Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

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.

gangstalking

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.
http://www.GangStalkingWorld.com/QuickRef.pdf

http://www.1brickcourt.com/files/cases/140CLIFT_58136.pdf

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.

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/

[quote]
Conclusion

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.
[/quote]

Clift Case additional reading
Clift Case additional readings 2

[quote]

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’.”

[/quote]

[quote]

“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.

[/quote]

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

Quick Guide

This is a quick little 5 page pdf that you can download print off and share with lawyers, doctors, and others who you might be seeking assistance from or trying to gain help from.

The guide covers:

  • The Jane Clift Case
  • The Awareness Registry for Torbay Council in the UK
  • The Canadian version of the Registry and it’s use
  • The American version and the process for being listed
  • The Psychiatric Reprisal and how people are being listed as mentally ill, without any face to face assessments.

It’s very brief, can be read in under 5 minutes and is a nice very brief introduction for anyone who claims they are not familiar with such a system, that you try to gain assistance from. You are welcome to download, print, share and freely distribute. You can reupload the guide to your own sites as well. (Please provide a credit link. Not mandatory, but appriciated.)

http://www.GangStalkingWorld.com/QuickRef.pdf
http://www.GangStalkingUnited.com/QuickRef.pdf
QuickRef
Alternative link

June 25, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dark Side

Many times on the news you hear a report about a shooting, killing or violent incident and the person at the heart of the incident is passed off as mentally ill, and the society reacts by creating additional laws to protect themselves from the mentally ill.

What many in society still do not understand or realize is that there is a dark side to many of those shootings and violent incidents, there is a dark side that society would rather not have you know about. A dark side that happens masked just below the public’s eye and awareness, but that is often very real and traumatizing for the Targeted Individual.

In many of these cases if you look deeper into these incidents you will often discover that there was more to the story. Before the target had a history of “mental illness”, the target often had complaints of mobbing, bullying, or harassment of some kind. Often times the Target might not even have a term to go with the form of harassment that is happening to them. They often describe individuals around them, or even complete strangers as being mean, taunting, doing little incidents to provoke them. Many of these targets have complained for years about the targeting, but with each successive complaint their actions are often passed off as mental illness. Their very real concerns that some type of organized or systemic harassment, is happening around them often goes unheeded, unheard, and the target might even be forcefully committed by concerned family. When the reality is that the target has been exposed continually overtime to a psychological operation of harassment and provocations, that would be capable of breaking down most of the sane of individuals.

Recently society has become more familiar with terms such as mobbing and bullying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing

Mobbing in the context of human beings either means bullying of an individual by a group in any context, or specifically any workplace bullying.

Though the English word mob denotes a crowd, often in a destructive or hostile mood, German, Polish, Italian and several other European languages have adopted mobbing as a loanword to describe all forms of bullying including that by single persons. The resultant German verb mobben can also be used for physical attacks, calumny against teachers on the internet and intimidation by superiors, with an emphasis on the victims’ continuous fear rather than the perpetrators’ will to exclude them. The word may thus be a false friend in translation back into English, where mobbing in its primary sense denotes a disorderly gathering by a crowd and in workplace psychology narrowly refers to “ganging up” by others to harass and intimidate an individual.

Research into the phenomenon was pioneered in the 1980s by German-born Swedish scientist Heinz Leymann, who borrowed the term from animal behaviour due to it describing perfectly how a group can attack an individual based only on the negative covert communications from the group”.[3]

Mobbing is also found in school systems and this too was discovered by Dr. Heinz Leymann. Although he preferred the term bullying in the context of school children, some have come to regard mobbing as a form of group bullying. As professor and practising psychologist, Dr. Leymann also noted one of the side-effects of Mobbing is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and is frequently misdiagnosed. After making this discovery he successfully treated thousands of mobbing victims at his clinic in Sweden.

In the book MOBBING: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, the authors say that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually “exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication”.[4]

UK Anti-bully pioneers Andrea Adams and Tim Field used the expression workplace bullying instead of what Leymann called “mobbing” although workplace bullying nearly always involves mobbing in its other meaning of group bullying.

In the following article some stories of workplace mobbing are shared.

Mobbing

http://members.shaw.ca/mobbing/mobbingCA/workplaceviolence.htm

Workplace Violence:

Why it happens. Why it will continue.

“The tiny percentage of mobbing victims – like Pierre Lebrun – who lash back in violent attack would probably have lived out their lives peaceably and productively had they been spared the excruciating pain of relentless humiliation.”

~ Prof. Kenneth Westhues,
At the Mercy of the Mob: A summary of research on workplace mobbing

We’ve all seen the news reports. A lone gunman returns to his workplace or former workplace to exact revenge for harassment that has gone on sometimes for years. We learn that the gunman has lashed back in the past at those he considered to be abusing him, albeit in non-lethal ways. We are told the gunman has been disciplined in the past for his behavior (reacting to the abuse) and has been ordered to go to counselling or anger management courses. Even though the precipitating abuse may have gone on for years any response in kind gives the bullies and management the opportunity to turn the tables and claim that the victim of abuse is the real problem after all.

Of couse what we don’t hear is that the bullies provoking this reaction are almost never disciplined or required to attend counselling themselves. At this point targets of mobbing are often further humiliated by being forced to sign so-called ‘last chance agreements’ which threaten the target with termination if they dare to challenge the bullies again. So once the target of harassment returns to work after “counselling” they are greeted by cynical bullies who simply renew their attack with added vigor now that they know management will do nothing to stop them and will even join in the persecution. This tacit approval and participation by management guarantees the situation will only get worse.

News reporters interview the gunman’s co-workers, union respresentatives and managers. Those not directly implicated in the harassement of the gunman usually describe him in positive terms. For example in the OC Transpo shooting in Ottawa a co-worker of Pierre Lebrun, Ozzie Morin, commented that Pierre was “a pretty peaceful lad”, “I didn’t think he was ill. I can’t really say anything today that would say he was whacko, you know.” Another co-worker, Grant Harrison remembered Lebrun as “very clever, very nice”. 1

While those closer to the abuse, union reps for example, intent on distancing themselves from blame, respond “We’re going to look for causes but really, I don’t think we’re really going to find a cause,” said union head Paul Macdonnell. “This individual was just sick.”

The societies reaction is too often to pass the individual off as problematic, sick, disturbed, mentally ill, a violent individual. The real causes behind their violent and extreme outbursts often remain hidden. It’s easier to think that we have a few individuals in society that are sick and disturbed vs the fact that we have a society that is doing sick and disturbing things to these individuals and their lives, which in turn leads to these violent outbursts and incidents.

Once educated it is easy to tell what is really happening, who the real victim is. Once it is named and brought out into the light for all to see bullies can no longer operate in the grey area. Only once everyone sees mobbing for what it is, brutal systematic psychological torture, will it become unacceptable. Only when co-workers, supervisors, department heads, HR managers, EAP providers, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, judges and politicians understand what is being done and comprehend the staggering toll it takes on individuals, companies and society as a whole will laws proscribing mobbing become effective.

In the meantime, the body count will continue to rise.

~ Anton Hout

The body count has indeed continued to rise, but where workplace mobbing and school bullying have become more widely recognized, the issue of community mobbing and Gang Stalking are often less well known, and when violent incidents happen, society does not often readily link these incidents of violence to something more dark and insidious that might be just be happening in the community.

The mobbing community over the years has done a fantastic job of documenting the link between workplace mobbing and violent shootings. They were able to establish that in the case of many workplace shootings if you looked a little deeper there was workplace mobbing ongoing. Workplace mobbing that had gone on for years. The Target of the mobbing had often been singled out as the problem and their cries for help often lead to measures which left them unable to complain any further, take any extra internal actions, and left them at the mercy of the mob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Bullying

School shooting
Main article: School shooting

School shootings have focused attention on student bullying, with shooters in several of the worst shootings reporting they were bullied.

School shootings are a bullying-related phenomenon that receive an enormous amount of media attention. [b]An investigation undertaken by the United States Secret Service found that in over 2/3 of cases, attackers in school shooting incidents “felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked, or injured by others prior to the incident” and discredits the idea that school shooters are “loners” who “just snap”.[/b] Though observing that, “clearly, not every child who is bullied in school presents a risk for targeted violence in school”, the investigation report states that, “a number of attackers had experienced bullying and harassment that was longstanding and severe. In those cases, the experience of bullying appeared to play a major role in motivating the attack at school”. The report also observes “in a number of cases, attackers described experienced of being bullied in terms that approached torment”. The report concluded that, “(t)hat bullying played a major role in a number of these school shootings should strongly support ongoing efforts to combat bullying in American schools”.[4]

Studies prompted by the shootings have shown long-lasting emotional harm to victims. The studies also revealed that bullies themselves are likely to suffer problems as children and adults.[5]

Many in the bullying feild such as the lateTim Fieldalso did a wonderful job with connecting violent school shootings with the concept that the students at the heart of many of those incidents had been bullied. He would also term the phrase bullycide to describe a young persons suicide due to bullying.

