Cold Case

Cold Case

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290674350/0#9

Three years ago I heard the story of a young mother that stabbed her two children in a gas station bathroom. She only a few days before had spoken out about a neighbour stabbing her younger brothers dog to death, and then within days had stabbed her own children to death. When I heard the story at the time. I firmly felt that it was a case of Gang Stalking. I didn’t know why, I really had very little proof to go on, and very few details were forth coming in the case, well three years later, I have many more details and I feel there was a good chance she was on a Threat Assessment Hit List.

I recap with the link to hightech harassment. One of the things the site talks about is how many times parents especially it seems mothers are tricked into killing their children, via external voices.


http://www.hightechharassment.com/

[quote]

The sonic harassment technology in addition to tricking people into believing their house is haunted can be used to trick a mother into believing that she is speaking directly to God. A mother claiming that she received instructions from God to kill her children is easily accomplished with this classified sonic harassment technology. Secret police living in a neighboring house to the targeted mother can use the technology against the mother and trick her into killing her children. The targeted mother will be carefully screened by the surveillance conducted by the agents before being selected to have the sonic technology used against her. Usually a mother with a history of mental illness is selected.

[/quote]

At the time I felt that there was more to the story of why she killed her kids, when she had just days before spoken out about how horrible it was for someone to kill a dog.

The story that I found is that of someone who worked for the postal service, the court trials claims that she lost her job due to problems with her co-workers and paranoid delusions about them. Where these the same time of paranoid delusions that Yvonne Hiller was having?



http://www.themorningstarr.co.uk/2009/01/08/mad-woman-escapes-jail/

[quote]

The court heard evidence from two psychiatrists who both agreed that Ms Hawes was suffering from schizophrenia. In early 2007 Ms Hawes began having paranoid delusions about her work colleagues which eventually led to her losing her job. She was prescribed anti-depressants in July 2007 but her paranoia increased and she began to hear voices which were controlling her actions.

In the days leading up to the double murder Ms Hawes was traveling around the country with her two children because she believed she was being pursued by something or someone. On November 29th 2007 she took a kitchen knife from her home and fled with her two children, when she reached a convenience store about a mile from her home she began to hear voices telling her to kill the children.

“I didn’t want them to have to run anymore,” Ms. Hawes told her psychiatrist. “I was trying to protect them … to stop them from being chased.

“I heard voices in the bathroom telling me to stab my kids.”

[/quote]

The post office is notorious for people going postal. My strong suspicion is that Hawes was placed on a Threat Assessment List for monitoring. She was likely given a level 3 or 2 threat level and thus her Gang Stalking and Electronic Harassment would have been peek. Level 2 being almost the highest level. This would have mean active monitoring, and everyone around her being alerted, it would have also meant that people would have been actively following her around, maybe even harassing her, irregardless of her having the two children in her possession.

This would corresponds with her fears of being on the run, and arming herself because she felt someone was out to do her harm. The voices might have been internal, but they could also have been very external and technology based, telling her to kill her children. This might help explain how she was able to so radically change and kill her children just a few short days later.


http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2010/11/threat-assessment-101/

[quote]

PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.

PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.

[/qutoe]

Can I prove this is what happened? I might someday be able to prove that she was on a Threat Assessment List and thus followed around. I don’t know if I will be able to prove that remote neural monitoring in the form of voice to target transmission was employed, which helped and encouraged her to murder her two innocent children.

In any case Hawes has been written off as another Paranoid Schizophrenic, who was hearing voices, had paranoid beliefs and killed her children. No further investigation or evidence needed.


http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/projectnewera/jeanettehawes2.jpg

Let’s not forget the two innocent lives that were lost, if there is more to this story, we owe it to these two kids to find out the truth.

Threat Assessments 101

Threat Assessment 101

It recently came to my attention that someone wrote a post titled “It’s not community notifications, either,” and this person thought that that they had discredited the theory of the Threat Assessment Teams and how they work.

I had not previously realized the limited understanding some targets have of these teams and how they are used and how they function. I thought I would address the issue in a post titled Threat Assessment 101, and try to help the community understand how this process works a bit better. Try to apply the stages below to your own targeting, if you have any questions, please feel free to drop a line, and I will do my best to answer the question.

I do not claim to be an expert, but I do like to believe my years of research have been a bit more detailed and indeepth, compared to what some others have done.

Now the person wrote a post where he believes that he has discredited Jane Clift as a Targeted Individual because her stalking ended after she moved, and she was advised that she was to be added to the notification, but what this poster did in reality is akeen to saying, well person X does not have electronic harasssment therefore they are not a Targeted Individual, or or person B is not getting Voice To Skull so they must not be a Targeted Individual.

It shows that this person does not have an understanding of how the process works. If this person is having a hard time with the concept then other targets are also likely having the same difficuluties and I hope that this will clearify some of that.

I am going to start with how the team works.

The threat assessment team works in a four part process.

1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation

In the case of Mrs. Clift it was her local council that was responsible for the task of evaluating individuals and placing them on the list. In other cases this will be done via a Threat Assessment Team or similar out let.

In the Jane Clift case she was identified as a person of interest because of a letter that she wrote.

Each team does things differently. But they go about gathering information as part of the next stage.

Triage questions can include:

• Has there been indications of suicidal thoughts,
plans, or attempts?
• Has there been indications of thoughts/plans of
violence?
• Does the person have access to a weapon or are
they trying to gain access?
• Are there concerns about the well-being of the
subject?

• Are there concerns about the safety of the
community?
• If yes, a full inquiry is recommended.

Gather Information (Full Inquiry)
• Think broadly and creatively about those who
might have information:

• Co-workers
• Other staff
• Friends
• Family
• Online friends, web sites, etc.
• Previous schools / employers
• Others?
• Document information and use it to answer the
Key Investigative Questions.

Threat Assessment Teams when gathering information speak to those around you, as listed above. They speak to your friends, family, co-workers, online friends, websites, etc. Places that you frequent. This is why those around the target become involved in what is ongoing.

