And you thought the Human Flesh Search Engine was confusing
Yesterday everyone was introduced to a new concept, well a concept that's been on the net for the last few months, and that's the violent person registry.
You were brought the story of Jane Clift who tried to inform on a drunken man who yelled obscenities at her, and got herself placed on a violent persons registry instead of him.
Here are some of the highlights and the recap.
[quote]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.
Now, after a bitter four-year legal battle with Slough Council, the stain on her character has finally been removed.
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]‘It has taken me four years to clear my name and I hope Slough and other councils never again misuse their registers.’ Simon Davies, from the human rights watchdog Privacy International, said: ‘This just shows the megalomania of these local authorities. This poor
woman was subjected to a Kafkaesque ordeal because of an incorrect allegation made by one official.
‘It is the sort of behavior that we would have condemned if it came from China or Russia. Our councils seem to be out of control.’ [/quote]
[quote]Jane Clift lived with the stigma of the violent persons register for three and a half years. Slough Borough Council refused to back down and maintained that she was a violent person. [/quote]
-She was blacklisted
-Forced to Move
-She is single and female
-When in public she felt surrounded by extra people who just should not have been there.
-Being placed on the list was used as an attempt to silence here.
So I have been getting the obvious question, but isn't this Gang Stalking or Gang Stalking like, the answer is yes, very much so and very much similar. Thus why we have the picture of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. They look exactly alike, and for most of their life, I assumed that they were identical twins. They are not. They are in fact fraternal twins, but without the blood work, and to just look at them, they look exactly alike.
I believe the violent person registry is close enough that many of us can use that to say look, here is the story of a women, who was placed on a watch list. Look at what happened to her, she was followed in public, forced to move, and had her life disrupted. If you are looking to get people to believe you, I don't see why you can't use this. I also think you can use the existence of such lists, to get legal procedures or inquires going. At the onset it looks enough alike. Also since I have not had a chance to find out the total nature of her harassment, I don't know how close a match this is yet. For the time being I am placing it in the fraternal twin category.
Where it differs. She was told that she was going to be placed on such a list. I have not come across one Gang Stalking target that was told they would be placed on a list. This means she had reasonable grounds and proof of who placed her on the list, the time frame, the incident that started this, and many of us will not.
When she moved it sounds like some of the harassment might of stopped. I don't know this for sure, but based on the articles, it sounds like the point of entry onto the violent persons list was where her attack was most virulent, that and ofcourse having that title on her head.
She is a single female, they were using it to keep her quite, so I suspect there was other harassment ongoing, which she probably left out of the article to sound sane. To get the nitty gritty if there was more would require more digging.
With Gang Stalking, or what we are calling Gang Stalking and I plan to continue calling that, we get Gaslighting. They monitor our homes 24/7. I don't know if that happened to Jane Clift or not. With Gang Stalking they try to make us look crazy, but I am sure that they also want us to look violent, pedophiles etc.
Based on the research, the article from the ACLU, other target testimony, things like the Buzzsaw, what happens with Gang Stalking is systemic. Many targets show a multi-generational aspect to the targeting. They kill targets, that goes beyond any kind of everyday list. What we see with Gang Stalking, is systemic destruction.
I however believe that a person unknowingly could end up on a list like Ms Clift did, and then have the same thing happen that we see in Gang Stalking. I believe that when this story came out, we were suppose to accept that this was all that there is to Gang Stalking and go on to our happy lives, that's clearly not going to happen.
With Gang Stalking, we not only have electronic monitoring happening, which more times than not, constitutes torture. These people co-ordinate not just from city to city, town to town, but across country lines.
The informants are not just one and few people, the reports, research, shows that we are setting up Stasi States, or States like China, where the citizens are all snitches. Sorry I mean Citizen Informants.
With Gang Stalking, there is a systemic collaboration that happens. Ms Clifts name went out on a list and was spread far and wide, but if she had changed countries would she have been followed? I don't have an answer, but targets like Jesus Mendez, Gloria Naylor, and so many others report leaving, country, moving, moving again, and it's the same thing. Same coordination, same gaslighting, same systemic approach to the monitoring.