Years before bullying became well known, targets of bullying were persecuted, they suffered in silence while their cries for help were ignored. Many were made out to be disturbed or problematic individuals. The reality is that they were enduring months if not years of psychological torture and torment. The shootings gained a lot of attention, and measures were implemented to address school bullying, but years later this is still a very big problem in the school system as seen by the suicide of Phoebe Prince.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Phoebe_Prince

Phoebe Nora Mary Prince[1] (November 24, 1994[2] – January 14, 2010) was a teenager from South Hadley, Massachusetts. She became known throughout the United States and internationally when she committed suicide after suffering months of constant bullying from school classmates. Her death brought calls for more stringent, specific anti-bullying laws in Massachusetts. In March 2010, a state anti-bullying task force was set up as a result of her death.

In the case of workplace mobbing and bullying, the suicides don’t often get the same degree of attention that the shootings do, but they are just as important. They show the darkside of what society is capable of doing. They show a real failure of this system. They also are a striking reminder that even with all the education, lectures, documentation, there is still a long way to go towards getting this type of behaviour resolved. They show a dark side of society, and it’s consistent need to feed off of their members, societies need to demean, psychologically degrade, and belittle those it perceives as weaker, deserving of punishment, or who fail to fall in line with the status quo.

Gang Stalking

http://www.GangstalkingWorld.com

What is Gang Stalking?

Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. A target will be flagged by the community for various reasons, their information is sent out to the community at large, and they are followed around 24/7 by the members of the various communities that they are in.

The warning will go out to various places including stores, apartment rentals, future employers, communities that the target is visiting, doctors, fire departments, police, etc. A covert investigation might also be opened, and electronic, means used by the civilian spies/snitches as part of the overt and covert monitoring and surveillance process.

Individuals can be flagged designating them as having a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior. This flagging system will follow the target if they move, change jobs, visit other areas. It let’s the community believe that they are persons who need to be watched or monitored.

“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.

Community health and safety

A woman named Jane Clift in the U.K. went through a very similar type of flagging system. A warning marker was placed against her name designating her as potentially violent.

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’.”

Violent Persons Registry

Jane Clift was targeted this way and spent four year clearing her name.

Individuals are being flagged without their knowledge. In many countries these flags might fall under community safety and health laws. It seems that employers, educational facilities, and community centers are in some cases flagging innocent individuals as a means of retaliation, silencing, or controlling members of society.

Being Bullied or Mobbed out of a job can be a devastating experience for anyone. For those who do survive it can lead to post traumatic stress disorder, or even psychiatric injury. The Target can spend years if not the rest of their lives recovering from an attack, unable to work or even attend school.

http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm#Differences

Differences between mental illness and psychiatric injury

The person who is being bullied will eventually say something like “I think I’m being paranoid…”; however they are correctly identifying hypervigilance, a symptom of PTSD, but using the popular but misunderstood word paranoia. The differences between hypervigilance and paranoia make a good starting point for identifying the differences between mental illness and psychiatric injury.

These symptoms that the target exhibits can also go ignored or misdiagnosed for years by a society that continually fails to understand the emotional and psychologically damaging effects of such practices.

http://www.GangStalkingWorld.com

Gang Stalking is experienced by the Targeted Individual as psychological attack, that is capable of immobilizing and destroying them over time. The covert methods used to harass, persecute, and falsely defame the targets often leave no evidence to incriminate the civilian spies.

It’s similar to workplace mobbing, but takes place outside in the community. It called Gang Stalking, because groups of organized community members stalk and monitor the targets 24/7.

Many Targeted Individuals are flagged, harassed and placed under surveillance in this way for months or even years before they realize that they are being targeted by an organized protocol of harassment.

The Targeted Individual community has spent the last few years playing catch up, and trying to firmly establish a coloration between incidents of violence in the community, and the very real fact that many of these individuals might just have been targets of a practice that has become known as Gang Stalking.

In the bookBridging the GapBy: GmB Bailey, there is a whole chapter demonstrating just how easily conspiracies can happen, often right under the public’s scoop of visibility and awareness. With Gang Stalking the community goes into hypervigilance or vigilante mode, trying to remove an individual that they see as a danger or undesirable. The society firmly believes that it is doing something good and beneficial for the community, but in reality they are exposing these individuals to months and years of what amounts to a psychological operation, capable of breaking down and destroying the individual, or driving that person to committing acts of violence.

Over the last several years there have been several such shootings, where the individuals complained about surveillance, monitoring, harassment, people saying rude things, gaslighting, but the individuals are always written off as being mentally ill. It should be pointed noted that with school shootings the kids where once written off as kids who snapped without cause, and the same was true for workplace shootings. They were also written off as people who went postal without any cause. Once a correlation of prior complaints could be established a very different story emerged. It was then noted that in 2/3 of all school shootings the targets had complained about bullying without anything being done, and the same is true for workplace mobbing.

What the Targeted Individual community now has to establish is the link between incidents of violence in the community and these community flaggings, warning markers or listings that individuals are having added to their files, otherwise known as Gang Stalking. What needs to be established is the fact that the violence is happening in some if not most cases, not because the person is mentally ill or violent, but the actions of the community once the individual is flagged in this way, is leading to incidents of violence or mass shootings in the community. The endless community mobbing that the target experiences, which is basically amounts to a psychological operation, that goes on for months if not years, is what is leading to these incident of violence in society.

Were the following cases simply disturbed or violent individuals, or were they targets of something far deeper, something more insidious, the dark side of society?


Jiverly Wong

The news reported Jiverly Wong as a loser with a failed marriage, who had once tried to rob a bank. A person who had a history of drug abuse, and who could not hold down a job.

The story that Jiverly Wong tells is very different.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2009/04/jiverly-wong

Jiverly Wong tells a story of 20 years worth of harassment, by members of the community, but mostly by police officers. He talks about rumours and slanders, he also describes what sounds similar to what Targeted Individuals describe as Electronic Harassment. When reviewing Jiverly Wong’s story, it became clear that there were discrepancies. His parents had no reason to believe that he had ever been married. The bank robbery was a lie told to police which established an investigation being opened. None of Jiverly Wong’s co-workers reported any type of a drug problem. His job loses were not job loses, he had worked at one company for several years then left. They report him as an excellent worker. With his second job the factory closed down and he was laid off. He then tried to take an English language class, but reportedly dropped out, most likely due to mobbing. This same school would be the focus and target of his anger.

To look at the story the media painted was to see a paranoid individual, but once society is aware of the psychological operation that goes on behind the scenes, Jiverly Wong’s complaints about what happened to him become far more credible, and requires closer examination. Not just for Jiverly Wong, but for those who were the targets of his final outrage at society. If a correlation can be established, if his complaints can be verified, then maybe this can be used to make sure such incidents do not happen in future.

Kimveer Gill

http://gang-stalking.blogspot.com/2007/02/kimveer-gill-revisited.html

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=fea965ce-4606-4a63-a92b-1ae28e07df8b

Kimveer Gill in the news was painted as an anti-social young man, who one day took a gun and for no apparent reason, went on a shooting spree at Dawson College. The reports could find no reason for his shooting. The shooting was in fact attributed to the goth lifestyle and goth culture. The website VampireFreaks.com was in the spotlight for weeks if not months as a possible source for individuals who might be violent.

When reviewing Kimveer Gills postings, there were little hints that something else might have been ongoing, that might have contributed to the shootings.

Dated September 12, 2006

Stop Bullying

It?s not only the bully?s fault you know!!It?s the teachers and principals fault for turning a blind eye, just cuz it?s not their job. You f*ckers are pathetic. It?s the police?s fault for not doing anything when people conplain (oops, my mistake, the cops are corrupt sons of whores,
so it?s not like they can do anything about it.)
F*CK THE POLICE

It?s society?s fault for acting like it?s normal for people to be assholes to each other. Society disgusts me. It?s everyone?s fault for being so apathetic towards f*cking everything that doesn?t affect them personally. F*CK YOU
SOCIETY.

I wonder why my household has been under surveillance by law enforcement for 6 years now? Makes no sense to me!!

Kimveer didn’t work at all in 2006, telling his mother he was tired of how people doing contract work were treated.

People kill each other

Rape women

Molest children

Deceive and betray

Destroy lives

Bullying and torturing each other at school

What kind of world is this? What the f*ck is wrong with people. This world … this life, is worst (sic) than hell.

“Postal dude was sad before he became angry and psychotic, that’s the part we never see in the game. He was normal, but the world made him the way he became.”

His postings sound very rambling at first, but he talks of bullying and schools who do nothing. He talks of police who do nothing when people make complaints. He talks about his house being under surveillance for over 6 years.

It might just be the ramblings of a disturbed individual, but it’s also very possible more was ongoing.

The message said that the same thing could happen again if Rajan’s demands for $10 billion in compensation for both he and Kimveer weren’t met.

That same day, they searched the house and discovered a three-page typewritten letter in which Rajan demanded $10 billion “for all the violations, damages, suffering” committed by citizens and the government and “for the negligence of their law enforcement agencies.”

Police also found one of Rajan’s chats on his computer, in which he demands $10 billion for both him and Kimveer for violations of their fundamental rights, like “freedom from torture” and the “right to paid holidays.”