In the Jane Clift case they would have reviewed her history and decided that she was likely someone they felt comfortable with issuing a letter letting her know that she was going to be on a list. Most people are never issued letters, again everyones targeting will be different, and have various levels. Some targets never get electronic harassment or voice to skull.

In the Jane Clift case it was decided that no further active monitoring was needed once she left the area. In other cases these teams or individuals will often decide that further monitoring is needed to ensure the safety of the community, and once the person leave the area the monitoring will continue.

In the Jane Clift case they felt that her anger had primarily been directed at individuals in her local council, so once she left, they felt safe enough to not have her further listed. If they did not feel safe she would have been followed in other areas, like many other targets are.

2. Have there been any communications
suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
• What, if anything, has the person
communicated to someone else (targets,
friends, co-workers, others) or written in a
diary, journal, email, or Web site concerning
his or her grievances, ideas and/or intentions?
• Has anyone been alerted or “warned away”?
Source: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, (2002)
Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates.
Key Investigative Questions

I can not strees this part of the targeting enough. They do communicate with everyone around the target. So when targets say that everyone is in on it. They are fully correct. They are not allowed to say anything to the person being investigated. Also it’s scary because they become aware of how serious the situation is. The target depending on which level of monitoring they are on, will have their information distributed to the community. Anyone who is a part of these community, workplace, notification, initiatives, will then get a warning about the person.

Information Sharing: FERPA

• FERPA is not an impediment to effective threat
assessment and case management.
• FERPA governs records only, not observations,
communications, etc.
• FERPA does not govern police records.
• If created & maintained by law enforcement, for
law enforcement purpose.
• New guidance from ED encourages information
sharing where public safety is a concern.
• FERPA does not permit a private right of action.

Information Sharing: HIPAA
• Check with legal counsel as to which laws
govern counseling center records.
• Confidentiality is held by client, not MH provider.
• In cases where privacy laws apply, can try these
strategies:
• No legal prohibition against providing
information to health/MH professionals.
• Inquire about Tarasoff – type duty.
• Ask subject for permission to disclose.

Record Keeping
• Centralized incident tracking database;
• Document reports and actions – include date,
time, subjects, targets, behaviors of concern,
witnesses;
• Data;
• Assessment;
• Plan;
• Preserve evidence: Keep copies of email,
memos, etc.
Record Keeping
Incident tracking database;
• Incident Information:
• Date, location, nature of incident, means of approach;
• Subject information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Target / Victim Information;
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Witness/Reporting Party Information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.

In a nutshell they bypass privacy laws that would normally be in place, which allows them to have those around you spy on you and give their observations and communications. Very cleaver.

This also means that strangers, and those with grudges, those who want to keep the investigation opened, such as those in the community getting paid, can have anyone submit false information. Let’s say you were originally given 18 months or 5 years on one of these lists, if there are no incedents, or something significant happens in your life, they might close the case file. If on the other hand something extreme happens, such as these people provoke you into punching them out, or falsely report that you did, then that is more time added more monitoring.

Think creatively about resources, as well as
“eyes and ears.”
• Anticipate likely change in the short and midterm,
and how the subject may react.
• Monitor using available resources. Who sees
the person regularly, inside work/campus,
outside, on weekends, online, etc.?

People need to understand that this becomes like a full Stasi investigation. For those around the target many with nothing better to do, this can become addictive and fun, some people love to play spy, and if there is a target in their area a lot of them will sit and wait for reports to come in, and if the target is in the area, they run to the bus stop, cause they want to see an incident go down. A lot of people just have no lives. Others are just genuenly scared and when the community notifications go out, danger to self or others medium risk, only to be seen in pairs, or whatever is being reported, others are just looking to protect themselves or their communities.

While the case is open the team should:

• Continue to monitor and modify the plan as long as the individual still poses a threat

• Recognize that a person can continue to pose a threat even after he/she ceases to be a Closing a Case
member of the campus community

• Continue to monitor the situation through its relationship with local law enforcement agencies and mental health agencies, as well as in direct cooperation with the person, if possible

As the threat assessment team work your file, and reports come in, reports can either bring down your threat level, or increase your threat level, they continue to monitor you, as long as they feel you are a threat, or that there is something in your life that makes you less of a threat enough for them to close your file, and your file even when closed, can be reopened, or the previous records accessed. Everything is going and starting to be feed into central databases, similar to fusion centers.

If someone who has been reviewed by the Threat Assessment Team leaves the area, do you continue to monitor him/her?

If the situation warrants reviewing the case after the subject leaves the area, the team will continue to do so. It is important to remember that when the subject has relationships in his/her life, there is a lesser chance for violence to occur. A failure to communicate or interact with a subject encourages problems to fester, which could lead to violence.

Again in the Jane Clift case, she left and her monitoring stopped because the coucil only felt that she was a threat to that one area, but in most other cases, they will warn everyone and every area that you come in contact with, because it is felt that you could be a danger to any area.

Assessment: Case Priority Levels

PRIORITY 1 (Extreme Risk): Poses clear/immediate threat of violence or self-harm and requires immediate containment, law enforcement involvement, target protection, and case management plan.

PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.

PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.

PRIORITY 4 (Low Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm at this time, but may exhibit some disruptive behavior and/or need for assistance. Requires passive monitoring. Utilize case management and referrals as appropriate.

PRIORITY 5 (No Identified Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm nor is there evidence of disruption to community. No case management or monitoring required.

The above chart is the most important thing that targets need to understand about their targeting. Most of us are on what is called active monitoring, but we can slip down to passive monitoring, or up to higher levels. I believe most targets who notice the surveillance fall into the Priority 3, 4, or 5.

This means active monitoring and they feel that you could be a threat. The active monitoring is where we are likely to notice the Gang Stalking and Gang Stalking activities as the community has termed it.

