you to tell the truth. At the very least, what you can say is “the employee started on X date, these were his duties and responsibilities. He departed the workplace on Y date” but if the employer asks you, “Well, did the employee perform well?” you have to be honest and – or you don’t answer the question and then what we call an adverse inference is drawn.

With respect to the organization itself where you are supplying let’s say information within the organization, my view is that you supply the information on a need-to-know basis. So where a student is transferring from one school to another and the school has – the student you know has violent tendencies, the school – the student has been suspended two or three times for pulling out a knife or a weapon, what you would do in my view is you could inform the receiving principal of that student, of that student’s problems or history and that principal will be forewarned and will be able to inform staff on a need-to-know basis, but you would do it with a great deal of sensitivity and recognizing that, you know, the student has a right to confidentiality.

Sorry, about that long answer.

This was an excellent answer and really gave some insight into what the individual is required to do, once their is a warning of any kind on a persons file. Most targets do not have anything such as violent incidents such as the above, but most are treated in similar fashion. Most don’t think that they have any kind of a marker. Eg. I had lead what I thought was a squeaky clean life. I could think of nothing anyone could use against me, but for fun I did look into my own records that I could easily access, you have my postings about that adventure, and that’s it. It never occurred to me, that an employer could have the capacity to inflict harm on someone for trying to defend themselves, but it happens all the time, in mobbing, bullying, cases, where they do exactly just these types of retributions.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Lenore Ison of St. Christopher House. Please go ahead.

Question: Thanks. I wanted to come back to the issue of sharing confidential information in regard to somebody who has a history of violence. It is not that unusual for us to be working with folks who have that in their history. I’m talking about clients right now and we have internal policies about how we deal with confidential information and when I think about the idea of somehow sharing information with everybody in the building about somebody who has the potential for violence, it seems unmanageable and so I’m just wondering about some suggestions for how to manage that issue?

Eric Roher: Well, what we do, what I recommend is if you have a patient of client with certain violent tendencies or a violent history, what we recommend is informing people on a sensitive – on a confidential need-to-know basis, so for example you wouldn’t have to inform everyone in the building but if the person sees a certain counselor, that counselor should have a picture of that individual’s history. The court said very clearly that there is a duty to warn, a duty to inform and that counselor should be monitoring that person’s conduct.

Question: Okay.

Eric Roher: And it is the same situation in a school context, a context – we don’t necessarily say that it is a student with the violent history, you put the student’s picture up in the staff room and say, you know, this person is dangerous, but you inform that person, a home room teacher and perhaps other relevant – one or two relevant teachers about that student’s history and you perhaps share the history with them so they are aware of the background and you try as best you can to monitor them and that may include having them meet with a guidance counselor or social worker on a regular basis or even a vice-principal who is in charge of discipline, so you are on top of their situation and you are monitoring.
The courts want to show that you have taken due diligence, that you have taken reasonable care to protect the safety of your workplace. So you have to be proactive. You just can’t let a dangerous person sort of wander around and not do anything. You have got to be seen to at least taking some preventive steps and providing basic information to the people that need to know.

Again sharing information with those that have a right to know, but in cases such as Gang Stalking, information is shared with everyone the target comes in contact with, poisoning any association. The guidelines are not being followed. Now again laws differ from country to country. I am pretty familiar with the U.K. laws, but I am now researching some of the Canadian, and then hopefully American laws on this issue.

Question: So none of you are suggesting that this sort of information become public information, that it is shared among staff, especially the staff that are working with the individual?

Eric Roher: Each case is going to be different and there may be some cases in which you may, in a very sensitive way, may be want to inform staff and it is – I’m taking a school context where you have …

Question: It is a community, a community-based agency.