During his interrogation with police, he said he had no knowledge of what his friend had planned. He also said that for the past five or six months, he had developed the ability to read people’s minds, had telepathic powers and had the ability to move people and animals.

Kimveer’s friend Rajiv Rajan wrote some interesting postings after Kimveer’s death. He wrote about damages, suffering committed by citizens, and the government. Neglegence of law enforcement agencies. Violations of his and Kimveer’s fundamental rights, for freedom from torture.

Might just be the ramblings of someone who has since been diagnosed as schizophrenic with a history of depression, but his statements might also shed more light on what might really have been happening with Kimveer Gill.

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/droege-the-right-and-the-system-in-between/

Keith Deroche

Friday said the 44-year-old Deroux’s cocaine addiction was fuelling ‘paranoid delusions’ that listening devices and cameras had been placed in his apartment. The drug addict believed someone was sending him coded messages through his computer and, even after moving to a new residence, Deroux feared people were entering his house through an underground tunnel and funnelling “noxious gases” into the residence. The only person with enough resources for this kind of surveillance, Deroux figured, was his friend and cocaine dealer, Wolfgang Droege. …

Mr Deroche would then shoot and kill his friend Wolfgang Droege who he blamed for the surveillance and mishaps going on in his life. He gave what to many seemed like a wild, paranoid drug induced description of being under surveillance, gassing, harassment, people entering his home, and that it continued after he moved.

Was he just spewing out a drug induced fantasy or was he on a list, flagged, with a warning marker against his name?

Damon Thompson

http://www.guardian.bz/component/content/article/53-headlines/842-belizean-stude%20nt-at-ucla-facing-attempted-murder-charges

The allegation against 20-year-old Damon Thompson is that on Thursday October 9, he attacked a 20-year-old female classmate Katherine Rosen. It happened in an organic chemistry class in the William Young Hall at the university sometime around midday on Thursday when Thompson allegedly pulled out a knife and stabbed Rosen five times and slashed her throat.

Thompson, an A -student with consistent excellent academic performance is an only child of Judith Brook a legal clerk with the Legal Advice and Services Centre in Belize City. While the US media has painted a negative picture of Thompson,
sources close to him and his family indicated that prior to this incident he had made countless complaints against classmates and this specific lab partner but with no results. Contrary to US media reports, Thompson did know Rosen who was his lab partner and who has been very offensive to him on previous occasions and even the day in question. Now UCLA in an attempt to shift blame away from itself has sought to discredit the mental stability of Thompson by using his many complaints by e-mail as an indication of instability.

When this story occurred, the American media painted Damon Thompson as a student that had walked into a classroom, pulled out a knife and stabbed a random student. He was immediately painted as mentally ill, and placed in jail. That is the bulk of what many will remember about this story, but digging a little deeper and told a very different story.

He had been familiar with Rosen his lab partner, he had made many complaints about harassment, and he had in particular complained about her on several occasions, but I reports of this do not seem to have been printed in the American Media.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1255211726

Frank said he grew concerned about Thompson in mid-December 2008, after the student sent several e-mails complaining that classmates sitting around him had been disruptive and made offensive comments to him while he was taking a written exam.

In one of the e-mails that Frank provided to The Times, Thompson, 20, also accused Frank of taunting him.

“I believe I heard you, Professor Frank, say that I was ‘troubled’ and ‘crazy’ among other things,” Thompson wrote in the e-mail. “My outrage at this situation coupled with the pressure of the very weighted examination dulled my concentration and detracted from my performance.”

Frank said he was told that other professors had reported similar exchanges with Thompson, who complained he was the constant target of taunts from students across campus — in dorms, dining areas and the library. A university official told Frank that he could only suggest that Thompson seek treatment, but they couldn’t require him to seek psychological help. “My concern was in the context of other violent incidents on campuses around the country,” Frank said.

To Frank, the e-mails he received from Thompson indicated the student was in need of serious help. Frank said he urged university officials to take action. An official told Frank that they could only suggest to Thompson that he seek treatment, but they could not require him to seek psychological services.

University officials have acknowledged that “Thompson was known to our student affairs office prior to the incident,” but could not disclose information about the suspect, citing privacy laws.

When the story was examined a little bit closer it was clear that he had made several complaints about disruptions not only by the students around him, but also by also by professors. His complaints had not been taken seriously, infact he it seems that he was viewed as the problem for making the complaints which most often happens in cases of workplace mobbing, and habitual bullying in the schooling system. It should be noted that the professor he had accused of harassment, was the one used in the interview. What is happening in cases of this is that the system is not correcting itself, instead of tackling systemic bullying, harassment, mobbing, these individuals are all too often placed on lists, have warning markers placed against their names, or flagged, once this happens, it almost invariably leads to open season on the target by the community, and an escalation of open harassment. Then further complaints by the target are seen as a cry for mental health and not what they should be seen as, which is a system that is broken and not functioning. This is is also often a precursor to Gang Stalking, and the escalation of systemic harassment.

Abdo Ibssa

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/53178

“We’ve heard him say crazy things and do crazy things,” said neighbor George Johnson. “The chip they’re talking about–I don’t know where that came from, but he kept on thinking that the government put a chip in him.”

http://www.tadias.com/04/21/2010/police-hospital-shooter-mentally-ill-had-grudge/

“The suspect through the note left at his residence indicated he was upset with the doctor, thinking a chip had been placed inside of him during his appendectomy. The suspect believed he was being tracked due to this chip,” Sterling Owen IV, Knoxville’s Police Chief said.

According to the case file, which lists his name as Abdo Ibssa Mohammed, Ibssa told the court he bought his business in 2008 but wasn’t making any money. Handwritten notes indicate he was $80,000 in debt, apparently for an online school he dropped out of in 2007 “due to personal problems.”

The notes also indicate he filed no tax returns in 2008 or 2009.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/53178

Also found during the search were a second handgun, a bag of marijuana and a copy of the book “The Official CIA Manual of Trickery and Deception” — a reproduction of a Cold War-era CIA handbook on the use of illusion and deception for acts of espionage.

Ibssa was allegedly involved in a violent incident a year ago, attacking a stranger in a convenience store, according to a lawyer for the man who filed the civil suit.

Jalal Boudarga sued Ibssa for $300,000 in January, claiming Ibssa shoved him violently against his car, causing him to fall to the ground and badly break his leg. Boudarga’s attorney, Jerry Martin, told The Associated Press that Ibssa believed Boudarga said something bad about him in the store.

“I guess if Mr. Ibssa imagined that a doctor had put a computer chip in him, then it’s not that far of a jump for him to imagine my client saying something about him,” Martin said.

It’s very easy to write this man off as a paranoid and mentally ill individual. He has a history of violence, he was just committed to a mental health facility, and he was off his medication.

When you look at the story there are some question left unanswered. Why did this man feel that he was being tracked? Was he being followed, or did he think he was being tracked via electronic means? Why was there a copy of the CIA manual of Trickery and Deception? For those familiar with the techniques used in Gang Stalking rude comments by strangers, that directly correlate to the Targeted Individual are all too common and it would not be very hard to imagine that a complete stranger could indeed have made a comment to Ibssa.

The stories unlike several of the others does not go into enough details, to establish a firm correlation, in regards to what might have been happening, and the some media outlets have claimed that his neighbours are not giving interviews.

If these cases can be reviewed and it is determined that these men or some of these men were on community lists, had warning markers placed on their files, were flagged, then it might help establish a link between these community incidents of violence and these community listings, warning markers, or flags.

If these patterns can be established, then other factors such as complaints to the police and other agencies can be reviewed. Maybe then Targeted Individuals could get more understanding and awareness, vs being written off as mentally ill.

If it can be established that placing people on lists, warning markers, or flagging files causes community paranoia, harassment, mobbing, and Gang Stalking, then in future when targets complain, maybe their complaints will be taken more seriously. Right now complaints are taken as a sign of mental illness, and additional complaints are viewed the same.

The community in the meanwhile thinks that anyone flagged is a dangerous person, and someone that the need to do everything they can to protect and guard themselves against. The target is then exposed to day in day out systemic harassment, which equates to a psychological operation that is capable of driving the target to a breakdown, or acts of suicide or violence.

Community members go out of their way to do things to provoke the target, harass them in subtle ways. Each incident in and of itself means nothing, but the repeated provocations over time, lead to the headlines seen on the news. This is the dark side of society that is not seen or reported.

It took years for enough research to be put into place to establish a direct link between bullying, mobbing and acts of violence. This process within the Targeted Individual community can be more readily streamlined, by checking to see if any of these individuals had such warnings or flags on their community files.

If they do has such warnings, then it’s important that this link be used to draw the correct conclusion, which would be that placing such warnings against individuals files, can and often does lead to identifiable patterns and cycles of harassment. This then causes acts of violence with in the community as the target is provoked, monitored, and psychologically harassed on a daily basis, everywhere they do. This is the conclusion that should be reached vs people on these lists are violent for no apparent reason and without any justification. It’s important to look at cause and effect.
If the communities actions are leading to these end results then it’s important to establish laws and support for targets to address this, so that fewer incidents will be caused over the next few years.

April 24, 2010 Posted by | Bullying, Citizen Informants, community mobbing, conspiracies, control, Controlled society, Gang Stalking, harassment, Health and Safety, Kilmeer Gill, mobbing, society, Targeted Individual | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Other Side

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/the-dark-side/

April 23, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Rejected

Why I reject this system that is currently in place?

I reject this system that is currently in place, and I want no part of it, and have no desire to be a part of it.

As a Gang Stalking target I have seen what this system is capable of, and it’s not pretty. To say that it is not pretty is an understatement. As a target I have had the pleasure of hearing the stories of people targeted by this system. I have seen lives destroyed. I have heard of and reviewed many cases of innocent people who have been jailed, put in mental health facilities, people have written in about relatives who have committed suicides, and deliberate deaths, due to this systemic type of targeting. Plus all the other stories that have turned up.

At this stage it’s I who objects to, and rejects this system, and not the other way around. This system seems to want me to be a part of it, and I simply want nothing to do with it. I have examined all angles and I deeply feel this system will do more harm than good for too many that are like me, and thus it is not in my best interest to be supportive of such a system.

Most of the people that I see on our in public who are a part of this systemic program, seem to think that this system is just some system to tell them who is bad, vs who is good, who needs watching and monitoring. I agree it does perform that functionality, in part, but on the other hand it’s used as a system to falsely target perceived enemies of the state.  When there is a threat such as a bombing in another city, a mass shooting, you can see the individuals that are a part of this system go into action, it makes them feel safe, in the loop. On the surface it does fulfill this purpose, but underneath it functions as a gang, a cult, handmaidens of the NWO if you will. I understand most people do not view the system this way, and will not readily share this opinion, but that is the most practical comparison, that I can give for how the system tries to bring in individuals who want no part of it.

This system functions like a gang because they use intimidation, and bullying tactics. They function like a cult in the sense that the community is controlled just like a cult is. Most people just like every other cult, have no clue that they are in a cult, being a target of this system, has afforded me a perspective that is most likely in opposition to how many view this system, but that it’s a point of view and perspective that I am grateful for.

This system targets individuals for various surface reasons, but the underlying reasons of why someone really gets targeted are quite different. I have no plans to wake up, or be threatened into embracing this system. In a free society, that should be a choice of each citizen, but what this system tries to do is use intimidation, bullying, systemic destruction, to try to break individuals down, and to try to then rebuild them back as part of this system. This has not been successful in my case thus far. This system has not been able to break me down, and instead of making me want to cave and become a part of this system, what I have seen, puts me in deep opposition to the way this system functions. I deeply have no desire to be a part of this system.

Don’t get me wrong, there are people who are legitimately trying to do some good, or trying to do the right thing. I do understand that there are good people who are part of this system. I appreciate you, respect you, and have an affinity for you. I also see naive people who are part of this system, that just don’t and will not see the bad that this system does, I respect you also, because I was also naive myself once. Then there are those that understand the brutality of this system, that this system is working towards a specific goal. A more malevolent outcome, those who take advantage of this system, use it to try to undermine, degrade others, or get even with enemies. I have no respect for these people, or this sort. I believe that the majority of people, just like in Germany, have to believe in the purity of what is being done. I am not like that, I have had the pleasure of being on the opposite side of the fence, and see all too well, the injustice that can happen under such a system.

What I am saying is that though I would like to get my records cleared of wrong or false information that might be out there, I am not interested in becoming part of this system. I will look out for my neighbours, be a good citizen, help out when I can, but I never want to be a part of this system, I am not looking for an in, if anything I am looking to stay out. It’s an offer that I feel that I must refuse, consider the invitation declined. I believe the way this system functions is in direct opposition to creating a truly good society. This system functions not that dissimilar to witch trials of the past, inquisitions, Stasi listings, Cointelpro, etc. Targets are flagged, systemically destroyed, set up, and often ruined systemically, and unjustly.

I am trying to be as politic as I can be, in saying that this system is not for me. I understand that many of these people think that they are doing something good, like any cult they believe in what they are doing. They love bomb you when you do what they want, and act psychotic when they don’t have control. I am not a fan of control systems. I am also not much of a joiner. I have seen all the tactics over the last several years, and feel more strongly today, than I have in any other point and time, and at this stage, I have a clearer understanding of how this program works. The problem is that people are told that they are targeting undesirables, but this program is targeting enemies of the state. Innocent people are being targeted and destroyed, that has been the bulk of what the research has shown over the last several years.

I have witnessed, bullying, love bombing, thugs in sheep’s clothing, and I am not impressed by what I have seen, not at all. There is no allegiance that I desire, no membership that I seek, nothing that I wish to do with a system that is capable of destroying the innocent, under the guise of rehabilitating them, or keeping society safe. In that capacity this system has nothing that I want.

Over the last several years I have been blessed, to see some of the worst of what people are capable of. How they are capable and able of systemically destroying others. I have watched the sheer inhumanity of this system, the silent deaths that will never be acknowledged or brought to justice. Those locked away falsely, or imprisoned falsely due to this. This system and how it works, functions, destroys is against everything that is good. I think the former East Germany and Russia worked in similar fashion. People on the other side think they are doing good, cleaning up society, but that is not the case. What is happening now is a systemic cleansing. Most won’t see it for what it is, or if they do, they won’t do anything about it.

I say this with as much light and love as I can, I truly believe that this system is not right in the way that it currently functions. I think it’s toxic in it’s current functionality, but I am not sure how such a system could be fixed or changed. The grease that oils the wheels currently, are the underlying injustices, and vigilante cult like mentality is what keeps it functioning, and in place. I am also not sure what the answer is. I think people have to want change for change to happen. I believe that for most this system with it’s flaws works for far too many people, and I think that is what keeps it in place.

For my little part, I do what I can when I can. I have exposed the bits and pieces that I can, it’s up to others to do the rest. I have brought exposure, awareness, but everyone then has to examine their individual actions and roles in contributing to this system and how it works.

April 10, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

EVENTS LEADING TO THIS ACTION

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”.

THE DATA PROTECTION ACT AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

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.

117#

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.

http://www.1brickcourt.com/files/cases/140CLIFT_58136.pdf

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

False Hope?

False Hope?

I saw the draft for a new bill and initially got excited that someone was looking to draft a bill.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28373533/Advanced-Media-Press-Release-Organized-Stalking-and-Directed-Energy-Devices-and-Weapons-Bill-May-19-2009

[quote]Advanced Media Press Release Organized Stalking and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons Bill May 19, [/quote]

The problem with this bill or any other however is that if it does not address what is really happening it is just more false hope, more distraction, that will lead targets in the wrong direction and waste their time.

Real targets you can not afford that.

It’s taken some time, but this week there was some small success in getting generating enough interest in the subject of Gang Stalking to have a positive article written about the subject matter.

Keep in mind that these articles do not always have long shelf lives. That is why every real oppertunity counts. Eg. I was just trying the link for the article

“Stalker Claims unsettle police”

The link was not working and a search for a new link was not successful. The original article just came out last year.

http://www.vcgtimes.com/NC/0/355.html

[quote]Stalker claims unsettle police

(by Anthony G. Attrino – March 12, 2009)
Detectives are questioning a former Verona resident who has been handing out fliers claiming a large, organized group of stalkers is targeting residents and business owners with the objective of destroying their lives.

“Their intention is to murder their target without getting their hands dirty. It’s the perfect hate crime.” states the flier, which is titled “A Community Secret Revealed: Organized Stalking is Thriving in NJ.”

[/quote]

It’s important that the right focus is not shifted away. If any bill is created that does not point the finger at government or community programs, then they will do Gang Stalking targets very little good. The same was true for this story.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/court-to-defendant-stop-blasting-that-mans-mind

[quote]Court to Defendant: Stop Blasting That Man’s Mind!

[/quote]

The story was great on the outside, and it was good in some regards, but not many targets could use it for getting out of their own situation or circumstances. His case was very specific, and the person failed to show up for court.

This is being done by government programs. The finger must be pointed, or it does not matter how many politicians, fake experts, fake groups they throw at us, as a community we will never get where we need to be if we allow ourselves to be falsely distracted.

We need laws which for the state to share with an individual when they have been placed on lists, so at least they have an idea of what is happening to them. We need oversight of these programs, there is none happening now, and devastating consequences are happening. From what I can see, it’s fully deliberate, and designed to be that way.

It’s more false hope that plays into the hands of these people once again.  Let’s stay focused and when real evidence presents itself let’s examine those channels. There is lot’s of good information coming out about Violent Person’s Registries, and this is a very strong direction that we should all be looking at and examining. If this is what is being used, then any future laws to protect Targeted Individuals, must go after these lists, and oversight of these lists. Plus Freedom Of Information Act requests, to see who has been targeted by these programs.

March 22, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Spies, Community harassment, community mobbing, conspiracies, Conspiracy, Controlled society, Covert investigations, crazy, Electronic harassment, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, Informants, Minority women, Targeted Individual | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Violent Registry Marker

This is one example of how a list could be make via workplace or Educational Institution.
VIOLENCE/AGGRESSION
INCIDENT REPORT FORM No.

PART 1 (to be completed by the victim)

Full name_______________________________________________________________

I am an employee/student/other *(please specify________________________________)

For employee only: Job title_________________________________________________

Department/Campus_______________________________________
When did the incident occur?

Date_____________________________Day__________________Time_____________

Where did the incident occur? (Draw a sketch and attach it to the report if it helps)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

What actually happened leading up to, during and after the incident?

(Attach a separate sheet if necessary)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Details of assailant/aggressor(s)

Name(s) if known__________________________________________________________

Address(es) if known________________________________________________________

Other contact point (e.g. workplace)____________________________________________

Approximate age_____________ Sex: Male/Female*

Appearance at the time of the incident (physical and behavioural, e.g. drunk)____________

________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any idea what may have caused the attack/aggressive behaviour?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Please give names and contact details of any witnesses to the incident

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Describe how you felt during and after the incident (please attach a separate sheet if there is insufficient room here)________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Part 2 (to be completed by the victim’s Supervisor/Line Manager or other appropriate person e.g. Course Tutor, Site Supervisor)
OUTCOME OF INCIDENT

Did the victim receive any physical injury? (please describe briefly)_________________

________________________________________________________________________

Did the victim have to take time off from work/study? Yes/No*

If Yes, please state for how long_______________________________________________

Was there any damage to:

Personal property? Yes/No* If Yes, please describe______________________________

University property? Yes/No* If Yes, please describe_____________________________
DETAILS OF FOLLOW-UP ACTION TAKEN AND AFTERCARE

Police notified ___________________________________________________________

Legal Action to be taken ___________________________________________________

Hospital Treatment? ___________________________________________________

Counselling recommended __________________________________________________

Specialist care ___________________________________________________________

Victim support ___________________________________________________________

Other _________________________________________________________________

Remedial action required/taken_______________________________________________
Name of Supervisor/Line Manager___________________________________

Copy to: Health and Safety Adviser (City/North Campus as appropriate)

Employee Support Unit (City Campus)

Insurance Officer, Finance Department, North Campus

Director/Head of Department responsible for student discipline

This is a copy of the form for the U.K. Here are some guidelines.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_applica tion/use_of_violent_warning_markers.pdf.

Data Protection Good Practice Note

The use of violent warning markers

This guidance explains to those working with the public how best to manage the use of violent warning markers.
Employers have a duty of care to their staff to protect them in the workplace.

Violent warning markers are a means of identifying and recording individuals who pose, or could possibly pose, a risk to the members of staff who come into contact with them. We understand that, in practice, a flagged piece of
text is attached to an individual’s file. These markers should be used very carefully and should contain the reasons for identifying individuals as being
potentially violent. They are likely to record information relating to:

• the apparent mental stability of an individual; or
• any threatening actions, incidents or behaviour they have or are alleged to have committed.

This means personal data, and often sensitive personal data, will be included in a violent or potentially violent warning marker and so must comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act).

Compliance with the Act – fairness

The first data protection principle requires that the processing must be fair and lawful. This means that a decision to put a marker on an individual’s file must
be based on a specific incident or expression of clearly identifiable concern by a professional, rather than general opinions about that individual. The individual should pose a genuine risk and the decision should be based on
objective and clearly defined criteria and in line with a clear and established policy and review procedure. The criteria should take into account the need to
accurately record any incident.

For consistency, you should make sure a senior nominated person in the organisation is responsible for making these decisions. Decisions should be reviewed regularly. When making a decision this person should take into
account:

• the nature of the threat;
• the degree of violence used or threatened; and
• whether or not the incident indicates a credible risk of
violence to staff.

For the processing to be fair, you should normally inform individuals who have been identified as being potentially violent soon after you make the decision to add a marker to their record. It should be part of your procedure to write to the individual setting out why their behaviour was unacceptable and how this has led to the marker.

V2.0
21.12.06
2

You should tell them:

• the nature of the threat or incident that led to the marker;

• that their records will show the marker;
• who you may pass this information to; and
• when you will remove the marker or review the decision to add the marker.

There may be extreme cases where you believe that informing the individual would in itself create a substantial risk of a violent reaction from them. For example, because of the nature of the incident or the risk to another individual. In these cases it may not be sensible to inform the individual as described earlier.

If this is the case, you must be able to show why you believe that by informing the individual of the marker there would be a substantial risk of further threatening behaviour.

You should make all decisions on a case-by-case basis and keep records.

Compliance with the Act – processing conditions

The Act states that you should not process personal data unless you can meet one of the conditions in schedule 2 of the Act, and for sensitive personal data, one of the conditions in schedule

3.As employers have a duty of care towards their staff, for example, under health and safety legislation, the appropriate schedule 2 condition to allow processing of information in markers is that processing is necessary to comply with any legal obligation imposed on the data controller (which in this case would be the employer). The appropriate schedule 3 condition is that processing is necessary to comply with any legal obligation imposed on the
data controller in connection with employment.

The individual’s rights

The Act gives individuals the right to make a subject access request. In most circumstances, you should reveal the fact that there is a violent warning marker on the individual record. Although, in most cases, you should already have informed the individual. However, you should make this decision on a case-by-case basis and consider any other individuals (third parties) that may be included in the information. For more information about this, please see our
guidance ‘Subject access requests involving other people’s information’.

There may be rare cases where you will need to consider whether:

• revealing the existence of the marker;
• revealing the information in the marker; or
• what the individual may infer from the existence of the marker; may actually cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of that individual. In these cases, you must get specialist advice from health
and data protection professionals. For some of these cases there may be relevant statutory instruments that modify the provisions in the Act that relate to the individual’s rights (see note 1).

Requests from individuals to stop processing their personal information Section 10 of the Act gives individuals the right to require you to stop processing their personal information if this is likely to cause them substantial
and unwarranted damage or distress. If an individual gives you a section 10 notice relating to a violent warning marker then you should be aware that you may ultimately have to justify creating the marker in court.

Passing the information to other organisations
From a legal point of view, the appropriate schedule 3 condition for processing mentioned earlier will not cover disclosing the marker information to other
organisations, as the condition relates to a legal obligation on the employer for their own staff, not other organisations’ staff. However, where there is a good
reason for providing the information to another organisation, for example, to alert them to the potential risk to their staff, this will be justified even though no
Schedule 3 condition obviously applies. In these cases, our focus is on whether the processing is justified and not unfair.

The senior nominated person in the organisation should determine this on a case-by-case basis where there is a credible risk that an unlawful act, such as an assault, will occur. They should only provide the information to an
individual of a similar level in the other organisation.
If you pass the information on to another organisation, you should inform the individual, unless that would be a serious risk to the person or another individual as described earlier. If you review the marker and decide to change
or remove it, you should then inform the other organisations you previously sent the information to.

Retention

The fifth data protection principle states that personal information should not be kept longer than necessary. You must make sure violent warning markers are removed when there is no longer a threat. This should be part of the
standard review procedure. The retention period is likely to depend in part on:

• the original level or threat of violence;
• how long ago this was;
• the previous and subsequent behaviour of the individual; and
Note 1
SI 2000 No. 413 ‘The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000’
SI 2005 No.467 ‘The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work)
(Amendment) Order 2005’

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cacheCheesylCf6Rx4cqEJ:www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/%3Fasset_id%3D8882059+potentially+violent+person+Data+Protection+Act&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiy2TlGr9etGwBeQE2i9Je0lCGW0Ca7IAzOq9322SNjzNohs35F8zxvCgvrKTxI4xcX8weSAnOrjKcKwEH4DjvaFc-N1hUSE_8Cw2BsYL8ka_g1IRBZo93GtYjBG_kK7NZcB_H0&sig=AHIEtbQfHgdY3aAZKY-JuhKj3WG0G1s1nA

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/480/Violentwarningmarkersusepublicsecto r.pdf

http://www.veterans-uk.info/pdfs/publications/guides/admin_guide/i_part9.pdf

http://www.kent.police.uk/About%20Kent%20Police/policies/n/N96E%20Management%20o f%20Potentially%20Dangerous%20Persons%20(PDPs).html

The crazy thing about the targeting that we get are that many of the tactics were used in Cointelpro and by the Stasi. However in retrospect the Stasi used citizen informants in similar ways.

March 4, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The List

The List

How do you get placed on a list?

There are a few ways.

*Someone reports you as a drug dealer, terrorist, pedophile, crazy. They report an incident. A community investigation is opened.

In a normal society this should go on for a few months and be over with, but in the case of Jiverly Wong, this went on for close to 20 years, and in the lives of many others it goes on for years as well, never ending, and it’s used to harass an innocent person.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2009/04/jiverly-wong/

*The workplace. Someone reports a violent incident. You create a harassment complaint, they decide that you are just delusional and decide that you might go violent. A report is filed.

I should add that based on what I have come across in the research, it seems as if workplaces and educational facilities are routinely using this as a retaliatory method. They use it to target people who file complaints. Most workers have no idea that such lists exist.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2007/03/leuren-moret/

[quote]My great-est gift was the discovery of my inner strength to be able to survive the retaliation, mobbing and harassment by the Livermore Lab, the University of California and the Oakland police department.[/quote]

[quote]
I learned that more than 500 women and minorities had filed lawsuits against the University of California and had then experienced retaliation by the University of California apparatus of mobbing by employees, alumni and law enforcement.1The lawsuits were for denial of tenure, whistleblower retaliation and theft of intel-lectual property. These women had similar complaints about the destruction of their own lives and careers. The information gathered by the University of California is used to takeyour life apart; to destroy all that makes you feel safe; to bankrupt, isolate and alienate you from society and from yourself; and to attempt to make you look crazy.
[/quote]

http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html

[quote]
Crosty and Murtagh don’t know each other. It is unlikely their worlds would ever intersect, but they have at least one thing in common. They both are victims of an increasingly popular employer weapon against whistleblowers: the psychiatric reprisal.

Across the United States, companies have seized upon concerns about workplace violence to quash dissent. Hundreds of large corporations have hired psychiatrists and psychologists as consultants to advise them on how to weed out “threatening” employees. They say they are only responding to a 1970 directive from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that they maintain a “safe and secure work environment.” But by drawing the definition of “threatening” as broadly as possible, they are giving themselves a new club to bang over the heads of workers.
[/quote]

This is not just happening in American workplaces either.

*Universities are also reporting people, and filing reports.

In the workplace and universities, from what I have seen quite a few outspoken females are getting targeted. Minorities, and other single individuals. Men that are smart outspoken, and ofcourse the whistle-blowers. Many I  assume who are not aware of the system that is currently in place. If this is the case could informants be specifically targeting non informants for harassment, or using this program specifically to weed out from the universities, and workplaces, the outspoken, radicals, whistle-blowers, non compliant?

From previous research I know that colleges and universities have been infiltrated with these types of agents, along with the normal citizen informants. Could some be working an alternative agenda?

http://www.spying101.com/

[quote]Spying 101: The RCMP’s Secret Activities at Canadian Universities, 1917-1997

If you attended a Canadian university in the past eighty years, it’s possible that, unbeknownst to you, Canadian security agents were surveying you, your fellow students, and your professors for ‘subversive’ tendencies and behaviour. Since the end of the First World War, members of the RCMP have infiltrated the campuses of Canada’s universities and colleges to spy, meet informants, gather information, and on occasion, to attend classes. Why they were there is the subject of a new book by Steve Hewitt.[/quote]

A lot of the targeting starts with mobbing, harassment, the target tries to file a complaint, get’s targeted more. Maybe they say something, lash out, or just seem angry due to the mobbing. This system is being used unfairly, just like we saw with some zero tolerance programs, that were used to specifically target minority children.

http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/articleprint12/02_BLACK-FOCUSED_SCHOOL_GOES_AHEAD_IN_TORONTO.html

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/201456

[quote]While critics are holding their applause until they see the changes, the move is being hailed by some who say the Safe Schools Act unfairly targets black youth and drives them into gangs.[/quote]

Most of the targets seem to come from these three areas. Workplace, Educational outlets, and the community.

In Canada and the U.S. they have workplace safety and standards guidelines that are similar to what is in place in the U.K. Similar reporting systems to what the U.K. has in place.

As we saw in the Jane Clift case, once on a list, your name pops up if you call the police, ambulance, doctors, ect. Employers, Landlords and a variety of others are given similar information about you.

In the U.K. this marker can be something that the victim is make aware of, but in other instances they are not.

In the U.K. this is being abused. Jane Clift being one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195399/Woman-branded-potentially-violent-council-complaining-damaged-flowerbed.html

[quote]Mrs Clift added: ‘What is terrifying is that there is almost no proof required and no hearing to determine the truth of the allegation. It could happen to anybody who gets into even the most minor disagreement with their council.’

[/quote]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193210/Woman-sues-libel-council-labelled-potentially-violent-complaining-vandalised-flowerbed.html

[quote]
She said that after the council acted, she sensed that everywhere she went, there was ‘whispering, collaboration, people scurrying about’.

‘One time I went to the contraceptive clinic and I felt that there were way too many people hovering about for me than should have been there, making me feel very insecure.

‘It did serve as a reminder that 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’.’
[/quote]

Canada and the U.S. have similar lists, that employers, schools must report.

Most communities as shown before have networks of informants. These informant networks are working with other community programs.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9711b/policing.html

“Ruling the community with an iron fist. “Savvy law enforcement types realized that under the community policing rubric, cops, community groups, local companies, private foundations, citizen informants and federal agencies could form alliances without causing public outcry.” Covert Action Quarterly, summer 1997.”

blog.aclu.org/2009/04/30/mass-con-fusion/#more-5320

“You mean to tell me that it is legal for corporations from the private sector to team up with local law enforcement officials in efforts to spy on innocent members of our society? You also mean to tell me that the synthesis of law enforcement authority and the drive of for-profit companies operate under little to no guidelines or restrictions and it is unclear to whom they are responsible to?”

In addition to these newly formed alliances, as the ACLU has pointed out, they are opening spying on innocent members of our society.

Informants due to various police initiatives are in every community.

So these networks operate and are in place, using the one handed sign language. The informants then feel empowered, they patrol the neighborhoods, and other areas. Since these networks are already in place, it is therefore not necessary to hire hundreds of people to follow one person, they just go about their regular patrols, and once a target enters their place of employment, business, community, or other location, the citizens are place on alert.

To the target it seems as if hundreds of people have been hired to follow just them, but the reality is, this informant network is and has been in place, and once you are on the radar, they just shift attention to you.

Eg. In Stasi Germany a large part of the state was devoted to spying, if the state added one more target, they did not need to hire hundreds of people, the network is already in place.

This can be done with phone calls, I have seen this happen, the community you are in is alerted that a pedophile, mentally disturbed person, drug dealer is in their area. They get phone calls as you pass through the area, thus some will go stand out on the porch to be visual look out, report back what you are doing.

The foot patrols alert the business, thus why we are followed into stores, they use the one handed sign language, maybe stay to see if there is an incident they can make themselves useful for and report. In other cases, they are around to create an incident, and report that.

Keep in mind that the very concept of being monitored and under this kind of surveillance 24/7 is enough to make any sane person act out. Add to this that the informants are told to circle you, sit near to you, follow you, and they don’t try to do it very subtly, a target is bound to notice.

Somewhere along the lines our societies were taken over. We helped. Without firing a bullet, or invasion, these countries have become what East Germany and other countries were.

The gaslighting of targets is illegal. Yet in WWII we saw a government create over 500 ways to mess with Nazi sympathizers. Similar tactics were used under VIK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/19/military.secondworldwar

[quote]BSC invented a game called “Vik”, described as “a fascinating new pastime for lovers of democracy”. Printed booklets described up to 500 ways of harassing and annoying Nazi sympathisers. Players of Vik were encouraged to ring up their targets at all hours of the night and hang up. Dead rats could be put in water tanks, air could be let out of the subject’s car tyres, anonymous deliveries could be made to his house and so on.[/quote]

If they had a game that consisted of 500 ways to harass and annoy, people then, what do you think they have now. Remember this game was invented by a UK government branch, to be used against innocent Americans.

The police, firefighters, community members are all in on it. Just like Nazi Germany, they have this false sense of community, that they are doing something good. Yeah we got that crazy drug dealer out of town. We protected our community. In reality you drove someone like Jiverly Wong to the point that the was capable of mass murdering lot’s of people. Yeah you, don’t you feel good about yourselves?

These programs are not all bad, back in the day, that is what you did. If a pedophile was in town, you took some community action to get rid of the pervert, and never gave it a second thought you were protect yours, and that was that.

It’s a not in my back yard mentality. Even if you move you are still flagged, so the same thing starts again. If each area is set up like this, which many are due to community Policing, and agenda 21, then we will see more of this in the future.

http://www.nikiraapana.com/community_activism.html

[quote]
What is alternative community activism?

When I first started going to my American neighborhood “meetings” I was a complete novice in Soviet style bureaucracy. I was confused and unsure about what was going on. I began by asking simple questions about the terms the leaders were using to descibe their “vision.” This opened Pandora’s Box, literally, because much to my suprise and dismay, my Seattle government representatives did not know what their terms meant either!

I was absolutely floored to find out somebody, somewhere had come up with this bizarre idea that a few of my neighbors should partner with the Pentagon, the KGB and the Mossad, and together they would form neighborhood policing “task teams.” These new neighborhood committees, led by “new” Community Policing Officers trained in communitarianism, were empowered to rewrite Seattle Municipal Code. They claimed revisions to the law were necessary to “balance” our constitutional rights against the “health and safety” of the community. Yet, these “experts” couldn’t tell me the definition for any of their terms, and couldn’t tell me where these new ideas had originated. It took me a year of intensive research to find their source: Dr. Amitai Etzioni.
[/quote]

Though this might be still happening in some cases, the targets I come across are innocent. The lack of oversight of these programs, means that it’s being used to destroy innocent lives. The citizen informants never give it a second thought. Many never see the dirty under handed, smoke and mirrors used to set up targets to make them look crazy, like drug dealers, or pedophiles. They just unquestioningly believe what they are told.

I come across a lot of Woman that are single where this is being used to shut them up, rape them in other cases, and drive them to suicide or mental institutions in other.

I hear cases of abusive ex’s that got someone targeted. If you know how the system works you can manipulate it.

I come across minorities, who feel this is being used to target them. Lot’s of minority men and women.

I also come across whistle blowers. This is being used to target them.

The staged incidents and gaslighting are illegal, but since it’s crazies, pedophiles, drug dealers, who is going to believe them? The moment you call the cops too often, they also flag people. So it feels like you against the world literally. You know you are being harassed and followed, but most lawyers will not help, just like when McCarthyism was happening. The ACLU will not help. These programs do have a specific degree of secrecy, but not so that they outweigh the rule of law and justice.

Again this system is being used across the board, so I have come across people with extreme views, conspiracy views,  where this was used. Anyone outspoken, who is not following the status quo, this can be used against. Just like it was in Russia.

I think legal is the best way to go.

Use the U.K. example, find a lawyer who will confirm that there is such a list in your area, and then try to find the procedure if you are on such a list for getting off. The woman in the U.K. spent four years, clearing her name, and that was with proof that she was on a list. Most don’t have such proof.

Remember each area does it’s own thing, each person feels individually empowered to monitor the target the way they see fit. In many cases this includes electronic monitoring/harassment.

In addition to that, these people try to play James Bond, and in addition to innocent citizens who are just trying to do a good job, and protect their communities from being taken over by bad elements, you also have complete morons, and psychopaths in others cases, who are given access to innocent individuals who in most cases have no idea what is going on.

Pushing for legislation that makes it mandatory to alert people that they are on such lists might help in some cases. This is close enough, that legally we should be looking into this channel.

Remember the ACLU has confirmed investigations of innocent individuals are happening. In the U.K. they have exposed how the anti-terror laws are being abused, to include full investigation of individuals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/feb/01/ripa-act-surveillance-authorities

[quote]A freedom of information request by the Lancashire Evening Post has found that applications made by Lancashire county council under Ripa laws targeted cleaners who failed to show up for work and a care assistant who claimed too much on travel expenses. “A person in Chorley thought to be selling counterfeit goods via eBay, people pursuing false personal injury claims, and a retailer selling furniture not up to fire safety standards were among those investigated using powers granted under the act,” the paper reported.

In last year’s annual report, the surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, raised concerns about direct surveillance such as the bugging of public places, taking photographs of suspects and the use of covert human intelligence such as informants and undercover agents. Of course this has always been part of police investigation into serious crime, but it is frightening to see these tactics routinely deployed in trivial circumstances.

His fears came to mind when I read a quote in the LEP from Jim Potts, a trading standards officer, who said: “We have simply recorded that a member of staff has seen another member of staff do something at work, in the way that managers can and do every day.” How easily that trips from Potts’s lips, but what of course he is unwittingly justifying is the informant society. In Staffordshire a FoI request made of the police by the Express and Star newspaper found that terror laws were being used to monitor drug dealers, people suspected of sex crimes, burglars and thieves. In 10 cases police tracked people suspected of minor public order offences.[/quote]

Many of our citizen informants that we encounter on the road, just think they are part of some great powerful network keeping dangerous people at bay. Then there are those who know the real game, those who set up targets. Also just like Germany, you have informants who bait targets, so they can act out. If they do it’s another marker, or jail, or a mental hospital, maybe even death. Remember the more crazy people, drug dealers, pedophiles, terrorists, the more funding, the bigger the network.

Employees and others have been using this practice for years, to destroy lives. Woman, minorities, whistle-blowers seem to be prime targets, but it’s not limited to them. If you read Leuren Mowet’s story, she knew 500 people, who had similar investigations opened on them, which was used to systemically destroy their lives.

If you look at the article make a stink see a shrink you will see that psychiatric reprisals is being heavily used in democratic countries.

If you visit the site Psychologist Ethics, you will see that psychiatrists were even willing to try to have one of their own declared as crazy, just because she blew the whistle.

http://www.PsychologistEthics.net
http://gangstalkingworld.com/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1205028541

[quote]MORE ABOUT POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY § ^
When one imagines using mental health professionals to target undesirable individuals, one almost always thinks of totalitarian governments such as the former USSR, China, and Cuba. There is a long and ugly precedent of using mental health professionals in those societies to target politically undesirable people and have them placed in mental institutions involuntarily. Human rights groups refer to this practice as “political psychiatry.”

Victims of political psychiatry are usually people who have filed grievances or complaints against employers or officials, or are union organizers, people who have publicly criticized officials, members of minority religions, and whistle-blowers.[/quote]

But this is now happening in democratic countries.

[quote]CASES OF POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY § ^
Southern Illinois University and the American Psychological Association (APA)

A Canadian Police Department and the Canadian College of Psychologists

Lisa Blakemore-Brown and the British Psychological Society (BPS) [/quote]

[quote]In this case, the psychologist made an unsubstantiated assessment of the faculty member based solely on what the faculty member’s “enemies” had said about her. The psychologist made no effort to verify any of the rumors she had heard and instead wrote them as fact in her reports and made recommendations based on them. As part of the counseling and conflict resolution process, the psychologist also carried on e-mail communication with the faculty member but forwarded this communication to the university’s administration without the faculty member’s knowledge or permission. The psychologist never told the faculty member that there would be any limits to confidentiality nor did she tell her what process she would be following or that she would be writing reports to the administration. Obviously, if there had been any legitimacy to the psychologist’s conclusions and report, the matter would have been handled privately and compassionately by the university’s human resources staff.[/quote]

http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/01/lisa-blakemore-brown-colleagues-weigh.html

In the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown the damage could have been far worst had not some bloggers picked up on what was happening.

[quote]Dr Rita Pal has weighed-in on the scandal of Lisa Blakemore Brown and the British Psychological Society (backstory here and here). Dr Pal has become an expert on the bullying of individuals by professional regulatory bodies through the abuse of mental health diagnosis after she was subjected to a campaign of intimidation by the General Medical Council [Link to court judgment]. The concerns that Dr Pal raised that led to her abuse (about patient maltreatment in a Midlands hospital – Link) have not to this date been properly addressed. She subsequently brought proceedings against the GMC, leading to a landmark judgment in which the GMC was described as a totalitarian regime by Judge Charles Harris – “Anybody who criticises it is said to be prima facie mentally ill – what used to happen in Russia”.[/quote]

The system is now routinely being used to destroy enemies of the state, people with views and opinions that the state does not like and the destruction of these innocent lives are being done with the help in many cases of other unwitting citizens.

Years of research have been spent trying to expose these systemic misconducts. Others have noticed them in their areas of research, some noting that the best and brightest are beint targeted, and still nothing gets done.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1205738832/0

I still believe that awareness and exposure are still key, in getting what is happening exposed. I do think when targets can afford to do so they should see legal help, but in order to do so, they have to have an idea of what is being used against them.

March 3, 2010 Posted by | Citizen Informants, Community harassment, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, harassment, Informants, Minorities | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Radical

So when did I become a radical? LOL.

I have been thinking about this for the last few days. When I am not being termed Conspiracy theorist, Extremist, or Crazy, I guess radical is that nice safe middle ground that some like to use.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6443988&page=1

I don’t personally like terms, cause I don’t like to be boxed in like that. I don’t think I fit any one category, my activism is not extremist, some of the sources I have referenced in the past include: Loyola Law professor Alexandra Natapoff and her research into the informant system. I have referenced the ACLU in my research and their confirmation that investigations of innocent people are happening. I have also referenced people like Nikki Rappana in regards to the communitarian system and agenda 21. So my research is not extremist.


http://www.nikiraapana.com
http://www.blog.aclu.org/2009/04/30/mass-con-fusion

Is it conspiracy research?

Groups of people being followed around by informants? People doing little things to make them look crazy, or despicable? It sounds conspiracy at first, but if you read the research, I consistently back up what I say. Wither it’s reporting on the violent persons registry, or discussing how people are having full scale anti-terror investigations opened up on them for simple things like missing work, or for living in the wrong community. So I am not a conspiracy theorist in that regards, cause I do back up the research, and show cases, that are similar or near exact to some of the things that Targets report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195399/Woman-branded-potentially-violent-council-complaining-damaged-flowerbed.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/feb/01/ripa-act-surveillance-authorities

I have even shown that in the past, governments have used citizens to gaslight, or specifically target others to hasten an agenda. Using a program called VIK the U.K. government used Americans to target other Americans. They came up with over 500 ways to mess with targets. This again was a government initiative. So much of what I have discussed has been done, via other programs. This is without me discussing Cointelpro, McCarthyism, Stasi, etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/19/military.secondworldwar

I am just crazy/Skizo then? I mean how can I believe that I am being targeted in this way right? Well I believe it cause it’s true. I can back up information with the research online, and sources at times have given bit’s of information here and there. I am not crazy, I am not skizo. Yet I have it on good authority that without me ever having seen a psychiatrist in any capacity, remotely I have been deemed a danger or crazy. Much of this label comes from me standing up to workplace mobbing, which was deliberate and very targeted. Much of the extreme stuff that was reported came later, after I dared to challenge this system.

http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html

So after all those terms, the latest is Radical. When did I become a radical? I don’t agree with the term, cause I guess radical always put me in mind of the Black Panthers. I grew up thinking that they were anti-government trouble makers, who hated cops. This was such a misconception, I am now ashamed that this was how I veiwed them. This however is the picture that society painted of them.

The reality is that the panthers were kids. When they organized they were 17 and up, most in their teens and early 20’s. They also did not organize cause they hated police, they organized because they hated what was being done to them, and people like them in their community. Their goals were not to become anti-government extremists, no. A large part of what they did were things like free breakfast program for their community, and all these other good acts of kindness, but they were exterminated, demonized, and that is what I guess you could say radicalized them.

I guess they were radicals, but not cause they wanted to be, but because they were made to be.

So back to me. I spent the last few days thinking about this, cause I wanted to give a good answer. Like most I grew up believing the government was good, society was great. I wanted all the normal material things. I believe I lived in one of the best countries, and then cities on the planet. My life goals were simple, I wanted to find my mate, get married, and contribute to society. Simple goals, straight forward agenda, and then that changed.

I first noticed the targeting via workplace mobbing, this goes back at least a decade, and was part of the worst time in my life. The first time that I decided to try to take action it was hell, and it really shook me to the core. It was horrible that people could treat others in such a way, and yet most of the mobbing was subtle, proving it was a joke, and finally I left that job. The problem was it did not stop, at the next job the same mobbing scenario. But how? I mean it’s not as if people could communicate via some sort of network or something. Initially I just thought it was rumors traveling, you run into the odd person, who knows such and such and it goes from there. That’s what I initially thought, I know different now.

The next time the mobbing started, I was going to take a stand, and file a suit if it needed that. My employers did not stop the mobbing, I went through all the standard channels, a mistake in retrospect, they did not take the complaints seriously. Unknown to me they were using the complaints to paint me as delusional, but I was being mobbed, daily.

I finally took action outside of thee workplace and thus the wonderful world of Gang Stalking began. But I didn’t know about Gang Stalking then, but I did clue into the fact that my conversations with Lawyers were making it back to my place of employment. There was some kind of surveillance in my apartment, and yes I was being followed on the streets.

While this was going on, I had grown stronger, even if I could not win my complaint against my employer, “which I eventually just dropped due to the Gang Stalking harassment, and being tortured in my home”, at least I could help others. I could have gone forward with my case, but there was collusion, and it was happening in high places, and this made no sense. Since that time it makes perfect sense. Others have noted the same things. The patterns I had experienced were identical to many online. The perpetrators of the mobbing getting promotions, the fact that my information was out there, and an obvious interference pattern. However though until I came across the Gang Stalking information, the details about surveillance, that I had noticed, the seeming participation of people close to me, none of that made sense, then some of the pieces of the puzzles fell into place.

http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/WorkplaceHarassmentandViolencereport.pdf

http://www.bullyonline.org/action/obstruct.htm

At that stage I was still just looking for a quick fix. I realized it was retaliation from my employer, but the surveillance network made no sense, how could so many people be taking part. See they are informants, and as you move through town, through their sections of the community, stores, etc, they are given little alerts about you. You are followed into stores, and hand signals are silently communicated, all this turned up via the research.

Your whole circle of family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc are contacted. Apparently you never have to be evaluated by a professional to be deemed as crazy. And why would an employer, or other nemesis that is trying to shut someone up, not be tempted to paint that person as crazy?

From what I have read, many people feel that family and friends really let them down in these cases. To be fair, if you are contacted by an official that your family or close friend could be a danger, threat, pedophile, etc. Most people would be tempted to co-operate believing that they would have a fair investigation, and not co-ordinated, underhanded, systemic destruction.  Some might even give destructive testimony, unwittingly or deliberately damaging that person in question.

The research. Let’s talk about that. I was never anti-government, but the research turned up some surprising things. Not only that this is systemic. This happens in many democratic countries, but this is happening to bright, intelligent people. Many are being systemically eliminated. That is a conspiracy. Be it workplace mobbing, which can lead to reports of Gang Stalking, people were being unfairly picked on, targeted, and eliminated. When I say eliminated I mean, driven to suicide, put in jail, falsely labeled as crazy, and locked away. Others were being provoked on the street, and much like the Nazi’s did to Jewish people, provoked and then when they lashed out put in jail. Others were getting into fatal accidents, many were deliberately being made systemically poor, having our life dreams and goals wiped away. That was bad enough, but in many cases, cause a lot of us live alone, our women were getting sexually assaulted. People like Ramona Lopez were raped. Jesus Mendoza documented how he had to watch his little girl get tortured, how he had to watch her scream at night, be burnt in her bed, and as a parent not be able to do anything, cause of what they were doing.

http://www.indigoribbon.com/Quilt/

I read about Leuren Moret a whistle-blower and her experience with Livermoor Labs. She stated that in addition to her, there were about 500 other women and minorities that she was aware of who were also targets of the university. They also had their lives systemically destroyed the same way that she did. Again one more story that shed light on this being a systemic policy for dealing with those who do not all in line, who do not follow the status quo.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2007/03/leuren-moret/

[quote]500 women and minorities had filed lawsuits against the University of California and had then experienced retaliation by the University of California apparatus of mobbing by employees, alumni and law enforcement.1The lawsuits were for denial of tenure, whistleblower retaliation and theft of intel-lectual property. These women had similar complaints about the destruction of their own lives and careers. The information gathered by the University of California is used to takeyour life apart; to destroy all that makes you feel safe; to bankrupt, isolate and alienate you from society and from yourself; and to attempt to make you look crazy.[/quote]

This was not only systemic, but it had in many cases proven to be mulit-generational. Meaning if you stand up to the system, and you have kids, those kids have a good chance of being targeted. I also read about Jeremy Blake and his lady, and their golden suicides, which I also don’t quite believe. I realized again just what this system is truly capable of, and why it must be changed, or stopped. It’s not right, it’s malignant for many, but many others protect it, give their allegiance to it, and would gladly fight for it.

With story after story, after story, after story, I saw a picture as brutal as any other oppression, as needful of exposure, and something that was hard, or going to be almost near impossible to prove. I realized we were up up against a system, and that system was not some shadow group. It was not vigilantes, it was not extremists, it was our own governments, and this system that has been set up. It’s not that different than what was done in Russia to many, or even the former East Germany. In America those who saw McCarthyism, or even Cointelpro up close should have no trouble believing it, and yet many ignore this.

Outside of Gang Stalking, I researched many other topics, Pedophile rings, Senator DeCamp and the amazing work he did trying to expose a pedophile ring, and the fate of those victims. Senator DeCamp also realized that he was up against a system, and he rightfully wondered if that system had become too corrupt. I read about Gary Webb, and his wonderful reporting, that got him demoted in his job till he had to quit, how he was found with a bullet to the head, yet another suicide, which I don’t believe for a moment. I read about the fate of the victims of the CIA drug smuggling. How they were silenced and dropped the lawsuit. I read about the fate of the African American female lawyer who tried to take on the CIA. Anita Belle lost everything. Her home, her career, he country, he livelihood. She tried to stand up to the system and it attacked.

http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/franklincoverupexcerpt.shtml

http://www.whale.to/b/webb_gary_h.html

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2007/01/anita-e-belle/

I read about how Journalists who get too close to the truth, how they are also often systemically attacked via the buzzsaw, how their careers are ruined, how they are made to look either crazy, or like they don’t know what they are talking about.

http://www.freedomofthepress.net/intothebuzzsaw.htm

All along the cyber collective consciousness, I found proof of what I was talking about. There is a system in place, that keeps everything in place, that system is corrupt and needs fixing. That system is protected, very powerful, but very evil. That system is being run by governments, their security forces. Do I believe every politician is evil? Heck no. De hamp, people like Cynthia McKinney and others have come up against this before, there are many out there who really don’t realize that their is a problem. If they do become aware, they would rather believe that evil forces have taken over the government, or that we can work within the system to fix it.

I don’t care what you believe, my job right now is doing what I have always done when I see a problem or a system of injustice. I try to make a difference. I am trying to help fix it. I am making people aware. I have been like this my entire life. I am fairly sure it’s who I have always been meant to be, and who I will always be.

So when did I become a radical? If you must call me this, and I hate labels, then I guess I have always been this way, I have been this way my entire life. If I see injustice, I try to stand up to it, expose it, make a slight difference if I can. If I see a bully I will try to stand up to them, to the best of my ability.

So let me throw this question back out there to you all. Why are you not a radical? Do you not believe that there is a problem? A conspiracy? Do you feel powerless? Why are you not out there telling the truth, cause at the end of the day, that is all that I am doing. I am telling the truth, and just trying to expose a system that has become terribly corrupt. A system that truly needs fixing. So if you see me as a radical, and not yourself, then ask yourself this. Why are you not a radical?

March 1, 2010 Posted by | Bullying, buzzsaw, Citizen Informants, Civilian Spies, Cointelpro, Community harassment, community mobbing, Conspiracy, Controlled society, crazy, Electronic harassment, Gang Stalking, harassment, Indigo Ribbon, Informants, Insane, Laws, Minorities, mobbing, one handed signals, psychological harassment, society, Stalking, Surveillence | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment