1) Policing Activists by Mitzi Waltz
NOTES
1. Kevin Jack Riley and Bruce Hoffman, Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Preparedness (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1995).
2. ibid.
3. Frank Donner, The Age of Surveillance (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980), p. 128.
4. Community Policing Consortium, “Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action,” Bureau of Justice Assistance, Aug. 1994; available in electronic form
5. John Dermaut, “Disturbing `Deja Entendu’ and Deja Vu,” available in electronic form
Like a vampire who has developed a tolerance for garlic, Red Squads are back.
Throughout the Cold War, these guardians of political compliance spied on and harassed law-abiding activists who veered too far left of the political center. Dedicated civil rights advocates and others fought back and won on local, state, and federal fronts. But their success was often short-lived. New technologies; new laws; and increased interaction among international, federal, military, state, and local law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and private corporations are threatening not only to put Red Squads back in business nationwide, but to increase the scope of their power to pry, to harm, and to imprison.
With the “International Communist Conspiracy” gone, Red Squads need a new raison d’etre. Studies by RAND the Heritage Foundation, and several private companies in the security industry have provided proponents of the Surveillance State with both a rationale and a blueprint for action. First, these groups have presented research to the law enforcement community documenting that the public can be frightened by the specter of terrorism into accepting and even calling for increased spying.[1] Second, after studying anti-terrorist measures from around the world, they have decided that multi-jurisdictional taskforces offer the best way to circumvent civilian oversight. For example, the RAND report Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Preparedness, explicitly touts taskforce participation as a way to get around local laws restricting political intelligence work, and also promotes taskforces as a mechanism for putting such operations on the local and state agenda by providing funding, equipment, publicity, and other inducements. And as we shall see, in cities where it operates counterterrorism taskforces, the FBI pressures local police to ditch limits on political spying.
The taskforce concept and the cooperation it engenders between local and federal agencies, has another benefit, according to this report: It allows federal agencies to obtain information on a broad range of activities that do not fall under the current legal definition of “terrorism,” but that are of political interest. That’s because local police are much more responsive to demands from large corporations and influential organizations. These groups often have significant influence over political or budgetary matters in the local arena and are not loath to use their clout to discipline “uncooperative” police. The RAND study reports that local police will generally share freely what they gather with higher-level agencies.[2]
This back-scratching is not a new practice: A 1976 General Accounting Office report about FBI investigative protocol noted that local and state police were the bureau’s second most prolific source of information, surpassed only by its own informants.[3] In fact, in these days of grant-based “entrepreneurial” law-enforcement funding, the locals had better cooperate: Their budgets may depend on federal grants based on performing particular types of policing.
The taskforce trend began with the post-riot commissions of the late 1960s and early 1970s. As an official Department of Justice (DoJ) history of community policing puts it, “The police force’s inability to handle urban unrest in an effective and appropriate manner brought demands by civic leaders and politicians for a reexamination of police practices.”[4]
The 1967 Kerner Commission and 1968 Eisenhower Commission focused on the growing divide between police and “civilians” as it was angrily expressed in the Watts riot and other uprisings. The recommendations of these bodies touted police-community dialogue as the key to curbing such unrest, expressing the hope that federal oversight could end abuse of protesters and minorities by “rogue cops.” This goal was the foundation for community policing as we know it today. Later commissions that concentrated on reducing street crime looked to federal agencies to improve training and equipment in local law enforcement.
Although community policing has not been as successful in curbing street crime as its proponents might have hoped, it has been a public relations success and enjoys the support of many well-intentioned liberals. But heirs to the Red Squads have found it an excellent mechanism as well. 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. Riding on fears from the trumped-up missing children campaign of the 1980s to the anti-drug hysteria of the 1990s community policing has been the public face of under-the-radar efforts to create an impenetrable web of surveillance and enforcement.
And not surprisingly in this age of globalization, the taskforce concept benefits from international support as well. Several anti-terrorism summits held by the G-7 nations since 1984 have advocated building strong national and international multi-agency taskforces, based on the models set up in Germany and the UK.[5]
6. Gerald P. Lynch, statement on behalf of RISS before the House Appropriations Committee, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, Federal News Service, April 17, 1996.
7. In 1993, a former police officer in the employ of B’nai B’rith (ADL) was discovered to have collected numerous on left- and right-wing targets on behalf of that organization, and also for foreign governments, including South Africa. Confidential San Francisco police files were among the items found in his possession.