Now on their blog the person wrote, that no one broke into Jane Clifts house, nobody vandalized her belongings, and nobody assaulted her. That may or may not be accurate. There is a lot that was not said about the case, what is known is that Jane even though she was aware of the listing, the social ostercism, being followed to places she was not followed before, and other factors became so bad that she had to move. Remember she did not want to move, she had to move, she infact hopes to move back there someday. It was her home, she loved it, and hoped to be a foster parent, but being on the list absolutely disrupted her life and seriously enough that she moved.

The reality is the poster in the post that I read assumes a lot about the Jane Clift case, we don’t know the full extent to what Jane experienced. Eg. There are aspects of my own targeting that will not be publically mentioned, but it does not mean that they did not occur. What the poster of the article entiled “It’s not community notifications, either” fails deeply to understand about the targeting is that every target get’s different levels of harassment. Some will be followed, but never notice the Gang Stalking till several years into the targeting. How many times online have you seen a target write that when they checked their diaries or journals they realised that the targeting had actually gone back several years, but they had never put the pieces together? Eg. The targeting at the time was there, but not bad enough for them to notice, meaning that they were likely under passive forms of monitoring, which then slipped into active forms of monitoring.

That is likely when you noticed the mood in the community change, when you noticed the home break in’s, the harassment, and on higher priority of monitoring and targeting, that is also likely where you noticed the electronic harassment, vs just Gang Stalking. It’s all part of how these teams function. The young man in his post felt that he had discredited the notion, but the post just showed how limited his understanding was of these teams work and function in relationship to our targeting.

Once you have the most basic understanding of how these threat assessment teams work, and function, you can likely see how this is working in your own life, and the life of other targets.

Again the poster of the article felt that targets had to act out in the workplace to run afoul of anti-violence initiatives, again this poster has no idea of how zero tolerance is now working, how the psychiatric repirsials are working in conjunction with these teams. You do not have to act out, constantly complain about harassment, and you can be added to one of these lists, and be listed as having a mental health issue, this is the point that must get across to Targeted Individuals and others, this is what is happening in many cases, thus we see a lot of whistle blowers. In the community arguing with an authority figure could get you on such a list, it does not take as much as most people think it does.

Now as the research continues, I hope to introduce targets to the opperations manuals that are used for the remote monitoring, that should hopefully shed some additional light on some of the targeting that is experienced, but please feel free to do your own research in the mean time. Unlike others I do not claim to be an expert and my research into these teams continue.

I hope this gives most Targeted Inidividuals a basic understasnding of how Threat Assessment Teams work. If you truly understand the process, then you have a better idea of what is happening behind the targeting.

So let’s look at some cases.

1. Theresa Duncan. She had a workplace altercation where she had to be escorted from her building. This was the second altercation with the same individual, but they blamed Theresa. Under these violence prevention programs the incidents must be reported.

As everyone knows Theresa Duncan went on to blame her targeting on Scientology, complained of conspiracies, and she and her boyfriend Jeremy Blake later both died, listed as suicides, but many believe they were murdered.

If Ms. Duncan was evaluated as a threat to the company after her outburst and escort from the building, that could have cause passive, or active monitoring. Then start to blame a community or show a belief that they are out to get you, and these teams will increase the monitoring, and inform everyone around you, thus you notice this conspiracy and accuse everyone of being in on it. She thought it was Scientology, but the reality is that it likely began with the workplace incident. I am not discounting this group in any of her targeting, because depending on your area, each area uses different types of groups, and individuals for the monitoring. If she felt Scientologists were after her, the Threat Assessment Team would alert this group, and they would be thrown in her path without a doubt.

2. Randy Quaid. He had an incident where he upsent some coworkers. They filed a complaint and he was banned from the actors union. Now he has never said he is a Targeted Individual, but assuming that he is, this incident likely lead to his elevated Threat level and thus noticeable targeting. After he was banned, a restraining order was I believe filed against his spouse, so the company likely had them placed on active monitoring.

His brother has suggested he get a mental health exam. This is likely because he is hoping an exam will clear his brother. Most times those around you can not say anything. They believe that the system is legit and will clear the target if they get a mental health check. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Targets know that the system and company paid psychiatrist can and are often used to list targets as mentally unwell.

If Randy is a target, he was likely at some point evaluated and listed as having a mental illness. They do this and can do this legally. It’s wrong, but this is what targets have to realize. Please see the article entitled the psychiatric reprisal if you are unclear how this process works, and how someone can be listed as mentally ill without having a face to face exam.

3. Gloria Naylor. She accidentally poisoned her neighbors cat. They had been arguing for a while, having disputes, so the woman felt that it had been done on purpose. Well in that area if they felt that you deliberately murdered a pet, and well what about a person, what if you did the same to a person? Remember pets to many are like family members. The neighbor according to Gloria had connections, but the reality is even if she did not have connections, but a deep concern, and in an area like that a report, and a review of the history could have started passive, or active monitoring depending on what was reported.

The rest is as they say history. I don’t know if Gloria had anything else going on, if this woman had anyone else file a report, but at some point after this incident Gloria noticed the small things, started to complain, they likely listed her as paranoid, higher threat level, higher forms of monitoring, and so forth.

4. Ramona Lopez. She was trying to stop people from selling drugs. She realized the cops were in on it and essentially blew the whistle. Well Ramona depending on where you live, accusing the cops of dealing drugs is a paranoid disorder. We all know the police would never do that. Anyways, she also I think reported being set up for drugs, she argued with the cop if I recall correctly, which can get you listed as EDP. Emotionally Disturbed Person. Infact most of the times when we file these reports with the cops, if you get your records, you might just see them listed as EDP, no further action needed at this time.

A Targeted Individual recently posted his police report, and his complaint about the neighbor above burning him with lasers, got him listed as EDP and referred for mental health. Apparently being burnt from the neighbor above is an impossible scenario.

Remember he was reporting something simple and got listed as EDP, and referred for psychiatric assessment. Ramona Lopez was crossing the blue wall of death and in many areas, especially less affluent areas, you just can’t do that. Reporting the police as selling drugs is a paranoid belief, or so it would have been listed. Anyways she reports her targeting started shortly after trying to blow the whistle, and the rest is history. The more she complained, the more she acted out, the worst it got.