What we are looking at is a conspiracy, and it goes deep, and it is systemic. I have no doubts on this, proving it will be a bit of a longer road yet. Great strides have been made, and will continue to be made, God willing, people willing, etc.
For many of us however we just want our lives to get back to normal, whatever that is. Will using the methods Jane Clift used work? I don't know, but it can't hurt to try. As far as getting people to believe you, getting legal representation involved, then I don't see why you can't use this, it's close enough that if people don't look to deeply, they won't know the difference. If you stick to the main points, leave out some of the gaslighting stuff, focus on the facts. Such registries exist, innocent people are being placed on them, investigations are happening, their lives are being disrupted, it's a start.
For us who have lived this, we know the difference, this goes deeper. This is systemic, has been for sometime now, and people continue to be turned into informants for the state. They continue to have to be a part of the life disruption process that targets are harmed by. With the targeting we experience, it's deep. 24/7 surveillance, neighbours on all sides monitoring, some get construction projects, street theater, psychological manovours that are used to try to destroy our lives. Our friends, families, co-workers, neighbors, customers, are all co-opted. I have worked at jobs where I was dealing with customers from multiple countries, and it's the same thing. To even broach the subject sounds crazy, schizo crazy, that is the word right, but it's not crazy, and it's been like this for some time.
I have talked to enough people, but seen enough to know that I am correct in this, but do what works for you, this game has been about what we can prove, well targets, we have the ACLU stating investigations are happening.
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? [/quote]
We know that employees, councils, school officials, etc, can open or get people placed on monitoring lists. Proving the gaslighting and other psychological ops, or that they were designed to eliminate targets of the state, is another story. Do what works for your personal situation, always continue to do your own research.
For now I am calling these lists our fraternal twins. We are never told we are on lists, she moved and I think some of the harassment might have stopped, but she had information that many of us do not have, and I have no proof that her targeting went as deep as ours. I do however have good reason to believe that some would like the world to think that this was the extent of the targeting. It's not. There are complete strangers following targets, little citizen informants that take turns doing everything to harass targets, people using their children in these skits, etc.
Though it's not uncommon for a community to get together to get rid of a trouble maker or a dangerous person, this targeting goes wherever a person goes. 24/7, and the goal is to completely destroy the person. Don't think doctors, or psychiatrists would take part in things like that? Guess again.
[quote]WASHINGTON – When the CIA began what it called an “increased pressure phase” with captured terrorist suspect Abu Zubaida in the summer of 2002, its first step was to limit the detainee’s human contact to just two people. One was the CIA interrogator, the other a psychologist.
During the extraordinary weeks that followed, it was the psychologist who apparently played the more critical role. According to newly released Justice Department documents, the psychologist provided ideas, practical advice and even legal justification for interrogation methods that would break Abu Zubaida, physically and mentally. Extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding, the use of insects to provoke fear — all were deemed acceptable, in part because the psychologist said so.
“No severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted,” a Justice Department lawyer said in a 2002 memo explaining why waterboarding, or simulated drowning, should not be considered torture.
The sleep deprivation that we get due to the harassment, so we can have car accidents, or lash out. The psychologist provided ideas. I bet. Practical advise on how to torture someone, what would be most effective, and even legal advise and justification. Justification for human torture. If they would do this to them, what about us?
A psychologist providing information on what would break someone. The use of insects to provoke fear. No different, than when they sensitize a target and use that to make the person look like they are very sensitive or crazy. These are the type of people helping to run the zoo.
Waterboarding was touted as particularly useful because it was “reported to be almost 100 percent effective in producing cooperation,” the memo said.
The agency then used a psychological assessment of Abu Zubaida to find his vulnerable points. One of them, it turns out, was a severe aversion to bugs.
“He appears to have a fear of insects,” states the memo, which describes a plan to place a caterpillar or similar creature inside a tiny wooden crate in which Abu Zubaida was confined. CIA officials say the plan was never carried out.
So if instead of bugs, he had an aversion to keys jangling, they would have used that, and it was the psychologists job to go in, probably build trust and find this out. So if this is what they deem legal, and they are supposedly held in high esteem, what about those who are held in lower esteem, would they do worst then?