Eric Roher: But in other cases where perhaps an isolated incident, if it happened once, you have a concern about an incident, you may just want to speak to the individual’s counselor or the individual’s social worker, the person who has the most closest contact. Every case is going to be different. What we can do here is simply set out a framework for you, the rules or things that you have to take reasonable care and show due diligence in ensuring that people have a reasonable amount of information. Do you remember, there is one case that comes to mind. It is not directly on point but the legal principle applies, it is that Jane Doe case that the police were involved in a number of years ago and we were actually acting for the police in that case and of course the word had gotten out that women were being sexually assaulted in a certain Toronto community and the police were not telling anyone and in fact allowing this fellow to wander around on people’s balcony and they were waiting until an incident took
place and a woman named Jane Doe came forward and sued the police and in her decision, Madam Justice McFarlane said, “No, you have got a duty to warn, you have the duty to inform people and let them know about the dangers of someone so preventive steps can be taken.”

Question: Right.

Eric Roher: So I mean, like you have got to do in a sensitive way and you can’t create hysteria in the workplace, you can’t create a mob mentality where people say, “Well, let’s go and beat that person up because they beat us up”. The other thing to be concerned about is a possible action in defamation and you are probably concerned about anything that will tarnish a person’s reputation. You can indicate things that are truthful, so if a person has been charged with an assault, you can say that, the person has been found guilty, you know, of assault or of criminal harassment. You can say things that are factual but I would, you know, avoid rumor, innuendo, mind reading because that can be dangerous. You don’t want to be in a situation where you are spreading rumors that are unfounded about this individual in the community.

Question: Thank you very much.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Mary Lake of Fairmount Homes. Please go ahead.

Question: It is okay, my question was about the confidentiality issue as well. So I think we discussed that pretty good. Thank you.

The pdf interview is from about 10 years ago, and I had to dig to find this little gem, but it really is very good. Explained like this, the other side of the debate becomes much more clear. I thought Mr. Roher gave some excellent answers regarding the privacy issues.

If these guidelines were used, most targets would not be online. Most targets would not even know that they were targeted, but things clearly are not this cut and dry.

First the definition of harassment is so broad, and it’s become even more expansive. Looks, jokes, verbal threats, non verbal threats, pushing, bumping, etc. The problem is with zero tolerance programs, you get zero tolerance results, such as the Australian gentleman who killed himself, after someone over heard a joke, reported it, and he faced not only a disciplinary hearing, but being fired, for telling a joke to a friend of his.

Now if I had ever done anything extremely overt such as violent assaults then I could understand some of these listings and listing you as having a history, but that is not the case. People are ending up on these lists for a lot less than what Jane Clift wrote in her letter, that got her listed.

We live in a world of namby pamby cry babies that like to dish it out, but do not like the repercussions of their actions, such as bullies who mob others. The problem with the mobbing or group think mentality is that it make is easy for a group or mob to gang up on one person, then paint that person as the problem when they complain. It’s unfair, but it’s also a good way of getting listed. The same with blowing the whistle, because that makes employers concerned, and that seems to be another way people are ending up getting listed.

If the privacy guidelines were being followed and not abused, then most of these problems would not be happening, but laws are being broken, communities are going frantic in fear of their lives and those listed. It’s not clear what their understanding is of these listings, it’s also not clear what other individuals are on such lists. Remember in the U.K. Jane Clift for writing a letter telling that was deemed threatening ended up on a list with extremely violent criminals. She was listed as medium risk, which is pretty high, only to be seen in pairs. Under such circumstances when a community does become fearful it’s hard to blame them. Most probably think that intelligent individuals are putting people on these lists and that people would not be listed unless they had done something extremely wrong. Most will never grasp that these listings are being perverted and used in the most improper ways possible.

For the community listings there seem to be a variety of people on the lists, that is in part why people get so frantic, you can’t blame them, because that it what has been instilled in them, and no amount of logic, reason, debate is likely to change this. What has to happen then is that individuals should have the right to be notified if they are listed, and that way at least they know why, and understand the boundaries of what is being done to them. Without it they are open to exploitation by the system, which is corrupt and using this to go after innocent individuals.

