Threat Assessment Teams and success rates
Threat Assessment Teams and success rates.
The Threat Assessment Teams remotely evaluate people from a distance, but how do they know that they are not just dishing out junk science? How do they know that the assessment actuaually work? I imagine it's in part due to the success ratio. Eg. You diagnose someone as schizophenic, and within two months of your diagnosis, they start complaining of vibrations in the home, being burnt and tortured, clearly they were suffering from a persecution type syndrome. Right?
Let's say the team evaluates someone and they end up in jail, homeless, instituationalized, dead, start to hear voices or they freak out and shoot someone, the team feel justified in their original diagnosis. The complete disconnect from the end results allows them to enjoy a false reality of their success ratio, just like in Russia. There removal from the targets sphere allows them to ignore, belittle, and dismiss the dozens upon dozens of stories of torture, and human rights violations, set up's, gaslight, smoke and mirrors that are being used to achieve those end results. They are getting these successful outcomes because in many cases the monitoring teams, and those around the target are driving and creating these end results by harassing the targets.
Remember the team likely use the DSM guidelines to assess someone in the first place. In Russia they use to also do that. The DSM guidelines then, much like now are being set up to target and remove specific people from the workforce, or society. The outspoken, whistle-blowers, maybe independent thinkers, single people, etc. When a person is being evaluated to begin with, we are ending up with more single individuals, because some of their guidelines and profiling tell them that those who are single, with few attachement are more likely to be a danger. The guidelines do not allow for individuality. Eg. Many adults in modern society lead healthy, active, productive and single lifestyles. Being single is only a danger if you truly are lonely, but many people this is a new norm, which the guidelines don't properly recognize.
What needs to start to happen is some accountability. Either targets need to start to sue these teams for false diagnosis, misrepresentation, slander, or a combination of things. I don't know how much legal protection these teams are given, but enough lawsuits and publicity aimed at their heads, and the DSM guidelines they use and that might make a difference.
The people at the end level are not that smart. This is a generalization, and I am sorry if that hurts the feelings of some, but they are not. Eg. For one of my apartments, they use to constantly have the maintainance man, opening my door. They utilized him, and had him consistently abusing his power. Remember they get a variety of people on this, they are so sure that they are helping to keep an eye on someone truly disturbed, that they often forget common decency, but more importantly many forget, or have a false belief that they are not bound by the same laws they were previously bound by. After advising this person of my displeasure with their actions, this person advised me that it was their right to enter at will. Really? So I had to contact the upper managment and detail what was happening, what my actual rights were, and this is what got the sitution rectified. Many of them do not know the law, they think that because they are helping to monitor, they have a right to go above and beyond what is legal and the reality is that they do not. That is why if you can catch them in illegal activities they often get upset.
It can take a while, filing noise ordanances with the city, since this goes on for years at a time, if you manage to be in one location for a specific period of time this might give you a bit more leverage to prove some of what is on going.
Jane Clift for her situation was abel to have her records exponged, but without the right lawyer, or someone who knows what they are doing, you likely will not get the same results. What is needed are lawyers who know the law, understand the limits to what these Threat Assessment Teams are bound, and then continue from there. Also because they work in teams, writing down the times of specific harassments might work. Eg. On April 03, 2009 this person used or subjected my person to.... then you can fill in the blanks. I know a lot of targets believe that radiation is being used, it's a possibility. Because they do change who is on shift, if you pay attention, you will notice that different people have different styles, some are just plane sadistic, so making them accountable should be possible in future by documenting times, dates. I do believe however if we skip the lower level individuals and focus on the Threat Assessment Teams, and their legal obligations to the individual that this might be a more successful way to go.
Eg. You are misdiagnosed as having a mental illness, and for the last 5 years they have contacted your facebook friends, twitter followers, myspace friends, co-workers, friends, etc. That is slander and defamation of character if the accusations are false, which since they are doing remote assessments, using DSM guidelines they well could be. Remember recently a woman won the right to sue Youtube to reveal the identity of those who had called her a name. Targets might be able to take similar legal actions for those going around behind our backs, defaming our reputations, based on a false or inaccurate remote diagnosis.
Also how much of this violates the privacy laws? This is one area that I would like to examine, I believe many lines are being crossed in this area, and this might be one more area to bring a legal challenge.
The other thing that those in countries with human rights commissions might start to do is see if they can find a way to take these commissions to task. I believe in the U.K. and Canada you can sue for discrimination for race, gender and if you are being discriminated against due to a mental illness. I have to double check, but if that is the case, and these teams are listing targets as menatlly ill, then going after targets, and poisioning every perception around them, this might be another area where legal challeges can be brought. The situations are ongoing, so that would be within the timeframes. Targets without money and other means, might try to find a legal way to see if these commissions can be used in this way.
Then in the U.S. the ACLU is free, and could maybe be petitioned in similar fashion. At this stage I don't know if these approaches will work, or if they will work across the board, but if we have 12 cases going through the system, each attempting different angles, then we can get an idea of what works, almost works, etc. However targets should be aware of sabatage, and many of these commissions are corrupted, or have questionable practices, as Tim Field his research into obstruction.
Those are some thoughts and actions that we might try in future, and the more attention these teams get, bad attention the better.