8. Department of Justice, “Final Revision to the Office of Justice Programs, Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies,” Sept. 16, 1993.
9. Ibid.
FINISHING THE JOB
The original political objectives of community policing were not fully addressed until the current decade, as Watergate and the COINTELPRO revelations of the 1970s briefly turned federal intelligence agencies into political hot potatoes. But collective memory is short. In step with RAND’s 1992 and 1995 recommendations, regional taskforces that directly address political and social activism are now proliferating, and existing systems have been strengthened. The previously missing ingredients appropriate technologies and a legal framework for cooperation are now falling into place.
For example, the Department of Justice’s Regional Information Sharing Systems Program (RISS) includes six regional data- and equipment-sharing projects and has more than quadrupled the number of participating agencies since 1982. Most of this growth has occurred since 1990. From 1993-95 alone, RISS had a 47 percent increase in the number of database inquiries; just last year, it achieved full electronic connectivity among the centers. Each regional RISS project coordinates the intelligence efforts of hundreds of municipal, county,state, and federal agencies, as well as several Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and US intelligence operatives in Mexico. Funding for these centers and grants for member agencies are administered through the Bureau of Justice Assistance program.[6]
Officially, RISS projects concentrate on drug and organized crime activities, but since Criminal Intelligence units are used in many jurisdictions to surveil political suspects as well, their personnel also have access to information that RISS systems store. RISS documents and regulations make it clear that its databases are used to exchange data about politically-motivated crimes. This phenomenon was particularly obvious in a set of guidelines passed by the DoJ in late 1993 to curb abuses of criminal intelligence data banks in such cases, presumably at least in part owing to the Anti Defamation League (ADL) intelligence scandal earlier that year.[7] The rules included barring data gathered in violation of local, state or federal law; mandating security measures and penalties for unauthorized dissemination of data; and prohibiting the sharing of data on lawful political activity through taskforce databases.[8]
It is uncertain whether the limits set in these regulations have been carefully observed. When sent to taskforce members, the DoJ ruling was accompanied by detailed responses to objections received from participating local police agencies. These responses appeared to serve as advice for circumventing the new rules. They helpfully note, for example, that off-site databases under private control might be used to store data, such as field interrogation records, that don’t meet DoJ criteria.[9]
10. Seth Rosenfeld, “FBI Wants S.F. Cops to Join Spy Squad,” San Francisco Examiner, Jan. 12, 1997, p. A1.
11. Jim Herron Zamora, “S.F. Cops Say No to FBI Spy Unit,” San Francisco Examiner, Jan. 16, 1997, p. A7.
12. Peter F. Episcopo and Darrin L. Moor, “Focus on Information Resources: The Violent Gang and Terrorism File,” Law Enforcement Bulletin, Oct. 1996.
13. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “What is NCIC 2000?” NCIC 2000, v. 1, n. 1, Feb. 15, 1996.
ANTI-TERRORISM IN ACTION
The growth of taskforces has been fueled by fears of terrorism with the FBI piling on tinder from its central position in counterterrorism activities nationwide. The Bureau has quietly set up 14 counterterrorism task forces in major US cities: Boston, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles.[10] The centers recruit officers on urban police forces to work directly with the FBI. They are funded in part by the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, which authorized $468 million for the FBI’s counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts.
Until an FBI proposal to add a new center in San Francisco sparked a public fight, the program was almost completely unknown outside the Bureau. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown opposed the center’s establishment, saying that he would “not go along with or support any attempt to circumvent San Francisco’s current policy on surveillance.”[11] As a result of activist pressure and repeated scandals involving political spying, including the ADL case, San Francisco police regulations outlaw surveillance of lawful political activities.
While FBI activities that become public are subject to citizen pressure, the agency’s internal operations rarely see sunshine. The recent revelations about mishandling and manufacturing of evidence at the FBI’s crime lab the first whistleblowing in years to break the code of silence hint at the extent of the problems. Like the labs, which operated for decades without safeguards, the FBI’s internal databases conceal abuses. And since they are not subject to the DoJ regulations or oversight, no one can assess how much erroneous or illegally gathered information they contain.