These are just a few cases, I am not an expert, I do not at this moment have conclusive proof that this is exactly how the targeting happening, but when you understand how these teams work, you can go back and get a pretty good idea of what started the targeting and why, and how these teams view the target.

The same is true for Gang Stalking, once you understand how Gang Stalking works, you can hear a target complain about surveillance, being followed, life disruptions, and get a pretty good idea or feel that this is what is likely what is happening to the target. I hope this has given some a better understanding of Threat Assessment Teams and how they work in relationship to Gang Stalking.

Working Hard so you don’t have to

Working Hard so you don’t have to

I have been working deligently to get Targeted Individuals the information that they seek. To this end I have been in touch with legal services for Threat Assessment Organizations, and even law enforcement. I wanted to get a better understanding of how these teams worked, and the community monitoring. Before I do there are a couple of quick points I wanted to touch base on.

Indigo Ribbon Month

Now before I get to this I wanted to say it’s November so it’s Indigo Ribbon Month, place your ribbons on your websites, wear them in public, or where ever you think is applicable. If you don’t have your buttons you can get them at the store.

http://www.zazzle.com/gangstalking

Randy Quaid and Gang Stalking

Now this story has taken a bit of time away from some of the issues that I wanted to focus on, but I remember that Jeremy Blake and Theresa Duncan at one time sought help. I don’t think they ever discovered the Gang Stalking World website or they might have developed some strategies that might have assisted them. I don’t know, but they were lost, and I really would like to see the Quaids get through this.

I want to thank the posters online who have taken the time to say keep an open mind to this story, or to point out that Gang Stalking does happen, and that their story is either similar or identical to what others are going through.

The Quaids have not expressed or identified themselves as Targeted Individuals, but I know many have protectively welcomed them and embraced them, and I know that many will be keeping an eye on the story. Gang Stalking World was the first in the Targeted Individual community to see a possible link, and to report the story, and will try to keep the community updated in the coming days.

Threat Assessment Teams and F.O.I.A.

Recently I posted about discovering a clause that would prevent these teams from sharing the information under Freedom Of Information and I wanted to find out some more information, so I got in touch with some of the teams. I heard back from legal and police officials regarding the various policies.

The request really seem to differ from organization to organization. Eg. Some do allow you to make the request and will release information, many others hide or squirrell the information away under school or workplace security and thus the files are not stored in the employment records, or school records, but are stored as company security files, to which you do not or can not have access.

In these cases I think it would be good to try to use the available resources to gain access to those records.

This is what I found out. Threat Assessment Team records are part of a student’s education record, and are governing not by FOIA but by FERPA.

Apparently this should give students a right to access the records, and make corrections, but records of employment records ae not covered by FERPA, but at state levels, by employment privacy laws.

Some schools try to get around the FERPA freedom of information by listing these records as law enforcement records. The same is true for companies as well.

On the Threat Assessment Team documents it mentioned a central database where information is stored, so this again is something that needs further clearification, but this is something that targets might wish to look into.

ACLU

I contacted the ACLU, but they prefer that targets take this up with the individual offices for their state. If you do try to gain access to the information from the company you believe might have your files, or some files relating to this type of targeting, and you fail to gain access then what you might wish to do is use your local office. The same is true for Canada, the U.K. and other countries. If you try to gain these records and if fails, you may wish to try the referal services, or see if there is a way to use the commissions.

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/threat-assessment/pdf/college-threat-recommended-practices.pdf

Example Request

Let’s use the case of Randy Quaid. In 2008, Mr. Quaid had a problem with some co-workers. They filed a complaint against him. Now let’s suppose that he is a Targeted Individual and is on some kind of occupational health and safety, or Threat Assessment List because of this.


http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/randy_quaid_banned_from_actors_equity

All 26 members of the Lone Star Love cast brought Randy up on charges with Actors’ Equity Association, claiming he physically and verbally abused his fellow performers and that his oddball behavior onstage and off forced the show to close, thus depriving them of their jobs.

On Friday, Equity handed down its decision. According to documents obtained exclusively by The Post, the union has banned Randy for life – life! – and fined him $81,572.

So this would be a good place to start, check with Human Resources, find out what they call their Threat Assessment Team. I am not sure if this would have been his employer, or just a division that handed down the decision, not familiar with Hollywood, but I am guessing he can find a lawyer who is, and will have more of an idea what to look for, then find out if you can make requests for your information, and if not sue, till you can.

I know it’s a simplified strategy, and again I am still in the research stage for a standard procedure, but these are some suggestions.

Happy Indigo Ribbon Month

How did I become a target?

How did I become a Target?

Scenario 1 Work.

Jane has been employed at Mcat Technotronics for several years, recently her and some co-workers have not been getting along. They have started rumors, moved her stuff around, and been hostile. Jane has complained to HR and finally an investigation was opened. All the co-workers denied any harassment was ongoing. HR to keep the situation quite has placed the blame on Jane. She has been referred to the company psychiatrist. She has refused to go. The HR staff is now getting reports from those that Jane complained about, saying that they fear for their safety, and that she is a problem. HR worried about getting sued if Jane does act out violently has referred her to the companies, Threat Assessment Team.

The team reviews Jane’s file, past employers, social networking sites, family, friends. Jane lives alone, has few associations. The team has decided that Jane requires further monitoring. She is assigned a threat level, and monitored at work. A company psychiatrist has evaluated her remotely and diagnosed her as possibly suffering from a persecutory disorder, and suffering from a false belief that she is being persecuted.

Jane later acts out, get’s into a verbal confrontation with one of her harassers, and is put on probation. Jane decides to leave the job. The employer decides that Jane was very disgruntled, and alerts the Threat Assessment Team. The team decides that Jane requires further monitoring. If she acts out violently in anyway, and they did not alert those around her, they can be sued. Remote monitoring is soon to be set up around Jane. She is also given an elevated threat level.

Scenario 2. School

Raul has started college. He is getting comments and taunts, they don’t like his accent, he is a stranger to many people around him. Raul makes it clear that he does not appreciate the taunts, but this spurs on his harassers more. Eventually Raul and one young man get into a psychical altercation. All the harassers come to the defense of the harasser, placing all the blame on Raul. The student affairs department is notified. After this Raul notices increased harassment, and starts to complain. Complaint after complaint is ignored. Complaints to staff or about staff who are also taking part is ignored, and his mobbing continues. Eventually the Student Affairs department have his file sent to their threat assessment team, after some of the students express concern about his being around them, and that they feel uncomfortable or threatened. Raul is unaware of this, and just trying to get his mobbing stopped.

The Threat Assessment Team review his file, determine that he owns guns, and could be a real threat to the campus. They determine he might be suffering from schizo-affective disorder.The campus and those around Raul are put on alert, they are asked to not say anything, and to report any actions that might be deemed suspicious or problematic. Eventually Raul decides to leave the program due to the overwhelming harassment and lack of support, but since there is no way to tell if this now disgruntled young man will return, he is assigned to remote case file monitoring.

This means that those around him will be alerted, and asked to be the eyes and ears, and report any little incidents, or odd behavior. All the information will be logged and stored in a central database for processing, and review, by the team. Those around Raul are contacted made aware of the situation, and comply with the request for none disclosure as they are legally bound to do.

Scenario 3. Community

Emily Claft see’s a child ruining a flower bed, she confronts the parents, the father tells her off. She goes to her local council to complain, and the customer service rep over the phone is no help. Emily slams down the phone in disgust. She writes a letter saying that the woman was very unpleasant to deal with, she says she wishes the woman would drop dead, and feels that if they had been in person, she would have hit her.

The council review the letter, determine that Emily could be violent, and she is assigned a medium risk classification, only to be seen in two. Emily has noticed that she is seeing strangers around her where they should not be, such as the clinic, and other previously private places. The strangers are alerted every time her name comes up, that she is dangerous and should only be seen in pairs. They are asked to report any future incidents. Her information is disseminated to a wide variety of agencies.

She is placed on a community notification list. The list is also used to alert the community of pedophiles and other violent criminals.
Emily finds it impossible to function, and decides to move.

Later I will review how the local monitoring team functions. How individuals are moved in around the target as part of the monitoring process. Also understanding the role that Community Oriented Policing likely plays, and how community notification lists function.

The information is all there, and the reality is it’s all backed up. The above information can be found by reviewing the Threat Assessment Teams guidelines, and a real life case scenario.

Please keep in mind there are likely dozens upon dozens of ways that an individual could become a target, the above are just a few scenarios.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/threat-assessment-teams-gang-stalking/

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2010/03/jane-clift-case-highlights/

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/2010/06/the-psychatric-reprisal/

http://www.Harassement101.com/Article5.html

Gang Stalking and Threat Assessments

The Video

Threat Assessment Teams and Gang Stalking

Threat Assessment Teams & Gang Stalking

A closer look

Many Targeted Individuals wonder how they could be placed on a list in the first place? Who has the power or the authority to do such a thing? If you live in a country such as the U.K. your local councils have this ability as displayed in the Jane Clift case. If you live in the U.S. or Canada it might be the task of what's called a threat assessment team.

This team can be comprised of just a few individuals, to a team of individuals. It depends on the company, educational facility, or community they are representing and what the specific needs are.

Some examples include members of Human Resource, Police Officers, Psychiatrists, Mental Health Professionals, Senior members of the department or division. In some cases there might be just a small team, who then liaison with various other departments. The team members are pre selected, so the team is already in place. The team should generally be trained in assessing workplace violence, violence on campus, what to do, who to call, and they might also be trained in profiling an individual, to enable them to make an assessment of wither an individual is a threat vs a none threat to the environment around them.

The threat assessment teams and who they are comprised of seem to make no concessions or allowances for being evaluated by a team of peers. Eg. In court cases they try to encourage a variety of jurors, so that a person being judged can be evaluated by a peer of their jurors. This in theory allows for fairer trials and outcomes. With the threat assessment teams there are no such guidelines for who the team is comprised of, or what the make up of the team should be. This may or may not account for why the Targeted Individual community has seen an above average targeting of females and minorities. In addition dissenters such as whistle-blowers, extremist site members, and conspiracy site members are also starting to show up above average.

Once in place the team is ready to take tips from the community around them. Generally the team will liaison with Human Resources, The police, Employee Assistance Program, Mental health, and when a report comes in they use these other resources to assist with their assessment of the Target.

Reports can be filed via a form, the reports can be filed anonymously. This means that the person making the accusation need not have any accountability for making a false report. This might not be the case in every area, but in most of the threat assessment guidelines I came across, reports could be filed anonymously. Keep in mind that report are likely primarily initiated by human resources, campus resources, etc. However anonymous reporting of any kind leaves an organization open to abuses of the system that might be difficult to identify or remedy.

http://www.threatassessment.vt.edu/FAQ/index.html#CareTAT

http://rems.ed.gov/docs/EMHETraining_SATX08_ThreatAssessmentTeams.pdf



The threat assessment team works in a four part process.

1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation

Identification of person of concern


Once a target is chosen, or a concern is forwarded to the threat assessment team it's time for them to liaison and start to profile and assess if that target is a concern for further evaluation or monitoring, or if the case can be closed.

http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/pub108.pdf

This threat assessment guide from the post office is interesting. Here are some of the criterias it uses to assess if a target could be a threat.

Obsessive focus on grudge — often quick to perceive unfairness or malice in others, especially supervisor.

Especially for males, great concerns or emphasis on sexual fidelity of mate.

Recent stressful events or severe losses.

Perceived loss of options.

Direct or veiled threats of bodily harm toward supervisory personnel, coworkers, or customers.

Physical deterioration (head injuries, cancer, disability, kidney failure, etc.).

Extreme sense of moral righteousness about things in general as well as believing that the organization does not follow its own policy and procedures.

Inability to handle constructive criticism well and projecting blame on others.

Demonstrated disregard for safety or coworkers.

Tendency to be a loner with little family or social support and often having an excessive investment in the job.

Another University uses these criteria for their threat assessment and fit for duty guidelines.

http://www.vpfa.fsu.edu/Employee-Assistance-Program/Workplace-Violence

A. Expression of bizarre and inappropriate thoughts. B. Excessive absenteeism without prior approval or rationale. C. Degenerating physical appearance. D. Acts of insubordination. E. Poor work performance. F. Poor workplace relationships with others. G. Indications of alcohol/substance abuse. H. Excessive complaining.

Once an assessment is initiated information is gathered on the Target in question.


Gathering of information and Investigating

To gather information on the target, these threat assessment teams use a variety of sources. They use the persons friends, family, social networking circles, co-workers, neighbours, and other resources.

Triage questions can include:

• Has there been indications of suicidal thoughts,
plans, or attempts?
• Has there been indications of thoughts/plans of
violence?
• Does the person have access to a weapon or are
they trying to gain access?
• Are there concerns about the well-being of the
subject?

• Are there concerns about the safety of the
community?
• If yes, a full inquiry is recommended.

Gather Information (Full Inquiry)
• Think broadly and creatively about those who
might have information:

• Co-workers
• Other staff
• Friends
• Family
• Online friends, web sites, etc.
• Previous schools / employers
• Others?
• Document information and use it to answer the
Key Investigative Questions.

Many Targeted Individuals express concerns often that their families, friends, people online, others are playing a role in their monitoring, or are taking part. That they are somehow in on it, well according to what this threat evaluation guideline dictates, they are often in on it, and asked to be a part of the monitoring and evaluation process.

Need for Collaboration
“Most important, dangerous people rarely show all of
their symptoms to just one department or group on
campus. A professor may see a problem in an essay,
the campus police may endure belligerent
statements, a resident assistant may notice the
student is a loner, the counseling center may notice
that the student fails to appear for a follow-up visit.
Acting independently, no department is likely to solve
the problem. In short, colleges must recognize that
managing an educational environment is a team
effort, calling for collaboration and multilateral
solutions.”

They use a variety of sources in the targets environment, but because reports do come in remotely, there is cause for error, or even false reporting of events. These reports are used to keep targets on monitoring for years to come.

Many people believe that the social networking sites that they use are harmless, but when it comes to being evaluated as to wither you are a threat to your social circle, you will see that these sites have now begun to play a critical and integral role in assisting these teams to make their initial assessments.

Initial Screening
Helpful Internet sites include:
Google.com Bebo.com
MySpace.com Xanga.com
Facebook.com Snopes.com
YouTube.com thehoodup.com
Technorati.com
(searches blogs)
craigslist.com
(search the relevant city/town)
Twitter.com JuicyCampus.com
Blackplanet.com RateMyProfessor.com
MiGente.com Cuil.com

If unaware of the guidelines being used to assess them, targets could well be entrapped or tricked into making suggestive statements. Also once those around the target perceive that the target is under investigation, normal everyday behaviours that would have been brushed aside, become significant, and everything the target does is cause for alarm.

2. Have there been any communications
suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
• What, if anything, has the person
communicated to someone else (targets,
friends, co-workers, others) or written in a
diary, journal, email, or Web site concerning
his or her grievances, ideas and/or intentions?
• Has anyone been alerted or "warned away"?
Source: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, (2002)
Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates.
Key Investigative Questions

The threat assessment team will also circumvent laws such as FERPA and HIPAA to get around laws that would usually prevent an invasion of the targets rights and privacy.

Information Sharing: FERPA

• FERPA is not an impediment to effective threat
assessment and case management.
• FERPA governs records only, not observations,
communications, etc.
• FERPA does not govern police records.
• If created & maintained by law enforcement, for
law enforcement purpose.
• New guidance from ED encourages information
sharing where public safety is a concern.
• FERPA does not permit a private right of action.

Information Sharing: HIPAA
• Check with legal counsel as to which laws
govern counseling center records.
• Confidentiality is held by client, not MH provider.
• In cases where privacy laws apply, can try these
strategies:
• No legal prohibition against providing
information to health/MH professionals.
• Inquire about Tarasoff - type duty.
• Ask subject for permission to disclose.

Record Keeping
• Centralized incident tracking database;
• Document reports and actions - include date,
time, subjects, targets, behaviors of concern,
witnesses;
• Data;
• Assessment;
• Plan;
• Preserve evidence: Keep copies of email,
memos, etc.
Record Keeping
Incident tracking database;
• Incident Information:
• Date, location, nature of incident, means of approach;
• Subject information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Target / Victim Information;
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Witness/Reporting Party Information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.

Assessing Information and Situation

Once all the reports are in from the eyes and ears around the target, then the assessing of information begins.

Think creatively about resources, as well as
“eyes and ears.”
• Anticipate likely change in the short and midterm,
and how the subject may react.
• Monitor using available resources. Who sees
the person regularly, inside work/campus,
outside, on weekends, online, etc.?

The threat assessment team use the information gathered together to determine if the target should be referred any third parties, this could include law enforcement, Employee Assistant Program, Mental Health Workers or others.

They evaluate if the person might be a danger to themselves or others, if the person is able to take care of themselves. Eg. Do they pay rent on time, do they buy groceries, are the suicidal, a threat to others, etc. If these criteria are not met, they might try to convince a judge or other health care worker that a mental health hold is required, or some other form of intervention.

Information is recorded and reported 24/7 and often stored in some form of centralized database. The records are crossed referenced with police and other contacts.

Now this procedure was in place well before the fusion centers ever came into existence, however it is not out of the question to assume that fusion centers might well be used in future or linked into this process, even if they were not initially used.

Once a Targeted is listed for monitoring, even if they move away from the university, place of employment, or community, if they are still perceived to be a threat to others the remote monitoring, or case management will continue.

While the case is open the team should:

• Continue to monitor and modify the plan as long as the individual still poses a threat

• Recognize that a person can continue to pose a threat even after he/she ceases to be a Closing a Case
member of the campus community

• Continue to monitor the situation through its relationship with local law enforcement agencies and mental health agencies, as well as in direct cooperation with the person, if possible


http://www.threatassessment.vt.edu/FAQ/index.html#CareTAT

The Target will be monitored as long as they are perceived as a threat. There is no current limit to how many years the state can continue this monitoring, imposition and disruption of the targets life.

If someone who has been reviewed by the Threat Assessment Team leaves the area, do you continue to monitor him/her?

If the situation warrants reviewing the case after the subject leaves the area, the team will continue to do so. It is important to remember that when the subject has relationships in his/her life, there is a lesser chance for violence to occur. A failure to communicate or interact with a subject encourages problems to fester, which could lead to violence.

Also under many of these occupational health and safety guidelines, the Targets information can and will be shared with those that they are likely to come in contact with.

http://www.wcb.pe.ca/photos/original/wcb_wpviolence.pdf

“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.

Remember as the case is being monitored, any incidents, perceived threats, strange behaviour, anything at all can be reported to this team for assessment and evaluation. If the team feels that a change in behaviour constitutes a threat the team might upgrade the targets to something along the lines of medium risk, danger to self or others, should only be seen in pairs.

Manage The Situation

The threat assessment team might also add specific quirks of the target to their files, things that the general public might be made aware of, such as if the target starts to pace it could be a sign of imminent attack.

Assessment: Case Priority Levels

PRIORITY 1 (Extreme Risk): Poses clear/immediate threat of violence or self-harm and requires immediate containment, law enforcement involvement, target protection, and case management plan.

PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.

PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.

PRIORITY 4 (Low Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm at this time, but may exhibit some disruptive behavior and/or need for assistance. Requires passive monitoring. Utilize case management and referrals as appropriate.

PRIORITY 5 (No Identified Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm nor is there evidence of disruption to community. No case management or monitoring required.

It can be clearly shown that monitoring is indeed a part of the guidelines that these threat assessment teams do follow.

Once the plan is developed, it needs to be
implemented and monitored.
• Team should include implementation and
monitoring responsibilities as part of the case
management plan.
• Further referrals may be necessary.
• Team should continue to follow up as
necessary.

What targets may wish to do in future is redirect F.O.I.A. (Freedom Of Information Act) requests to these agencies.
Targets may also wish to have their lawyers make a cease and desist request to these threat assessment teams in regards to the overly invasive monitoring that is allowed. In future Targeted Individuals might even be able to come together and aim class action lawsuits or individual, and human rights lawsuits at these teams. Slander suits and others might also be suitable.

What would also be nice is to gain some statistics on who is being monitored via these threat assessment teams. Which case files were closed, vs which are still open. How many years does the average case stay open for? Ages, genders, race, how many were whistle-blowers, or belonged to a dissident, extremist, conspiracy or protest group.

These might be things that future Targeted Individuals look into as they seek assistance in stopping the monitoring, surveillance, and life disruptions, and curtailling the abuses that are being experienced under these programs.

With these threat assessment teams it's extremely important to realize that if the threat assessment team is composed of one group, and they are assigned to make a threat assessment of another group or individual, you might not have fair and balanced assessments, because these teams than do not take into considerations cultural norms, gender, racial, sexual, or other biases that might be present, or underlying within the assessment team. The assessment team is essentially playing judge, jury, and executioner with their assessments of these individuals, thus if courts are required in many cases to use a fair and balanced jury of peers, should Threat Assessment Teams be morally or legally required to do the same in future?

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]

How do we stop Gang Stalking?

So people keep asking what we can do to stop Gang Stalking?

I was on a forum recently and one person told people they could stop Gang Stalking by moving to the heart of the forest, and destroying their cellphone. Sure if you wish to disconnect from society, live off the scraps of the forest, and leave your stuff behind when you move this might just work, but otherwise, most targets need real solutions as they go through months, and then years of being systemically destroyed.

Now these people are stalking a lot of us because they deem us, or believe us to be mentally ill, on drugs, perverts, whatever. For those being listed as mentally ill, you would think that the logical thing to do would be to get a mental health examination, but from the articles pertaining to the psychiatric reprisal, we learn that psychiatrists are all too willing to list innocent, sane people as mentally ill, thus getting an examination will not necessarily clear you.

What we could do is get out own team, eg. A threat assessment team, to review decisions that have been made by others. Eg. In the Jane Clift case if there was a none bias committee she could have appealed to, to see if her listing was justified, it could have saved her four years of legal trouble, and having to leave her community.

The problem many of us have is that we have never seen our community files, we don't know the information that has been listed. I do know there is a lot of false information in mine, just on things that I have observed, that these people believe to be true. I do know they have falsely listed me as having some sort of a mental illness, because I dared to take some company to task for harassment. The problem is having open access to files, and a none partial party that is willing to listen, and understand that these files have a lot of false information. Staged incidents, incidents that do not even involve the target, like Jiverly Wong did, but the lies do not seem to matter, it's just what people are willing to believe.

The other solution of course is there are villages for the mentally ill. Those who are homeless might be able to take advantage of these communities that are springing up, again the problem with this is that many targets though falsely listed as mentally ill, are not mentally ill. When you are desperate however, this could be a temporary safe harbour, but ofcourse this is what they want. Targets housed together so they can "keep an eye on the mentally ill."

The best solution would be to get the laws changed, thus targets who are listed, must be informed that they have been added to the registry, they must be informed for what they have been added, thus they have a legal right to pursue action, and to ensure the information listed on their files is not one sided. I think this is the best solution, but could take years to implement.

Now there are groups who have caught the eye of politicians, surely that will help? To be honest you can have a thousand groups, with the eye of a thousand politicians and that will not help if they are misleading and looking at false precepts, or stalking gangs, etc. I have yet to hear any of these groups address the occupational health and safety laws, and the mental health laws that are being used to list targets, till this silence is broken, and addressed, these groups could do a thousand campaigns, but it it's not the right one, it will just waste the time, energy and resources that targets don't have to waste.

At the end of the day, exposure and awareness is still the key. Four years ago, I had to fight to keep my threads on forums, they would get deleted, my accounts banned, the threads would get disrupted by fake targets, and then get closed. Any time head way was being made, they would block it, just to protect this system.

Things have changed somewhat. The conspiracy sites, and some extremist sites are now fully aware of what Gang Stalking is. Gang Stalking is slowly making it's way into some of the more mainstream forums. There are still those who try to dismiss it off hand as an urban legand, or a sign of mental illness, but there are others who discuss it openly, and in some ways it's getting normalized. The idea is to get the normalization to occur much more rapidly, while keeping the topic relevant. Eg. Mobbing is exposed, but someday's I am not sure this makes any difference to the targets of mobbing. There is little point in getting this normalized to the stage where it becomes irrelevant. Eg. Priests molesting children had it's shock value, but today stories of this do not cause the same outrage, even though it still happening to a large degree. It's become normalized, but not as relevant as it once was.

So moving forward, targets are the best for exposing this, if we stay on targeted forums, and don't mingle with others, the information will not get out. The idea is to mingle, share information, but share good information. The term Gang Stalking is the term I use. Most targets after trying the organized stalking term, seem to switch back in a lot of cases to Gang Stalking. It's just the most popular term. I think Organized Gang Stalking is also ok, but use what suites you the best, I don't care what term people use, as long as the correct concept is conveyed, and what is behind this is conveyed.

Yvonne Hiller and Gang Stalking

The case of Yvonne Hiller demonstrates that many fail to understand the causes and affects of these workplace shootings.


http://gangstalkingworld.com/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284237842/4#4

Yvonne Hiller in my opinion was most likely a Gang Stalking target. What this means is that at some point in her work history she had likely been placed on a notification list. A list that would alert those around her that she had displayed violent or threatening behavior in the past.

Ms. Hiller did have a history of verbal and possible physical altercations in the last few years it's been reported. Many people will see this and go, well then the list works. Surly if she killed people then she was violent and it was right to put her on the list, but this is the wrong conclusion. The pattern that has been seen, and that is happening is the same pattern the mobbing community identified. Years and years of psychologically abusive targeting, will cause violent outcomes. Putting people on these notification lists, exposes them to years, and months of harassment. They are exposed to harassment such as being sprayed with chemicals, consistent rumours and slander, such as Ms. Hiller complained about. Harassment that is often very real, but so subtle that it's almost impossible to prove.

Ms. Hiller had made complaints about workplace harassment, being sprayed by chemicals and other items by co-workers. At home she had the same complaints that chemicals were being sprayed in her home. Her calls to fire departments, and police went ignored. The harassment is meant to be subtle, hard to prove, but this is the same type of targeting that is happening to many others that are listed under these workplace occupational health and safety notification lists. Remember you can end up on these lists via work, school, or the community. Once added your life becomes hell, a systemic cycle of abuse that is hard to prove, and even harder for others to imagine. Cries for help are seen as a sign of mental illness, and every complaint there after is viewed as a need for psychological help. The reality is that once placed on these lists, people are being harassed.

There is a system, a deliberate organized system that is connected, coordinated, and capable of destroying a persons life, with harassment's that are so subtle, the target can often not prove that any of it was ever happening, and that is the reality. Once added to these community notifications, and workplace listings, you almost create a self fulfilling prophecy.

http://www.taginc.com

[quote]
TAG originated with the recognition that organizations and individuals need help coping with the irrational, abnormal, and dangerous behavior of others. Whether the problem is a threatening employee, domestic violence, stalking, a defamation campaign designed to discredit a product or person, an impaired executive or officer, an irrational neighbor or tenant, a sexual predator circling a loved one, fiduciary abuse of an elder, or a kidnapping, TAG meets the need for rapid, expert, confidential guidance.
[/quote]

Organizations such as this probably view cases such as Ms. Hiller and feel that their practices are justified, that their threat assessments do work. The reality is the very nature of these programs are often times driving the end results all over various countries. That is why Gang Stalking targets have popped up all across the internet, and in a variety of countries.

To date awareness has been part of the key to trying to combat what is happening. It took years for it to be recognized that bullying lead to school shootings, more years to realized that workplace mobbing leads to shootings, and how much longer will it take to realize and draw the correct correlation that putting people on these lists are leading to some of these violent community situations and circumstances? You can not put people on lists, and notify those around them, without expecting the harassment and mobbing that it inevitably creates. Individuals have a right to know that they are on such listings. Legally it would give them the ability to fight back, and be properly assessed, but that would likely undermine the agenda that is currently at play.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1453798994/

The listings are often deliberate, they target females and minorities above average. They also target whistle-blowers and those who stand out in some fashion, to a higher degree. Conspiracy sites and extremist sites, are starting to have members pop up with these complaints above average as well. The more outspoken you are, the less you are the type to go along with the status quo, the sad reality is that you have a greater chance in future of being added to one of these lists, by some member of some distant threat assessment team you have never meet. Using these occupational health and safety laws, your reputation and everything you worked for is open to defamation of your character, and the scary part is just like in the former Soviet Union it's all behind your back, you don't get to see the evidence against you, whither it's true or false.

In future as creepy as it sounds, they could even use what people are thinking against them, and it could have no basis in their actual actions. These remote assessments are junk science at best, and dangerous at worst. The reality is they often target people who are being victimized at work and in the community, etc. These assessments then put all the blame on the victim, saying that the events can't be proven, it's all just in their heads, when the reality is the harassment is often happening, and often very real.

The only way this will change is when these lists affect more and more members of society, and they start to encompass a wider scope of individuals, but until them, we are likely to face an increasing number of tragedies such as the one witnessed recently.

The only way this will change is if people speak out, stop keeping the secrets of this system, it's destroying lives, and it's causing these end results, that the society then pretends to be so shocked and horrified by.