Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.



She is one of the longest members within the Targeted Individual community and she is suppose to be eligible to be in the correct situations, doing the correct things. Someone dropped a line to make mention that she might not be feeling that well.

I am not sure if it’s true, I don’t check in remotely on individual members, the way I use to. I use to be a lot more up to date,  but because of her length of time as a Targeted Individual, we might want to double check, while checking in on our own selves.

Jewel has fallen is an odd and cryptic message at best. Fallen where and into what, either way, hope you are feeling better soon, if it’s that, otherwise protect yourselves and keep yourselves safe.

Love and protection, to the Targeted Individuals out there

January 31, 2014 Posted by | activism, Awareness | , , | Leave a comment

Workplace zero tolerance laws

I came across this information last week when I was researching some Florida and California laws. Apparently Ontario, in Canada is going to have a new type of zero tolerance program for workplaces. This seems to be a good thing on the outside, but it will most likely create a zero tolerance program similar to what happened with their zero tolerance program for schools.

The zero tolerance program for schools, which was in effect for some time, was used to weed the schools of a lot of young black males. They were systemically targeted by the program, pushed out into the streets and gangs. Most likely also into the police informant programs as well.

Anyways the parents of many of those kids fought for years to bring cases to the Canadian or Ontario human rights commission and then finally the laws were suppose to be scrapped, because they were unfair and discriminatory, in the way that they were used. Again not before a generation of children were adversely affected, but who is counting?

Remember when programs like this are instituted in any country, city, society, they are often hailed as a good thing. Who wants violence in the schools or the workplace? Not anyone that I know. So the Ontarians are at it again. They now have the human resources acting as change agents. For those not familiar with the term, huge New World Order buzz word. Don’t forget that similar programs have been instituted in other areas. Welcomed as a good things, but based on history of such programs, what’s likely to be the real outcome 5 years down the line? More cases before human rights commissions? Not as likely, because the people who will be weeded out using these programs, will be jobless and often not able to go before commissions. The other likely scenario is because they will be booted out for zero tolerance, many might well end up on some of these lists and be followed around and systemically destroyed. So I am being proactive and warning any workers in any city, who had similar programs, watch your back, and get ready now, and not 5 years from now.

Let’s look at some articles that I came across in relationship to this. violence-at-hr-event.html

[“The other component is the implementation of best practices and a sincere commitment by employers and employees to banish all violence in the workplace,” he said, adding that the Ministry of Labour has had “positive relations” with the HRPA, particularly in consulting about various legislative initiatives for Ontario workers.]

The problem with such policies are that they often don’t banish violence in the schools or the workplace. They let those such as Human Resources personnel and others who are familiar with how the system works, it allows them to find ways to exterminate those around them. To get rid of people they see as trouble makers. It will allow them to use the smallest and widest range definitions to destroy innocent lives. It will bring about change, but not the way you think. Having seen how their zero tolerance programs worked in the schools, workers should be on their guard. lenges-of-complying-with-bill-168-part-1-of-3.html


Employers may wish to have slightly different reporting requirements depending on whether the conduct at issue is workplace violence or harassment. Given the dangers inherent in workplace violence, mandatory reporting of violence from any customer, patient or client, visitor or co-worker, and obligatory remediation are desirable.

However, there are separate considerations with respect to harassment as it will be defined under the OHSA.

The tremendously broad definition of harassment in Bill 168 means that a wide spectrum of conduct would, arguably, be subject to complaint, investigation and remedy under the policy and program. This could include harassment ranging from behaviour based on grounds protected under the Human Rights Code to much more trivial behaviour that can arise as part of workplace disputes. Such harassment can also be perpetrated by a range of individuals from all levels of the organization. Finally, victims may well have different levels of tolerance for harassing behaviour. To that end, the employer may wish to permit a greater amount of discretion in the hands of employees when it comes to reporting harassment by encouraging reporting rather than mandating it.

The first couple of lines are the most important, cause now harassment can be defined in so many new and unexpected ways that people never dreamed of, and the little worms that know the system best. The worms that are a plague upon humanity can use it to do harm. Don’t get me wrong, if used properly programs like this should be a good thing, but with a New World Order agenda working in the background, that is not likely to happen.