Just proof that psychologists, would willingly be part of something like that. So proving some parts of our struggles remain, exposing this system for what it is, it's already exposed, it's just getting people to believe it, and accept it.
In situations like the Buzzsaw, there were no violent incidents, that's another close cousin that we have, but it's just one more branch of a systemic practice, that is being used to destroy and silence people.
Prophetically, an acquaintance coolly said to me a year after I left the lab, “You are in a police net you will never get out of … for the rest of your life.” She was right, but I no longer care because now I am not afraid.
We are controlled by our fears until we have none left, and that happens when there is nothing left to lose. The journey to that realization took 12 years of pain, a sense of loss and humiliation, a feeling of abandonment and the lifelong emptiness and absence of being loved—not by any-one, not at any time. The experience and purpose of being mobbed, and what I did not known the isolation of the experience, is that I was not alone.“Mobbing” is the purposeful and strategic institutional gathering of all information about an individual by using any method—legal or illegal. Contact for this purpose is made with neighbors, classmates, former partners, family members, former employers, teachers, church members, good friends and even your family tree … everything must be known about the support system around you that makes your life possible. The assessment of strategic resources and future income (finances, mobility, cars, insur-ance, credit cards, bank safety deposit boxes, post office boxes, wills, health records, birth
Uncovering the Truth About Depleted Uranium49certificates, transcripts and photographs) is made without your knowledge. The purpose ofmobbing is to drive the target individual out of the job force for the rest of their life; the big-ger goal is to drive them to the ultimate self-destruction: suicide. There are now laws made by European unions to prevent this cancer on society and productivity, but it is practically unknown in the U.S.The University of California, which had contributed so much to the State of California and to the global community through the benefits of education, had become a pathologi-cally dysfunctional institution through its mobbing practices.
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.
Your children are harassed, they come home with belongings missing and stories of teachers harassing them and a weirdness takes over your lives. Slowly, documents disappeared from my house; porncharges appeared on my credit card; files, my purse and my keys disappeared; mail was lost. I was forced to carry my documents with me at all times. All of my university transcripts and diplomas have been stolen from my house.Two things kept me going and kept me alive. First, the warrior mother spirit guided me to protect Zephyr. That miracle of life taught me what it means to love unconditionally and completely. I began to learn to love myself. Second, my uncle had told me long ago, “No one can destroy you. Only you can destroy yourself.”
500 Additional cases that she was aware of, the majority woman, all to keep them silent. Please read over the other stories in the above link, and you will see what I mean by systemic.
A great pdf, where woman talk about their harassment, and you see a pattern with lawyers, doctors, tribunals, etc. Systemic.
[quote]Many targets of bullying report that they seem to be obstructed every step of the way in their pursuit of justice. The management refuse to investigate, or use an untrained investigator, or whitewash the case. The union refuses to help, or initially shows interest but suddenly changes sides. The solicitor initially shows interest but then starts acting in a manner which suggests they have the other side's interests at heart rather than yours.
The employer's lawyers apply for, and obtain, adjournment after adjournment, then obtain a pre-hearing review which the tribunal chairman handles in favour of the employer. In the tribunal, favour is shown to the respondent (employer) and you get the impression that the verdict has been decided in advance. Your solicitor, the respondent's lawyers and the tribunal chairman seem to know more about your case than you think they should.
After the tribunal you're left with no option but to privately sue the employer, the union, and your solicitor, and appeal the tribunal decision, but by this time you have no job, no income, your savings are gone, so is your health, maybe your marriage too, and there's no prospect of ever being employed again, especially in the professions.
Sound familiar? If so, you might be surprised to realise how often this happens. Mostly it's in cases from the education sector, although it may happen in any public sector case, for example the NHS. Occasionally, but less often, it happens in private sector cases, and in rare cases from the voluntary sector.
Although there's never any substantive proof, it seems that all the parties arrayed against you have been colluding in secret. The question is, what allegiance binds these individuals together, and where could they meet such that the normal rules of confidentiality do not apply? What fraternal obligation places their duty to support and protect each other above the moral, ethical and legal obligations by which the rest of us are bound?
Employers, unions, law firms, and employees of the justice system are part of society, and every group, professional or otherwise, contains a few poor performers and rotten apples. This ranges from inexperience through ineptitude and incompetence to collusion and corruption.