What is apparent is that both the FBI’s internal and external political intelligence systems are extensive: Its Terrorist Information System contains data on more than 200,000 individuals and 3,000 groups, institutions and businesses. It is cross-referenced with criminal records; interview and surveillance transcripts; information on associates, contacts, victims and witnesses related to people in the database; plus financial, telephone, and other data if collected or obtained from other sources, such as the DoJ’s FinCEN databases, which are used to track and analyze financial data linked to criminal suspects.[12]
Moreover, the National Crime Information Center 2000 (NCIC 2000) project now under way will extend the process of linking FBI information with other database systems.[13]
14. Interview, Feb. 1995
15. Mitzi Waltz, “Theodore Kaczynski and the Plot to Smear the Left,” PDXS (Portland, Ore.), May 9, 1996.
16. Ibid.; and Capt. Gary A. Allgeyer; “Social Protests in the 1990s: Planning a Response,” Law Enforcement Bulletin, Jan. 1996.
17. David B. Kopel, testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, May 24, 1995.
18. The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security’s new airport procedures allow security guards to detain and interrogate passengers who meet “terrorist profiles” based on information collected in a special database to be prepared for this purpose, including the subject’s airport behavior and appearance, criminal and credit history, and travel itinerary. For more information, see Rory J. O’Connor, “Privacy Groups Outraged at Anti-Terrorism Plan to Screen Airline Passengers,” San Jose Mercury, Sept. 6, 1996
19. For information on government targeting of activists, see: Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States (Boston: South End Press, 1990); for information on improper evidence handling and possible evidence falsification at the FBI forensics lab, see: Elaine Shannon, “The Gang that Couldn’t Examine Straight,” Time, April 28, 1997.
THE “GIGO” FACTOR
One reason these intelligence networks are dangerous is that they have insufficient safeguards for assuring the accuracy of information gathered. Despite the availability of high-tech tools, criminal intelligence officers and counterterrorism investigators increasingly rely on so-called Confidential Reliable Informants. In drug cases, CRIs tend to be motivated by money, personal animus, or promises of leniency for their own offenses.
One need only look at the recent case involving Qubilah Shabazz and Michael Fitzpatrick to see what can happen when financial incentives and political motivation drive federal investigations. Fitzpatrick, a freelance informer with an expensive drug habit and a long history of spying for cash, attempted to coerce Shabazz (the daughter of Malcolm X and a former high school classmate of Fitzpatrick’s) into supporting an assassination attempt on Louis Farrakhan.Presenting himself as a suitor and playing on Shabazz’s belief that Farrakhan was complicit in her father’s assassination, Fitzpatrick had his FBI handlers tape their motel room conversations.
Fitzpatrick “never worried about his own illegal conduct, because quite correctly he thought that no matter what he did, he would be able to get off by ensnaring somebody else,” said Shabazz’s defense attorney Ronald Kuby. Letting “a small-time dirtbag” like Fitzpatrick create and then sell an entrapment scheme to the FBI, Kuby said, “resulted in humiliation and a serious threat of imprisonment for the innocent target, and increased paranoia among those activists whose paths have crossed with Fitzpatrick’s.”[14]
Unlike drug snitches, political CRIs sometimes serve private clients as well as the police, collecting cash from political opponents of the groups on which they spy.[15] Many organizations also field private investigators who then share the (frequently dubious) information they have collected with law enforcement.[16] Regardless of who pays the bills, one result of private intelligence operations can be an increase in agent provocateur activity, as paid informants and private security operatives attempt to justify their paychecks. In any case, whether public or private, whether snitching about drugs, politics or immigration, Confidential Reliable Informants are often anything but reliable.[17] As computer programmers say, GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. In the case of number-crunching computer operations, the result is bad data; in the case of files on human beings, “garbage in” could literally mean an unjust deportation, long jail term, or death sentence under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act.
Another potentially dangerous application of the GIGO principle is provided by the Clinton administration’s October 1996 airline rules. They include passenger “profiling” and movement-tracking via databases, and could easily lead to airport detentions, missed flights, and false arrests.[18] Considering the US government’s history of harassment and even murder of activists and the recent revelations about the FBI lab, the easy retrieval of dubious data takes on a very sinister cast for those with long memories.[19]
20. Rome Laboratory Law Enforcement Technology Team, “The New Horizon: Transferring Defense Technology to Law Enforcement,” Law Enforcement Bulletin, April 1996. Operated through NIJ, the transfer program makes links between military tech — or more accurately, military contractors and military-technology researchers at the federal labs — and civilian-sector law enforcement.
21. Ibid.
22. Ben N. Venzke, IWR Daily Update, IWR-Washington, Dec. 22, 1996.
23. William A Bayse, “Security Capabilities, Privacy & Integrity” (remarks at The First Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy on March 27, 1991), IEEE Computer Science Press, 1991.
24. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Sprint to 96,” Nov. 1995, available in electronic format
25. Ibid.
26. Paul DeRienzo and Bill Weinberg, “Will Gulf War Lead to Repression at Home?” The Guardian (New York), Jan. 16, 1991.
DANGEROUS DOSSIERS
The taskforce concept so favored by the DoJ only compounds GIGO problems by spreading the misinformation. As with many features of modern policing, the success of taskforces depends heavily on information-gathering and data manipulation. Most of the technology needed originated in the military, and the Government Technology Transfer Program has played an important part through the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, and also through the federal government’s four regional technology centers at the Ames, Rome, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories, which had previously serviced the military and its contractors alone.[20]
“Command and control” software developed by the military to enhance communications and information exchange between ground forces and their commanders can be used to manage police operations during demonstrations or civil unrest. It may include rapid-access data banks, scene mapping (increasingly using satellite-based GIS technology), and field-command enhancements using high-tech communications.[21]
Powerful databases such as the Modernized Intelligence Data Base (MIDB) project currently being revamped by TRW Systems Integration Group for Army Intelligence;[22] NCIC 2000, which is being developed by MITRE Corp. for the FBI; and others let police programmers link activists with their causes, associates, employers, criminal records, mug shots and fingerprints, spending habits, and even tax information.[23] These information tools which meld together details collected by local police and higher- level analysis and background from federal agencies form the backbone of the taskforces’ increasing power.
The computerized command and control system implemented for the $300 million Atlanta Olympics’ security system is a case in point. Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) delivered it to the Atlanta Police Department well in advance of the Olympics as a replacement for the APD’s paper-based scheduling system. The system included events-simulation capabilities, personnel-deployment features, interactive mapping, and various field communications features to facilitate military-style control of a large urban area.[24] It is based on software developed for the Gulf War’s Operation Desert Storm, and prepared by a public-private partnership that included Oak Ridge, which is administered by Lockheed Martin for the federal government; the Center for the Application of Science Toward Law Enforcement; and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, better known as the office of the “drug czar.”
Why would the president’s top drug-war officials and a nuclear-research lab run by a major defense contractor be involved in such a project? Bob Hunter of ORNL’s Computational Physics and Engineering Division said in a corporate press release that “the Office of National Drug Control Policy also wants this system to be readily transferable to other events, such as a California earthquake, that could shatter existing infrastructures.”[25]
The drug czar is not in charge of natural-disaster planning that’s the job of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, reporters covering the fall of Oliver North discovered that from FEMA’s inception in 1979, the agency was handling domestic counterinsurgency planning as well. In 1984, it went so far as to hold national exercises for rounding up and detaining aliens and radicals in rural camps.[26]
It is not known if the Office of National Drug Control Policy is developing tools for carrying out the same sort of mission.
27. Riley and Hoffman, op. cit.
28. David Bacon, “Labor Slaps the Smug New Face of Unionbusting,” CAQ, n. 60, Spring 1997, p. 36.
29. FBI, “Frequently Asked Questions about ANSIR”
CORPORATE CLOUT
A more general problem with data gathered by multi- jurisdictional taskforces is that, as noted earlier, local police are very susceptible to corporate pressure. For example, RAND found that local law enforcement agencies defined “terrorism” much more broadly than did their federal counterparts, often applying the label to environmentalist, animal rights, and union activities that affect large, powerful employers.[27] For example, citizens working to close down the contaminated Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southern Washington report being trailed and harassed by local police working in concert with private security officers. Another instance of the incestuous relationship that can develop between police and corporations was presented by the year-long Detroit newspaper strike. The newspaper companies involved actually reimbursed the local police to the tune of $2.1 million for services rendered in helping break the strike.[28] Couple this with the Anti-Terrorism Act which redefines any form of violent crime and many types of previously lawful political advocacy as “terrorism” for the purposes of federal prosecution and the possibilities are truly chilling.
Large corporations such as IBM and Westinghouse have their own powerful security and counterterrorism divisions. These companies have high-level clout and, more importantly, they have government connections through their military subsidiaries. While in the past, corporations have had more influence over other federal intelligence agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Intelligence Assessment Team, the Department of Energy’s intelligence unit and various military intelligence entities, they have recently found an increasingly sympathetic ear at the FBI. One of the Bureau’s most important recent projects was a complete survey of potential terrorist targets that included hundreds of privately owned facilities. It has pledged to come up with plans to protect such targets and to respond to emergencies, tasks that will necessitate working even more closely with corporate and military security.[29]
In addition, both the federal government and its partner corporations have privatized many security and surveillance functions, such as guarding military facilities and handling international airport security. A few elite companies get the nod from both government and corporate clients for these sorts of jobs, most notably the Wackenhut Corporation, which is in charge of details ranging from Exxon oil facilities to the Nevada nuclear test site. Such firms maintain their own extensive databases, and can undertake projects on behalf of their clients outside the purview of laws on political intelligence-gathering.
30. Mary Kate Cary, “How States Can Fight Violent Crime: Two Dozen Steps to a Safer America,” Heritage Foundation, 1993; available electronically
31. Electronic Privacy Information Coalition (EPIC), from a chart available in electronic form
32. William J. Dempsey, Jr., “Enterprise Crime Bureau,” available in electronic form
33. DOJ, “A Final Revision…,” op. cit.
34. Kevin Flynn and Lou Kilzer, “FBI Checked 10,000 Phone Calls in Bombing Case,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 15, 1997.
BEYOND BASIC INTELLIGENCE
Transfer of military tools, many of which seem tailor-made for illegal political eavesdropping, is also putting a variety of new surveillance technologies into police hands. Speech- enhancement devices for monitoring faraway or muffled conversations, speaker-identification software similar to the “voice-print” devices used in some corporate security systems, software-based language translation, passive sensor systems and long-range radar surveillance technologies are just some of the projects on tap at the Northeast Regional Center, one of the four Government Technology Transfer Program centers run by National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers at the Rome, Ames, Sandia, and Los Alamos National Labs.
Computer technology has also facilitated quick and cheap surveillance of vast numbers of electronic communications, from phone calls, to faxes, to e-mail. A quick browse of police- technology web sites reveals surging interest in the acquisition and use of pen registers, which collect phone numbers called but don’t record conversations. The Supreme Court decided in Smith v. Maryland (1979) that pen registers do not perform a search as defined under the Fourth Amendment, and can even be used without demonstrating probable cause, much less obtaining a warrant a simple subpoena to the phone company will do.[30]
Federal use of such devices doubled between 1987 and 1993.[31] With its low cost and easy accessibility, pen register data has been embraced even more fervently by local and state police for example, the Nassau, New York Enterprise Crime Unit, which covers organized crime activities, more than doubled its use of pen registers in 1995 alone.[32]
Most police database systems for criminal intelligence are now set up to store and cross-reference pen-register data routinely, and this information is not subject to the DoJ regulations governing RISS databases that were mentioned earlier. [33]
Scrutiny of phone records is also made easier through technology. In the Oklahoma City bombing case investigation, the FBI examined nearly 10,000 telephone calls to or from radical- right figures, including a lawyer suing the FBI over the Branch Davidian deaths at Waco, Texas.[34]
The taskforce structure itself dictates how such powers are brought to bear on local activists. These technologies are put into the hands of local officers who have been assigned the point position in a national “war on terrorism” by their federal taskforce partners. When the data and permission to use them are coupled with pressure from corporations and their front groups to watch particular types of activists, not to mention the availability of budget-padding grants for pursuing political targets, you have a recipe for repression. And oversight, if any, will depend largely as it did in the days of the Red Squads on the vigilance of citizens and their effectiveness in fighting back.
This article first appeared in Covert Action Quarterly
2) Community Oriented Policing.
https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/tag/agenda-21/
A target recently had some questions about his possible targeting, and I think that this is a good time to go over Community Oriented Policing Programs once again.
There are now efforts around the world to use something called community based policing. This is more than likely what is playing a large role in gang stalking.
[quote]“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.”
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9711b/policing.html
[/quote]
Under these programs the community work with the police to find problems and solutions and yes the citizens inform to the police. Each area gets to more or less manage itself as it sees fit, a wet dream right?
Eg. In one area of one city, this program allowed men to have sex openly in a gay club, in a gay district of town. In another area that had a lot of prostitution, they went very light on this.
So each area can manage itself as it sees fit, each area identify problems, anti social behavior, etc and they work on solutions. Remember these programs joined forces with federal agencies, private foundations, corporations, community groups, local police, etc. So an employer who puts someone on a list could potentially get them targeted in all these areas.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/evolution.html
[quote]
What Is A Communitarian? by Niki Raapana
Communitarians believe that all neighborhoods should be governed like Chinese collectives. They teach that mandatory volunteerism in the community is a moral obligation of all citizens, and that intervening and reporting on your neighbors is required to maintain their individual freedom.
It may sound like two conflicting ideologies, but it’s not. Communitarianism balances all political conflicts into one master, ideological solution.
[/quote]
Under the UN Agenda 21 program all cities of the world will eventually move to this style of governance.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/agenda21.html
The communitarian plan for reinventing a global government was adopted by the UN in 1992 at the Earth Summit. There were no public votes cast for or against it in any of the affected “free” nations. Average citizens were not consulted. In most free and democratic countries, the nation’s taxpayers (who pay for it) were never even told about it. The major media outlets were mostly silent while for thirteen years, the UN’s LA-21 laws have been imposed on all 166 member nations.
There were no big discussions of its purpose or ultimate consequences. It just slid into law. It’s really pretty amazing. No major editorials, no explanation of how it would be imposed, it was barely announced by the national governments who endorsed it. Only a few enlightened locals understand LA-21 requires a total reorganization of government systems. It eliminates individual rights in the free countries. National systems of political economy are subserviant to LA-21 laws.[/quote]
Cities such as L.A. and Toronto have been blessed with community oriented policing for years.
So you have a nifty little program, each division does what it wants to a degree, and units which work with the public. So if a target is getting followed it might change depending on which section they are walking through. Keep in mind that these people share information, and with the federal agencies merging with the lower agencies, the dirty tricks have been passed around and shared.
For my targeting I have had some fun.
With lawyers, I had one lawyer tell me that to send a letter off to get the targeting to stop, she would need for me to supply the name of the program, and who was in charge.
Another lawyer without me saying anything, asked if I had trouble finding a job, or getting an apartment. At the time I had not had trouble with apartments, but my job hunt had gone off. This lawyer was not with the firm that I contacted. The firm had to get an outside lawyer that they consult with for this type of case. That was one more adventure.
I also have spoken to loads of detectives, most saying that they have never heard of these tactics, then I talked to one, and he said that these were standard tactics and that any detective should be aware of them, they are standard tactics for police surveillance operations. So much like customer service and getting help, it depends on who you talk to. Shortly after this he calmed up and discontinued contact, but there are people out there who can help, but you have to get to them, before the state realises what you are doing or they will shut them down. Thus why I tell targets don’t share you lawyers name etc. This is my opinion and you have to do what suits you.
I recently spoke to a community lawyer and asked about the violent persons registry, I phrased it as, you know if you get into a fight or argument and then get put on a list and followed around, like stores, etc, like a violent persons list or something. She knew what I meant, and asked if I found the info online? She also said at their location they did not handle that, but to try the lawyer referral service and see if they could help. Which is better than a few years ago, it’s all about who you talk to, and referencing the violent persons registry might help as well, just to get some head way.
So much like customer service it’s who you talk to, but then it’s also trying to be stealthy, if you find someone who will help, try to do it in secret, cause they will get shut down, clam up and suddenly refuse to talk to you or assist you.
So to recap, with community policing each area does what it deems best, so yes you could have some areas more psychotic than others, it all depends. I think most are about the same to one degree, but just like some areas being allowed to have open sex in bars, some areas might be more human with how the targeting and monitoring is carried out. Small towns vs large, etc.
Also for the targeting to answer the question that I was asked, no they don’t use the same tactics on each target, they try a bunch of things, then they see what you are sensitive to if anything and try to go from their. I just found out that my polite avoiding of their stupidity has been interpreted as a phobia or something so now they try to use crowding as a tactic. God sometimes they are so…
Anyways so there you have it I hope it helps. If you act sensitive to the color red, or they can get you to notice, then they will try to use more of the same till you are sensitized in a negative way. They want to keep the target captivated at all times. If you respond to any of their stimulus that will be worked into your program. If they can get you with one, they will get you with another. I had one at the start of this, I worked with myself to get rid of it and I have never had another. If you are sensitized you can do this also and get rid of yours over time, by removing the negative associations, etc.
December 15, 2009 Posted by gangstalking | Gang Stalking | Agenda 21, China, Citizen Informants, Cointelpro Tactics, communitarianism, Community Based Policing, Community Groups, community policing, East Germany, Gang Stalking, Local Companies, police, Private Foundations, Stasi | 4 Comments
Downtime
This post is just that, downtime. The first half is not Gang Stalking Related.
Look what I found on the internet. This is too funny. It makes a bit of fun of what Kanye West did to Taylor Swift. You can do this with like any website. Too Funny.
http://kanyelicious.appspot.com/http://www.gangstalkingworld.com
Anyways, the baby that made Youtube internet fame has his own website now. http://www.singlebabies.com Little Cory Elliot made world headlines this week after dancing to the Beyonce single, “single ladies.” Too cute.
I found several spoof videos. Some of the best spoof videos were the Obama interpretation, the Glee episode, the guys dressed as girls and of course little Cory.
There were a few more, but these were some of the more interesting ones.
I got in a lot of downtime this weekend, it was so needed.
Sometimes you have to get away from the sick and the sin of the world, and just laugh.
I also had some fun this weekend with telling my informants who were on weekend watch what I think of them. I think they hire the stupidest people for the weekend shift.
I always have my computer being monitored, and my computer is still being directly logged onto. I also still have the electronic harassment stuff happening, but I have my coping methods, plus all the other little things the parasites try to do to irritate the target. So during one of these episodes, while trying to just have some downtime this weekend, I just let them know exactly what I thought of them, and what I wished for them, and upon them. It was not nice, but I felt way better getting all the negativity out of my system. This generation in many ways is a lost cause, but then there is hope, because you see it in the youngest members of society. They come to this realm with so much hope, so much light, and it’s good to remember that, this is what gives you hope.
At work I ran into one of the agent types. There are the general population informants, then there are agent types who have more access to information, and different agendas. Eg. Controlling what happens in different sectors. Anyways this one is an agent type, so I have him on ignore, but today he decided to talk to me, and he said something about death, but I could not tell what? Either that everyone was dying, or hopefully that he was dying, I don’t think it was a death threat, but I just smiled and nodded, and went back to ignoring him. Usually I just smile and nod and pass him, they are not good to talk to, because anything you say to them, can be twisted, misinterpreted, or they can just make stuff up.
I don’t like the agent types because they always have a different agenda. Anyways.
I was thinking about when I first became a target. Before I knew about the Gang Stalking stuff, then after when I knew about the Gang Stalking stuff, but finally figured out that it was a lie, there were no vigilante gangs, and that something else was going on. When I went through the process of discovering that the Gang Stalking was this creepy Stasi type system, that controlled not just people in my city, country, etc, but other countries, and that it’s part of a larger agenda.
I was thinking about that, and what I remember about that time period, it’s all really confusing. However I do remember that I did not know what was going on. I knew about the one handed sign language, and while trying to figure out what was happening, I was watching them, learning, and testing out what I was learning, but the break through came one day on the train, when I finally figured out that they were informants. (At first I thought that they were all illegal informants, meaning that I thought that they had all gotten into trouble with the law or something.) Then later I realised that many were just citizen informants. Then it was months before I realised it was systemic. It was a lot more time before I realised that it has always been this way. That this type of system goes back to Roman time period. It’s all in my blog.
I did the mental clip trip back, because there were other memories and awareness that had to be remembered. Eg. That when others become informants or learn about what’s going on, they are confused like I was upon discovering that I am a target. Many don’t like what’s happening. Eg. At one just, one girl got really upset, she wanted to change departments, and was told that it’s everywhere, it’s happening everywhere. At the time I knew it was about this, and that they were being asked to spy or something, but at the time, I was still not fully clear what this was. I had just discovered the Gang Stalking stuff, but still was not clear about the fact that they were informants.
I now know that some people think that this is just another McCarthyism. Others think it’s only happening in their place of employment. Eg. The one guy that I spoke to was like, the whole **** is like this, and I was like, no the whole world is becoming like this. Up to that point he seemed to think that the one handed sign, spying thing was just related to his workplace.
I now know that a couple more than a couple, but a couple people have had mental health issues do to this. I think many people go through the process, and depending on where they were, they interpret it differently. So that explains some of the long term disability leaves as well.
Eg. Ok, remember life before the internet? Yeah me neither, but before the internet, if you were asked to become an informant in some small town where you lived, or city, and you discover that everyone you know does this, you would maybe come to the conclusion that that’s just the way society and the world is, and that it was ok. It would be a false conclusion, but after years of trying to find someone who was not a part of this, you might feel the way targets do.
Targets remember what life was like before finding the net, how no one was ever going to believe you, how you were going to tell your story on that talk show, then you realise that A) This is happening to a lot of people, and B) It’s systemic? It’s only in recent times that we have had the ability to compare these notes and to discover what was happening.
I mean before this, no one could have convinced me that my friends, family, neighbours, co-workers would go along with something like this. I mistakenly thought that they were the same as me, but they are not. Most people are simple, they want to fit in, they want to be a part of society. They are easily threatened, or bullied, or socially put in line, they can be bribed, manipulated, lied to, etc. Keep in mind that many of them went through this crap, and became informants. Some were recruited via family, so they just grow up thinking this is normal.
Most informants see about 30 minutes of this, or they are asked to do a specific task, and so then they do it. Like us, some of them have no idea what is happening, but they comply. They don’t go seeking the answers the way we do, if they did, what search terms would they use? Once they become informants they are not being stalked. I doubt that they realise that they are in many ways slaves to a system of control and conformity.
So this is what I was realising and thinking about today. Some of them are just as lost as we are, or were before the net. They see a small part of the puzzle, or others believe the lies, they don’t see the whole picture, and if they did, many would just kill themselves. They would not want to believe that their governments are capable of being evil, or subduing their citizens in these manners. Also since they can’t openly talk about this, or discuss this officially, that also makes it hard to compare notes and find out what’s happening.
So how are the sheep to be awakened? Many realise that something is wrong, but don’t quite know what, others are all too aware. It’s like going back down into this well, this sad place. It’s the place where I realise that some of them are just like us targets, trapped but on the other side of the coin, and they don’t want to be there anymore than we do. Others do not know the bigger picture. Some are still even unaware, like I was just a few short years ago. Ignorance in some ways is bliss, in others it is not.
I believe in prayer. If it was up to this system, when this first started they would have had me either broken down, falsely subdued on some false mental health rap, or another suicide statistic. Fortunately I don’t believe in ending this mission before my time, and mentally I was stronger than what they had interpreted. But by the Grace of God, I am here, and others are here, and waking up, but then once you wake up, and realise that you are in essence, a boundless slave, in a system of control, and conformity, What do you do next? (I guess they hope that the sheep will never come to the realization.) Keep in mind your fellow monkeys are the jailers, and each generation is getting conditioned, just like this.
This is how it’s possible to have a system like this that keeps going, and going and going. Add to that the popularity of the snitching friends network, and it is what it is, and has been for a long time. Generations, right back to the beginning of the colonies. This snitching system was in place before then. IF the bible is correct it will likely continue.
It doesn’t mean you stop hoping, but it’s something to be aware of. I believe in the power of prayer, any breakthroughs that have come, have usually come on the advent of such. I believe in asking for help, and reaching out. I believe that many of us don’t know what we are up against. I do believe that the bigger picture is more than this plane, this realm, and needs to be addressed as such, but for the average person, what you need to know for now is that this system is not new. It’s been in place most likely before the colonies. The Roman empire had a similar system. China, East Germany, similar systems.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/SnitchSystemBooklet.pdf
The bigger picture is every country having a similar system. Read about Agenda 21. The United Nations plan for global dominance.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki2.htm
The final picture is going to be us humanity loyal to the state, scanned, tagged, and so dumb, it won’t even matter. But before you arrive at that conclusion, you have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics first, which many average people will simply not be willing to believe.
IF you don’t realise that you are a slave, how can you hope to gain your freedom? If you don’t realise that something is wrong, how can you ever hope to change it?
Awareness and exposure is still the key, but each person has to take some ownership for their part in this. I see too many people enjoying the fake power they think they have with this system. Giving it power that it would not have otherwise. Some people like to be controlled and given direction, this type of system works for some, but for many others it does not, and that is something to be made aware of as well.
September 30, 2009 Posted by gangstalking | Citizen Informants, Civilian Spies, community mobbing, future, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, Informants, Insane, New World Order, NWO, psychological harassment, revolution, State target, Targeted Individual, The Matrix | Agenda 21, Beyonce, Bible, Cody Ellitott, Downtime, Gang Stalking, Global Dominance, hope, Informants, Kanye West, NWO, Prayer, Single Ladies, slaves, targeted individuals, The Snitching System, youtube | 4 Comments