The privacy laws which are also suppose to help in preventing abuses are also being perverted. If the guidelines of the privacy laws were being followed, individual personal information should not be getting distributed to such a wide range of individuals, but a lot of this seems to be getting placed at the discretion of other individuals and most would rather give up information, personal information that they should not, rather than face a lawsuit saying they did not do everything in their power. For the system to balance, there are going to have to be some lawsuits like Jane Clift’s that shows that too much leeway was taken, and not enough discretion was shown in protecting the individuals privacy. It’s a balance. You do need to help protect society to a degree, but the individual still has rights.

In future hard stares, cold looks, could get you on these listings, and you would not even be aware of it. Not happy with something unethical in the company like Russ Tice, make a complaint and then be forced to get a mental health check. Again get listed for having a mental health issue for no good reason, other than you were going to blow the whistle on some bad things happening within the company.

It’s a slippery slope, but the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and only legal action, is likely to bring it back to the center. Individuals are so willing to give up their own freedoms, for the false sense of security the system gives them, they would hardly hesitate giving up the freedom of others, for even less.


Eric Roher: So I mean, like you have got to do in a sensitive way and you can’t create hysteria in the workplace, you can’t create a mob mentality where people say, “Well, let’s go and beat that person up because they beat us up”. The other thing to be concerned about is a possible action in defamation and you are probably concerned about anything that will tarnish a person’s reputation. You can indicate things that are truthful, so if a person has been charged with an assault, you can say that, the person has been found guilty, you know, of assault or of criminal harassment. You can say things that are factual but I would, you know, avoid rumor, innuendo, mind reading because that can be dangerous. You don’t want to be in a situation where you are spreading rumors that are unfounded about this individual in the community.

To often not only are false rumours being spread, but additional false reports filed, it’s a catch 22 that destroys the targets life, and sends them into a perpetual cycle of abuse within the communities where they reside. In addition to this, let’s not forget that most targets are being set up, made to look mentally ill when they complain about the systemic abuse that the community put’s into play because of these listings.

September 2, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, harassment | , | Leave a comment


I found this little pdf and wanted to share.

Click to access violprev.pdf

When I was looking at this stuff for the U.K. the information was easy to find and locate. For Canada and the U.S. it’s been slightly different, but I lucked out with the Canadian search.

Now remember 5 years ago when the average target first came online, we didn’t know what was happening. I was harassed at work, decided to file suit outside of work, and the next thing I knew I was being harassed within the community, and the next several years being electronically harassed and monitored. I can now look back and realize that my employer likely set me up, and placed me on a listing. When I say set me up, I know that I complained constantly, gave mean looks to my harassers, etc. I was being mobbed to the extreme, and I now believe that was used to set this process into play. Do I believe this was the inception point, no not really, but I do believe that employer was the escalation point.

In trying to help myself I learnt a lot about what was behind this harassment. Five years ago online, targets were scared, confused, and concerned for their health, well being. Targets were being locked away, driven to suicide, and dying under unusual conditions, and circumstances. Imagine finding yourself in such a predicament, and trying to formulate a plan to survive, and figure out what was going on, why you were suddenly enemy of the state.

At first the organized stalking groups seemed like a God send, but for savvy individuals many of us realized that a lot of the groups were run by people that were a part of this. Individuals that would later go on to set up other groups, forums, chats, etc. All the while cleverly leading targets in the wrong direction, making sure noting ever got done. Fighting amongst themselves, then later on trying to discredit legit sites. Having us look at stalking, and other dead ends. What some did like myself is that we left the groups, I started to do my own research.

How could such a system exist, that could turn those against you, that you trusted, friends, family, strangers? Why was it systemic, how were they doing the tracking and the monitoring? I am not going to relive the last 5 years, but key points, were the time I looked at the Gang Stalking phenomena and realised, what if everything you thought you knew was wrong? Since I knew that targets were being mislead, the question was why, what was behind it. Why were they able to get my accounts closed down at so many different forums, how were so many a part of this.

After some local work, the realization came that this was some type of neighborhood watch type thing, but all requests to police, about local neighborhood watch programs turned up as dead ends. Denials that such a program existed, until I had to go super sleuth, and get some answers. Which I did, as you know over time, the pieces of the puzzle fell into place.

The research was not easy, job loss, after job loss. Moving, all the things targets go through, pull oh yes the electronic torture, so bad at times, that I survived, but by the grace of God. There were times, my shielding did not hold up, times that I was injured, but I heal well.

Over the years community watch, community policing, cointelpro, etc were all looked into, and none were quite right, then Jane Clift came to light. At first I was seriously skeptical, and thought yet another dead end, but the more I looked, dug for her case file, the more key components matched, and then I was able to find the corresponding attributes in other areas, then it slowly came together. I went back over some of the old research, which had escaped my notice about the psychiatric reprisals, and finally it came together. You would not think that occupational health and safety laws, could have anything to do with community harassment.

The worst part was, so many had lied, mislead, perverted the laws, and misused justice. People in authority that should have been trustworthy. Even after the correct information came out, the disinfo agents on every forum, or whatever they have going, their extensive, neatly connected network, have still kept the lies going. People on forums still pull a lot of the same old garbage repackaged.

The other annoying element is the silence. On forums, people have racial debates, share their views, they discuss the holocaust, their questions about that event, 9/11, conspiracies, elites ruling the world, pedophiles in high places, etc, but when it comes to these listings they keep silent. That is the worst conspiracy of all. People talk about being enslaved, but I see a lot of self monitoring, social peer pressure, and collective group will, because in some way this works for a lot of those involved.

So that was how the information came to light. The research was time consuming, this is in no way shy of a conspiracy, all that is done to targets. It’s not right, it’s not well, and this aspect of the system needs to change.

September 2, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , | 1 Comment

Stopping Gang Stalking

What is Gang Stalking.

A Simple Definition

Under Occupational Health and Safety laws, individuals are being flagged and placed on community notification lists. This is happening without the targets knowledge. In many countries these community notifications are being used by companies and others to target innocent individuals such as whistle-blowers, the outspoken, etc. In conjunction with these notifications, companies and others are in some cases using a practice that was used in the former soviet union called the psychiatric reprisal. This is used as a means of retaliation, blacklisting, silencing, or controlling members of society. Once on the notification system, warnings about the targets are sent out to every individual the target comes in contact with, thus poisoning their associations, and socially annexing the targeted individual.


Contact a Privacy Lawyer, Labour Lawyer, and try Human Rights Lawyers and Organizations. Freedom Of information requests can be sent to the Privacy Commissioners, former employers, there is a time limitation for the requests.

Health and Safety at Work

Many targets if they wish to become citizen informants can go to Human Resources and request to be on the Health and Safety Team.

Workers have the right to know how to protect themselves. This will mean being trained in health and safety standards. This will also likely mean signing the none disclosure agreement and then becoming a part of this group in many cases that were following targets around.

Many targets may not choose this path, but for others this might be a simple solution for stopping some of what is happening. It is a choice that some targets might wish to consider. If you can avoid this and seek legal options first, this might be the better choice. Stay free.

Mentally Ill by Remote Assessment

“The web site for Michael H. Corcoran, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc., for example, asks: “Will the expert you consult be willing to render an opinion of dangerousness and be willing to put it in writing?” and “Will the expert be willing to do this without interviewing the subject personally?”

Some psychiatrists in the field doubt that any reliable judgment can be made without interviewing the subject.”

A website that sells products for blocking electronic attacks.

“After leaving the Public Health Service in 1994, Soeken established Integrity International to assist whistleblowers in the private sector. Since then, he has testified as an expert witness in seventy psychiatric reprisal lawsuits. Soeken warns anyone who will listen not to trust the company psychiatrist.

“If you assume the doctor is concerned about your health and well-being, you’ve made a deadly assumption,” he says. “They are looking for any phrase or evidence they can use against you to stereotype you as schizophrenic, paranoid, or delusional.”


Again joining the health and safety team might work for some, or requesting to be trained in the health and safety standards. If this does work, then you will not be able to discuss these information openly anymore, because you will likely have to be under a none disclosure agreement of some sort. Some can live with this, others can not. Do what works for you.

September 2, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , | 3 Comments