Many have touched on this. Tim Field passed away, before he could finish the research into the collusion. He was very smart, and had a large following with his bullying movement.
Anyways, it's systemic, but each piece of the puzzle, helps our cause, that's what it's all about, gathering evidence. I think within the last week, a lot of really good material has come out, material that can help targets to get some relief from what is happening.
So again, I would stress awareness and exposure as our two key elements for fighting this. Awareness to the public friends family. Exposure, if you are being bothered bring up the fact that it's now common knowledge that registries like the violent persons registry exist, and that innocent people are being placed on it, bring up the fact that the ACLU says investigations are happening, without any clarity of who takes care of what. Bring up the fact that there are national, regional, and local linked databases, that are being shared across country lines. Bring up mobbing, the human flesh search engine, use the info that is out there, that has been presented to make your case, and to expose your cause. I can't guarantee you will win, but you will make a great case, and these people do not hold up well to scrutiny or to the light.
Do what works best for your own situation, if you read something and it does not sound right, research on your own, I always stress this point, maybe you will catch something that another has missed.
I leave you with the scene from my cousin Vinny. If you have not seen the video, watch it, it's very good.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.
Vinny Gambini: Ms. Vito, it has been argued by me, the defense, that two sets of guys met up at the Sac-O-Suds, at the same time, driving identical metallic mint green 1964 Buick Skylark convertibles. Now, can you tell us by what you see in this picture, if the defense's case holds water?
[Lisa examines the picture]
Vinny Gambini: Ms. Vito, please answer the question: does the defense's case hold water?
Mona Lisa Vito: No! The defense is wrong!
Vinny Gambini: Are you sure?
Mona Lisa Vito: I'm positive.
Vinny Gambini: How could you be so sure?
Mona Lisa Vito: Because there is no way that these tire marks were made by a '64 Buick Skylark convertible. These marks were made by a 1963 Pontiac Tempest.
Jim Trotter: Objection, Your Honor! Can we clarify to the court whether the witness is stating opinion or fact?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: This is your opinion?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a fact!
Vinny Gambini: I find it hard to believe that this kind of information could be ascertained simply by looking at a picture!
Mona Lisa Vito: Would you like me to explain?
Vinny Gambini: I would love to hear this!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: So would I.
Mona Lisa Vito: The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can't make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!
Vinny Gambini: And why not? What is positraction?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark had a regular differential, which, anyone who's been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing.
[the jury members nod, with murmurs of "yes," "that's right," etc]
Vinny Gambini: Is that it?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, there's more! You see? When the left tire mark goes up on the curb and the right tire mark stays flat and even? Well, the '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle, so when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along its edge. But that didn't happen here. The tire mark stayed flat and even. This car had an independent rear suspension. Now, in the '60's, there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest.
Vinny Gambini: And because both cars were made by GM, were both cars available in metallic mint green paint?
Mona Lisa Vito: They were!
Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Ms. Vito. No more questions. Thank you very, very much.
[kissing her hands]
Vinny Gambini: You've been a lovely, lovely witness.
Vinny Gambini: Mr. Wilbur, how'd you like Ms. Vito's testimony?
George Wilbur: Very impressive.
Vinny Gambini: She's cute too, huh?
George Wilbur: Yes, very.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini...
Vinny Gambini: Sorry, Your Honor.
Vinny Gambini: Sheriff Farley, uh... what'd you find out?
Sheriff Dean Farley: On a hunch, I took it upon myself to check out if there was any information on a '63 Pontiac Tempest stolen or abandoned recently. This computer readout confirms that two boys, who fit the defendants' description, were arrested two days ago by Sheriff Tillman in Jasper County, Georgia, for driving a stolen metallic mint green 1963 Pontiac Tempest, with a white convertible top, Michelin Model XGV tires, size 75-R-14.
Vinny Gambini: Is that it?
Sheriff Dean Farley: No. A .357 Magnum revolver was found in their possession.
Vinny Gambini: Sheriff Farley, just to refresh the court's memory, what caliber bullet was used to murder Jimmy Willis?
Sheriff Dean Farley: .357 Magnum.
Vinny Gambini: The defense rests.