“The tremendously broad definition of harassment in Bill 168 means that a wide spectrum of conduct would, arguably, be subject to complaint, investigation and remedy under the policy and program. ”

A wide spectrum of conduct would be open to complaint and investigation. Not only that, but also this could get people as mentioned before put on lists. Behaviours that were not subject before now will be. Remember the guy in another city who was joking with his friend, and said something very innocent along the lines of, oh better hide the immigration officials are here. His friend was black, he was white, but they had been friend for years. Well it was over heard by a third party and he was reported, put on suspension and he committed suicide. That is what zero tolerance can and often does mean.

A HEALTH technician shot himself in the head after being suspended for making a politically incorrect joke.

Roy Amor had jokingly told a black friend and colleague that he “better hide” after he spotted immigration officials at their workplace, Britain’s Mail on Sunday reported.

Although the man was not offended, someone who overheard the remark was, and complained to Mr Amor’s bosses at Opcare, which makes prosthetic limbs.

Mr Amor, 61, was said to be devastated at the prospect of losing his job and shot himself outside his house, near Bolton, England, just hours after receiving an email from his bosses.

The email had asked him to explain his comment.

According to The Mail on Sunday, Mr Amor left three notes, all of which mentioned Opcare.

One of his friends told the paper: “Roy made a joke along the lines that his friend had better hide in case the officers found him.

“It was nothing more than a good-humoured joke but apparently someone overheard it and made an official complaint because they thought it was racist.

If used properly it can and will be a good thing, but too often, it allows these whiny crybabies with emotional issues, that truly never learnt to take a joke, to complain about the smallest things. Now don’t get me wrong. I take the issue of workplace harassment very seriously. I understand full well that sometimes you need a broader definition. Eg. With workplace mobbing, often the examples of harassment are subtle, and it’s hard to prove much less report, and in such cases it might help to have a broader definition. With workplace mobbing, just like with a lot of other things, what happens is that the person being harassed, ends up having the harassers make complaints, and then the persons justifiable outbursts are used against them to have them removed or placed on lists. This will allow a wider range of things to be used against those targeted, when they do justifiably respond back after being taunted. In most cases, the workers feel that they have done a good job getting rid of someone who was a real problem, and the reality all too often is that these programs get used as a systemic cleansing for those that are not sheep. violence-at-hr-

“Today we live in challenging and changing times, both for government, employers and employees. Our determination to succeed is being tested. Our government must reflect the realities of a changing workplace and we must seek to make our workplaces fair, safer, as well as more competitive,” Fonseca said.

Antoinette Blunt, chair of the HRA board, also talked about the changing workplace brought about by globalization. “Globalization means that the world has become a much smaller place.”
Blunt challenged HR professionals to become “change agents” allowing better understanding between employers and workers.[/quote]

Globalization and change agents. Wake up, the New World Order agenda is knocking on a lot of doors, and by the time it has finished, it will cleanse, remove, and destroy the innocent. People have to be aware of this, and figure out ways to legally arm themselves in advance. Consider this your 10 second warning.

Workers need to have the right to know when they are being investigated, and if they get put on a watch list, they have the legal right to know. This program is likely to be used and abused in ways never imagined. Zero tolerance is great in concept, but it should not mean that innocent people get destroyed in the cross fire, and zero tolerance should not be used as a cleansing agent, for New World Order agendas.

July 2, 2010 Posted by | Black Females, Blacklisted, blackwomen, Bullying, Citizen Informants, Community harassment, community mobbing, Conformity, Conspiracy | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Jane Clift Case Highlights

Jane Clift Case Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

This also fell under Violence at Work

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

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

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

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

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

All your information get’s documented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Community Safety Partnership

Neighbourhood Wardens

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

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

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

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

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


These two acts played heavily into her defense.

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

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

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

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

Point 46. interference with a persons Article 8 rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health and Safety at work.

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

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

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

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

94# Para 16 provides that:

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

Physical contact. There is that word again.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yes slander can ruin your life.

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

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

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

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

Gang Stalking. FOIA request.

Gang Stalking FOIA.
Is this specific FOIA request a ploy by the FBI to discredit targets and profile them as schizophrenic? Will this letter place targets on a watch list? Is it meant to be disinformation for targets? Is this letter actually helpful in anyway to targets?

I came across this letter back in December. At the time I had major concerns about it. I posted those concerns as comments, so that if the user saw the letter they would at least think before they emailed or mailed off a document that could potentially send them to a mental institution or get them placed on a watch list.
Here is a portion of the FOIA request, and for those more familiar with good FOIA request, you can let me know what you think.
[quote]12.   Any FBI records indicating coercion or bribery being used by gang stalking groups to force or bribe neighbors, local businesses and others in the community of a targeted individual to participate in the gang stalking methods/activities directed against one or more targeted individuals within a community.  

13.   Any FBI records indicating the motives behind the stalking of individuals such as personal vendettas, family vendettas, whistle-blowing (corporate and government), employment disputes/lawsuits, political views, sexual orientation, interracial relationships, gay and lesbian relationships, HIV status, business disputes, marital disputes, monetary disputes, and any other similar motives for gang stalking.  

 14.   Any FBI records indicating the funding of gang stalking groups including, but not limited to, narcotic and other racketeering funds, corporate funds, local business funds and government money (e.g. paid informants), monetary crimes by the gang stalkers, or, payment for surveillance or intelligence collected by gang stalking groups paid for by racketeers, narco-traffickers and/or other criminal associations made to the gang stalkers for services gang stalking groups rendered.  

 15.   Any FBI records indicating the number of informants (paid and unpaid) under the control of federal, state and local law enforcement within these gang stalking groups. For instance, during the Civil Rights Era the FBI now acknowledges 20% of KKK members were informants.  

 16.   Any FBI records relating to a List on which gang stalking victims are placed which initiates and/or maintains the gang stalking activities against them.  

 17.   Any FBI records indicating a hierarchy within the gang stalking groups including a chain of command.  

Here is a link on my forum to my concerns about this letter, which I have now seen on YouTube, and posted in other places.

When I saw the letter I spoke to the originator of the letter directly to find out what was going on. He claims to have experience with this stuff, claims to be a lawyer, but based on this FOIA request, I had very deep concerns. I believe my comments have been deleted from the thread and the plan has gone forward, so that’s why I am highlighting this in several places.

Before sending off a FOIA request you might want to run it past a lawyer. I am taking the time to post about this because I have a few concerns, specifically that this could get a target put on a watch list, or the letters could be used to profile targets as mentally unstable and could be a problem for activists in future. Just think of this letter arriving in multiple forms for all their behavioural specialists. It seems to have been designed that way. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I did take the time to find what others had done, and how they had requested FOIA requests.
Your address
Daytime phone number


Agency Administrator

FOIA Appeal

Dear Administrator:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

On (date) I made a FOIA request to your agency for (brief description of what you requested). On (date), your agency denied my request on the grounds that (state the reasons given by the agency). Copies of my request and the denial are enclosed.

(When the agency delays:) It has been (state number) business days since my request was received by your agency. This period clearly exceeds the 20 days provided by the statute, thus I deem my request denied. A copy of my correspondence and the postal form showing receipt by your office are enclosed.

The information which I have requested is clearly releasable under FOIA and, in my opinion, may not validly be protected by any of the Act’s exemptions.

(Here, insert legal and “public policy” arguments in favor of disclosure, if you wish. You are not required to make legal or policy arguments to support your appeal; if you simply state “I appeal” the agency will review the documents and the justifications given in the original denial. However, it is usually a good idea to try to persuade them to release the information. See the Federal Open Government Guide ( for further information on any of the specific exemptions cited by the agency in their denial of your original request. The descriptions contained there should suggest arguments you can make to counter the agency’s assertions.)

I trust that upon re-consideration, you will reverse the decision denying me access to this material and grant my original request. However, if you deny this appeal, I intend to initiate a lawsuit to compel disclosure. (Don’t include this as an idle threat. But if you do intend to follow up with a lawsuit, say so. Often the agency will more closely consider its position when it knows it will have to defend it in court soon.)

As I have made this request in the capacity of a journalist (or author, or scholar) and this information is of timely value, I would appreciate your expediting the consideration of my appeal in every way possible. In any case, I will expect to receive your decision within 20 business days, as required by the statute.

Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

Your signature

The first two links above are for generic requests, and the pdf is a link from a group called epic and how they went about requesting info for a fusion center.

It really important how you approach the issue. Based on events that happened during Cointelpro, I am worried that this letter might be another Cointelpro like tactic, that’s why before sending in this letter, I would recommend targets check with a lawyer, or someplace that’s familiar with FOIA requests to see if this letter would be helpful, or if it’s more likely to get them put on a watch list, be deemed as mentally ill, or
if this letter would actually be helpful to them.

You can always use the generic letters provided. Those should be safe and pretty effective. I think to the new target online who wants to be active this letter might be detrimental to them. Again I don’t claim to be an expert. I would just encourage targets to review this before putting themselves in jeopardy.

April 12, 2009 Posted by | activism, CIA, Conspiracy, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

What would Jesus do?

Yeah the title sounds corny, but if you remember what this weekend is, it’s Easter weekend, and yesterday was good Friday. That’s the day the state assasinated him by nailing him to a cross, after bringing up phoney charges against him, by false witnesses. Sound familiar?

He came with a mission to help people. He was persecuted at times, until finally the state found a way to target him once and for all. They used a snitch that was a part of his company to sell him out, and along the way he had to tell the powers that be that they were corrupt and misleading the people. He would get angry at times, he also found it frustrating how people were at times. The spread rumours about him, said he had a demon, that he was crazy, a friend of sinners and publicans, they asked him all sorts of questions to try to set him up, like is it right to pay taxes? Hoping he would say no, so they could set him up.

In doing this activism, I realise that State oppression and the parasite informants don’t change that much. The same stuff that happened then, is the same stuff that pretty much happens now. The world does not change, and the people in charge know how to manipulate the people in the system. They know how to keep people in check, give them a sense of freedom, and then keep then in check in various ways.

I have been thinking about this a lot, because I am wondering what he would do about the informants? Would he try to out them, out them but subtly, or just ignore them? I have been thinking about the ways he handled himself, because I see a lot of this stuff is the same. He came across the same kind of system.

The more I see of these people’s actions and the deliberate tactics they use, the more I am reminded of his activism/ministry. I know a lot of people might not be able to relate, or this might not be there cup of tea, but if you are a target, it might not hurt to brush up on the way he handled irritating people who were spreading rumours, slander, a family that cared for him, but might not have been there for him, the way he needed, people trying to set him up, officials that were corrupt and teaching the common people all the wrong things, and Judas the snitch that would betray him.

Most times I just ignore them, but I don’t think this is the right approach, so I have been wondering what others would do. I know people always think of Jesus as peaceable, and for the most part he was, but he was not above telling the corrupt leaders what they were, what they were doing to the people, and he could hold his own.

The same type of parasites then and now. It’s fascinating, but it’s true. So that’s what I have been wondering, how did he handle being around Judas, how do you handle these snitches? How do you handle the provocation they bring, and cause, and what is the best way to deal with them?

I think you can learn a lot from the past, but I also think each activist is going to be different and you have to find ways to deal with each situation. What works for one will not work for the other, and yet we can take advise from past targets and apply them quite easily to the current situations at hand in trying to determine what to do under some circumstance.

[quote]18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.[/quote]

Always trying to find something. They also called him crazy at times as well.
[quote] 14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.[/quote]

Always looking for a way to bring down those who would question and challenge the system.

A lot of the stuff John Lennon said is coming back to me as well. The quote is from the US vs John Lennon.

[quote]“When it gets down to having to use violence then you are playing the systems games. The establishment irritates you, pull your beard and flick your face to make you fight, because once they have you violent then they know how to handle you. “

They really don’t change that much, this parasitic element. I guess each person in every generation has to find their own way to deal with them, and leave what they can for the next target.

It’s interesting however, a lot does not change in the way these people think work and operate, it would be nice for once to fully win.

April 11, 2009 Posted by | activism, Awareness, Citizen Informants, Civilian Spies, Cointelpro, conspiracies, Conspiracy, Controlled society, crazy, dissident, False Prophets, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, government corruption, Informants, Isolation, Jesus, judas, slavery, slaves, Snitches, Targeted Individual | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Truth vs Fiction. Mind over Matter

The good news? Insanity paranoid or gaslighting, still seem to be some of the best tricks of the trade that these people have. Sometimes it feels like you are almost dealing with Beavis and Butthead, but a very virulent form of the two.

Now I did do a few posts about my emails, and it’s a good idea to try to fix the problem on your own, but then you also want to let other targets be aware of techniques that are being used, and that will be used, without sounding paranoid and crazy.

So how do you walk that fine line? Just tell the truth as best as you know it.

1. Emails bouncing. This escalated by about 80% since January. Is it possible that 80 plus percent of the people that I have been emailing have really bad mailboxes? Yes it’s possible, it it likely. Not really. The frequency seems to be outside of what can be expected, from multiple email accounts in different locations.

It’s not just any emails. The bounced emails have a specific theme to them. I have tested this out in several ways.

By sending emails that have to arrive right away. I will send an email and watch it not arrive. I will use another account and watch it arrive right away. Spam and junk emails arrive, important emails do not. It’s an interesting test to watch.

I mentioned that I tested this with the gangstalking world email. I tested sending email. Anything that had a spam title made it through, anything that had a useful title or urgent title, either did not make it though, or made it through hours or days later.
Is every email failure going to be a part of the Gang Stalking? No not necessarily. What I would look at is frequency, different accounts, doing specific testing, etc.

I have mentioned my ability to post on specific sites are being affected. This happened before when I first started to post about Gang Stalking, it had not happened again till recently, but it’s the same pattern of prevention.

Another thing I noticed, I have joined dozens of forums, over the years to talk about Gang Stalking. 99% of the forums I register to, you get through right away. Since the articles came out, forums that I join to discuss the articles, had a wait for moderation que, for the account to be approved, which did not happen in some cases.
Now I can’t prove this definitely, but 99% of the time, no forums had waiting for admin approval, then after the article about 75% of the sites that I tried to join had this feature. Might just have been a coincidence, but it’s something to be aware of.

The other thing that I mentioned is that I joined one site as gangstalking, tried to post a reply, suddenly I had this message that the site was under construction and would be back in an hour. So I waited nothing. So I opened a new window. I tried to log in with the same account. The same thing happened, under construction. I then created a new account, with a different name, and was allowed to post, without the under construction sign. Yet if I tried to login again with the gangstalking name, the same thing happened. It was interesting so I took pics of it.

I find that it helps when you come across little unique things like this to try to explain what is happening.

As far as this is concerned, it’s just their way of seeing what is working. If the target reacts, or complains strongly about something, they will do it the more, if the target does not react or complain, they will try something else. I find that you can use this technique against them, if you can get them to deliberately do something to incriminate, or get them to do something really obvious and record it then more power to you.

Otherwise blogging or posting about it will only feed the pigeons and there is no point in doing this unless you can document it in a credible fashion, or use it against them. So that’s something to be aware of.

For emails that are missing. I find that it’s nice to request a read receipt, this way you know it’s arriving. Wither you will get it back is another story.

For the bouncing email, create other accounts. I do believe this is getting done quite deliberately. Again the military created the internet. We know that email communications are monitored, filtered and yes can be disrupted. Others have talked about it, but it’s up to us to find workarounds.

I think what might be nice to do is have a little chat box on the site, so that people could confirm that email has been sent, so if you don’t receive it, at least you will know.

So that seems to be it so far. The best they have is trying to still irritate that target so that they will irrationally freak out and thus destroy their own credibility, when they are not trying to do it for you. Again it’s just a matter of stepping back and relearning some of the lessens that you already knew, and just not feeding the pigeons.


The other subject that I wanted to address, mind over matter. They want to engage your mind so that your thoughts are on them. This way your thoughts are not on your kids, forming new relationships, having fun, living, they want to suck the etheric life out of you, basically. So if you can get your mind around it, over it, under it, you have a fighting chance. This again requires great, consistent focus. They really do want to become the center of your world, so if you can center your world, and find something else, something useful to be absorbed with, you have a greater chance of getting rid of them. They want you to forget that you are a great spiritual being, capable of great things. These people want to bring every interaction down to it’s lowest common denominator, and we must no let them. So it’s a matter of focus, mind over matter. If they can get you to worry, be stressed, then they are doing their job. If you are happy, going about your business, they don’t like that, and that is when you know that you are on the right path. So it’s just a matter of getting back that focus, and keeping it.

It’s possible, but it does take practice. I have my moments.

March 2, 2009 Posted by | Gangstalking, Gaslighting | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment