منتديات سودانيزاونلاين    مكتبة الفساد    ابحث    اخبار و بيانات    مواضيع توثيقية    منبر الشعبية    اراء حرة و مقالات   
News and Press Releases    اتصل بنا    Articles and Views    English Forum    ناس الزقازيق   

Home Search

Board Laws

Articles

Refresh

المنبر العام
Sudanese Videos

Archives

News in English

News in Arabic

Welcome Guest [Login]
Your last visit: 05-26-2024, 03:37 PM Home

Discussion Board in English Organized stalking ?
Printable Version   Forward   Threaded View « Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Jump to newest reply in thread »

Organized stalking ?

12-18-2011, 07:57 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Organized stalking ?


    Dear readers

    Hello to all of you

    This will be the first of my posts with you, discussing serious and important issue, one of the crimes that violate human rights through the formal institutions

    of the States, this is one of the taboo crimes in Europe and America, and the serious thing that the media in the first world ignore this phenomenon and

    ignores the victims, as everything is happening almost in secret, the media and human rights organizations ignoring for this crime is a piece of the secrecy.
    Since I will discussed issue not known to most people, I will start by definition it through the publication of studies and information on the subject and also

    through the publishing of the experiences of some of his victims and I will write the links to sites that discuss the topic

    The topic calls: organized stalking, or Gang Stalking and community mobbing

    After that I will put you my personal experience with the organized stalking.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-18-2011, 08:07 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Organized stalking Definition:


    Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. Once a target is flagged a notification is sent out to the community at large, and the target is followed around 24/7 by the various communities that they are in. The community notifications will go out to various places. Apartment rentals, future employers, stores and communities where the target visits, will be notified. Doctors offices, fire departments, police, etc. A covert investigation might also be opened, and electronic, means used by the civilian spies/snitches as part of the overt and covert monitoring and surveillance process. Individuals can be flagged designating them as having a history of aggressive or inappropriate behaviour. This notification system will follow the target if they move, change jobs, visit other areas. It let’s the community believe that the target is a person who needs to be watched or monitored.

    Targeted Individuals:

    http://www.targetedindividuals.com/gang-stalking/

    (Edited by عبدالغفار محمد سعيد on 12-18-2011, 08:10 PM)

                  

Arabic Forum

12-18-2011, 09:04 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Why Are Organized Stalking Targets Chosen?


    The question "Why would a large group of people want to harass YOU?" is the big one. This "Why YOU" question is, in my view, the greatest barrier to exposing and stopping organized stalking. The majority of organized stalking targets do not know for certain why they were chosen, in my experience corresponding with other targets. (I don't know why I was chosen either.) The majority of targets are not high profile people, or people with very sensitive knowledge of government secrets or corporate misdeeds. Under the FBI's COINTELPRO ("counterintelligence") programs against activists in the 1960s, those who were targeted by FBI harassers were activists, for example, the Black Panthers. We have a few government or corporate whistleblowers in the organized stalking target community. We have a few who were set to inherit large estates. We have some who found themselves targets during or after a hostile divorce. We have a few who were witnesses to crime. Some organized stalking targets are talk show hosts who broadcast about government and corporate crimes. Some organized stalking targets apparently "just ticked someone off." But the barrier to credibility is the large number of targets who are "nobodies." I would estimate that perhaps 70% of organized stalking targets can't point with any certainty to the reason they were chosen to be targets. When these "nobodies" try to complain to the authorities about the harassment, they are told that stalking and harassment by groups never happens. I was told by the police officer hosting a group of stalking victims that because I could not name my ONE stalkER, I was not welcome to attend the support group. "Nobodies" reporting organized stalking are told there is no such thing as an organized, well funded group, nor could there ever be, just to harass innocent individuals. And this is very logical sounding, to people who are not organized stalking targets. Such a glib dismissal is also a very easy way for a public official to "get rid of a problem person." The end result is that the "system" heaps the ultimate "punishment" on the already desperate target - the target is often forced to undergo psychiatric treatment. This injustice pretty well disables further attempts by the target to get the crime remedied. Organized stalking targets are never told why they were chosen, with a literal handful of exceptions. There is no visible accuser, no formal charges, no opportunity to defend one's self at trial, no appeal process. One day everything is fine, and suddenly you start to realize that you're experiencing unending hostile acts in the community, on the job or in school, in commercial establishments, and in the privacy of your home. While some of the harassers say things to the target, if pressed, they consistently deny there is any harassment going on. So the "Why YOU?" question remains the number one barrier to justice for targets. The "Why YOU?" question appears, as best we targets can discern, to have multiple parts to the answer.




    ORGANIZED STALKING INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE FOR WHOM THIS CRIME IS A NEW ISSUE:


    http://www.stopos.info/osatv.pdf
                  

Arabic Forum

12-19-2011, 05:04 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    The Silent Massacre, Part 1

    Law Enforcement Complicity in Electronic Torture & Mind Control in America



    Quote: By Nicholas Kirkland

    March 14, 2009


    Author’s Note

    In recent years, scientists have learned how to locate by remote, focus on, and lock into a person’s brain to manipulate that person’s thoughts and thus his actions. Mind control assaults now loom as one of the main challenges of the 21st century. The targeted person often never discovers that he has become a mind control victim, and he ends up hurting others, taking his own life, or simply becoming another “Alzheimer” statistic. This paper discusses some of the elements of what I call Electronic Stalking and Mind Control (ESMC).
    While writing this paper, the people who monitor me electronically and continually interfere with my computer and emails and tap my phones, often entered my PC to make changes in the narrative to discourage me and try to make me look crazy. Keeping the paper intact and ensuring accuracy has been a constant battle. Even now, after finishing the paper, when I go back to add a salient point, I often find that a portion has been altered or deleted. Powerful forces do not want papers such as this one written and disseminated.
    Fortunately, the internet brings together targeted individuals (TIs) of electronic torture and mind control from all conceivable backgrounds. Race and ethnicity, color, gender, religion, politics, philosophical views, and all other human characteristics and thought, fade and become one as targets suffer from the same evil. This paper is written principally for those victims.
    Some readers may find this paper objectionable when I talk about who initiated my ESMC and who probably continues to manage it by proxy. Nevertheless, I hope that the reader can get past those objections and read the entire content. Targeted individuals (TIs) will readily identify with what I talk about in this paper. Those who are not TIs, but who are intellectually curious about electronic and mind control assault, will learn much about a sick attack upon tens of thousands of targets that also indirectly affects everybody in lives of those targeted individuals.
    The human resources and the enormous cost required to carry out electronic stalking and mind control, re-enforced in many cases by gang stalking, almost certainly limit its use to governments. Only governments can mobilize the enormous outlay of funds and successfully camouflage the use of those funds. Only governments have the sophisticated equipment and computers required for electronic abuse and mind control. Only governments can train in secrecy the cadre of handlers who administer the electronic assault and mind control activities, using deception and psychology. Even mega corporations and businesses would not be able to carry out electronic assault and mind control in secrecy unless they did so under cover of government work and with government protection. Several countries, including the United States of America, have experimented with directed energy weaponry and mind control for many years.
    Background
    I was first targeted for surveillance by the Israelis in a South American country no later than 1978. Let me back up to explain. I was working for the U. S. Government in South America when the 1973 Arab-Israeli War broke out. An historian by academic training, I started looking into the causes of the war and realized that Israel was not the poor beleaguered nation that U. S. media portrayed but instead pursued internal and foreign policies that caused most of the Middle East problems. Shortly after my “enlightenment,” pro-Israeli Americans with whom I worked started testing my views. Their attempts to intimidate me had the opposite affect. Instead of remaining quiet, I became more vocal in expressing my beliefs.
    Only recently have I remembered an incident in that country that may have portended the current electronic torture and mind control. In about 1976 or 1977, for several evenings while in my bedroom before retiring I was struck suddenly with a sense of overwhelming gloom that tended toward panic. It dissipated during the night, and the following day I felt normal. In retrospect, I believe that either my mind may have already been “hooked” and unknown persons manipulating my mind or I was being targeted by some remote-operated electromagnetic force. (More on that later.)
    Five years later I was assigned to a different South American country. One of the national employees who worked in my section was a Jewish woman who had worked with the Israeli Consulate before that office closed, and then she began working with the U. S. representation in that country. One day when I had a problem with a molar, I asked that person to recommend a dentist. She referred me to a German Jewish "dentist," who supposedly did a root canal on that tooth. After retirement, in the 1990's, I went to an American dentist with problems with the same molar on which the South American dentist had supposedly performed the root canal. The local dentist found in the tooth a tiny cylindrical pin-like object. At the time, I thought little of it. However, now in retrospect, that little object had to be a tiny "bug." The South American dentist also wanted to place a filling in-between my two front teeth, claiming that there was decay between the teeth. He obviously intended to implant an incredibly tiny camera in that location. Thirty years later those two teeth remain perfectly sound.
    I liked the employee who recommended the dentist, and at the time I had no reason at all to doubt that she was just a nice, friendly national employee who happened to be Jewish and who happened to find work with the U. S. Government. When other employees reported to me that she got to the office early in the morning to go through the papers in my desk, I dismissed those charges as simply tales manufactured out of jealousy. After I left the country for another assignment, that employee lost her job. Although I had given her excellent performance evaluations, she told others that I caused her to be fired. In actuality, I did not find out that she had been dismissed until much later. In hind sight, I believe that her guilt convinced her that I had found out about her duplicity. Apparently that employee did not stop working with the Israelis when she took the job with the U. S. Government.
    In the 1970’s, Israeli Nazi hunters were still active in South America. The “dentist” probably worked with them, and the employee in my office may have also cooperated in the hunt. One of the contractors who worked with the American Government and who alternated between Argentina and the country in which I was assigned was known to be associated with that group. The U. S. Government, in fact, cooperated with and probably even funded the Nazi hunters. The “Nazis” probably included anybody who opposed Israel and its pro-Israel factions.
    The minuscule device implanted by the dentist in South America in the late 1970’s may have had only limited capability. It was undoubtedly used to listen to my conversations as well as perhaps to track my movements. Since that time, however, much more sophisticated, high-tech, intelligence-gathering and mind control equipment and software have been developed, tried, and put into operation.
    Over the years, I continued to speak out against Israel’s foreign policy and our support for it. In the 1970’s, I defended the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when it was still considered a renegade group, and in 1984 I became a member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee at a time when Americans were being led by the U. S. media down the anti-Moslem path. I never occupied an important decision-making position in the government; yet, to the Israelis, an enemy is an enemy, regardless of his rank. I articulate my thoughts, and my friends respect my opinions. Thus, I am a threat.
    In 1985, I was reassigned to an African post. Several years later, on the eve of the Gulf War, when it looked like President George Bush (the elder) was going to attack Saddam Hussein, I objected to that action. Taking advantage of a process known as the “dissent channel,” in which American government employees abroad may express opposition to U. S. foreign policy, I sent several cables to the Secretary of State stating my opposition to the war and pointedly charging that the principal reason for the U. S. attacking Hussein was not to assist Kuwait but to fight a proxy war for Israel to maintain Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. However, the media had already pumped up the American public to support the so-called Gulf War. I was among only a handful of thoughtful Americans who opposed that war, and I am quite sure that my opposition became duly noted by U. S. pro-Israel factions as well as the Israelis.
    My cables criticizing both the U. S. and Israel for their Middle East policies may have triggered much more advanced electronic surveillance. My hind-sight observations tell me that probably in the early 1990’s pro-Israel elements within the FBI took over my surveillance from the original perpetrators when I retired and returned to the United States, probably on the pretended grounds that I was a subversive and a suspected terrorist. Their mind control assault on me probably began in the early-1990’s and increased in intensity over the last ten to fifteen years.
    When I retired in 1991, I continued to speak out against Israel in conversations with friends and in letters to editors of newspapers. I knew that elements in U. S. intelligence loyal to Israel had placed me on their “watch” list and that they were following my activities. After retiring, I continued to travel abroad occasionally, usually to Central America, where I owned property. Once when I returned to the Houston international airport from one of the trips, a rookie immigration official processed my entry. A veteran officer stood nearby. When the rookie scanned my passport and viewed his monitor, he looked perplexed. He turned to the older officer and pointed to something on his monitor that he obviously did not understand. The veteran officer took a quick look and said, “ADOD” (Advise Department of Defense).
    My computer has been hacked and my phone tapped for years. A recent accidental discovery strongly suggests that the hackers and phone tappers are Federal agents or foreign agents working with the permission of U. S. intelligence. Here is what happened. One day I entered my email Sent File to copy a paragraph that I had written to a correspondent about the tiny device having been implanted in a molar while living in South America in 1978. I cut and pasted that paragraph and re-sent it. Because my computer is monitored and my emails sometimes deleted or changed, I went back to the Sent box to see if the message had actually gone out. When I opened the sent message, I was astonished to see three words encased in blue-lined rectangular boxes: ISRAEL, MIDDLE EAST, and SOUTH AMERICA.
    As a former government employee, let me explain why those three areas were highlighted. Intelligence organizations in every country divide their offices into geographical areas, including Israel, Middle East, and South America. Copies of my email went to those three offices in some intelligence agency in some country. Every U. S. law intelligence agency, including the Department of State and other agencies, has personnel sections that deal with regional affairs. Whoever monitors my email spotted my references to Israel, the Middle East, and South America and marked that email for copies to be sent to those regional affairs offices. I suspect that copies not only went to U. S. intelligence agencies but also to the Mossad.
    The secret monitors never imagined that I would go back into a previously sent letter to cut and paste. Finding the highlighted words was a total accident, but a very fortunate one for me, for it told me that somebody monitors my email correspondence and that he is not looking for kiddy porn, drug, and money laundering rings but for material dealing with political views. After passage of the so-called Patriot Act, anybody working with the FBI can justify monitoring a citizen’s email and tapping his phones without getting judicial approval.
    Later, to make their flub-up appear to be a computer glitch or a common internet action, the same monitors encircled other words on several other letters; however, when they saw that I had not fallen for that deception, they quit doing it. In view of the fraternal cooperation between the FBI/CIA and the Mossad, the monitor of my emails could be an agent of the latter. What I do not know is the location of the person who monitors my computer, as computers can be hacked from anywhere in the world, including Monroe, Louisiana, where I live, New York City, or Tel Aviv.
    Freedom of expression in the United States seemingly comes at a price. Although I have never belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Survivalists or any other radical organization, I have openly and consistently condemned Israel. As an American, I thought that I had the right to do so. Apparently I was wrong. One can publicly criticize England, France, Mexico, or any other country in the world -- except Israel.
    That point is supported by Israeli spokeswoman Tzipora Menache, who was reported in a February 1, 2009 article as saying, “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we [the Israelis] control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House . . . . We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. IN AMERICA YOU CAN CRITICIZE GOD, BUT YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ISRAEL.” But I do.

    Having always considered myself a fervently patriotic citizen, I smolder at being made a surveillance target and now a target of electronic torture and mind control because of my personal and political views, especially my foreign personal and political views. If communication with radical and terrorist groups is the only object of my surveillance, that surveillance would have concluded years ago that I am not a domestic terrorist or a threat to the United States of America. That suggests that I am perceived by either pro-Israel U. S. intelligence or Israeli intelligence as a threat to Israel and thus the reason for my surveillance. The aim of Israel and its pro-Israel American accomplices is to stifle any opposition at all in the United States – and worldwide -- to Israel, and American intelligence appears only too ready to lend assistance toward that objective.
    This paper is not about Israel; nevertheless, I feel compelled to make several observations about Israel, as Americans will never see anything critical of Israel in the controlled mainline U. S. media:
    (1) Israel often “creates” its enemies to justify its agenda, knowing full well that the United States will back it. Despite the media hype, the facts show that Israel has made no genuine effort to make peace with its neighbors. On the contrary, through its actions it has ensured continued Arab and Moslem hostility.
    (2) Israel purposefully engenders the belief that it is surrounded by hostile forces, as it unites the Western world in its support and opens pocketbooks on its behalf. Indeed, the U. S. provides no-strings budget support for Israel that far exceeds the entire budgets of most developing countries.
    (3) American politicians and the press tout Israel as one of the United States’ staunchest allies; yet, Israel employs spies in the United States. Several spies for Israel have been caught in the last few years and incarcerated only later to be quietly pardoned by the president or otherwise quietly released later by our government to Israel.
    (4) Israel uses its pro-Israel supporters in the United States, not all Jews by any means, to promote its plans for Middle East domination using American resources. We have already fought two proxy wars for Israel and intervened in Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern and African countries in support of Israel’s foreign policy. In addition, we lost scores of American soldiers when Islamic bombers blew up barracks in two Arab countries (Lebanon and Saudi Arabia) and blew a hole in the U.S.S. Cole near Yemen because of our unswerving support for Israel.
    (5) Israel is one of the biggest exporters of small arms and assault weapons, many of which end up in the hands of gang members on American streets and along the Mexican border.
    A very large number of presidential political appointees are ardently pro-Israel, and they even use their diplomatic positions to back Israel’s agenda. The American ambassador in an African country in which I served, who happened to be Jewish, told newly assigned employees point blank in an initial briefing that a part of our duty would be to support Israel. I could hardly believe my ears. His remark was clearly intended for me. Knowing my political views, he may have been baiting me to openly protest his orders and thus give him reason to send me back to the United States.
    That Israel views any anti-Zionist views as dangerous and attempts to silence those views is obvious. That pro-Israel organizations in the U. S. perform unlawful acts to advance Israel’s agenda is indisputable. That Israel and its U. S. backers have reason to want me and others silenced is readily evident. They are masters, however, in using misinformation and developing schemes to get others to perform their dirty work while they sit and watch several layers removed from the action.
    The Discovery
    Although it is now obvious that I had been targeted since the late 1970’s, or perhaps earlier, I did not discover it until December 7, 2005, when my assailants, or handlers, started bombarding me with electrical-like jolts, strong vibrations, and other physical torture. The first vibrations were so strong that I could hardly stand on my feet. I gradually learned that the physical electronic effects, although annoying and painful, were simply used to “soften” or “sensitize” or “pre-condition” me for the real objective – mind control. I later learned that victims are normally targeted for years before they finally realize it. Some targets suffer physical attacks for years and visit doctors frequently without realizing that their symptoms are not natural.
    Four days after the electronic attack, the handlers, began "talking" to me subliminally through my brain. Of course, only I could hear their talking. At the time that the ESMC hurled me into reality, I was sixty-eight years old and in exceptional physical and mental health. Although I was initially startled by the “voice-to-brain” communication, I knew full well that I was not schizophrenic. As an historian and former government employee, I understand the value of documentation. Thus, on the very day that the electronic effects first pounded me, I started recording a detailed journal in which I recount my experiences and my thoughts concerning that topic. The journal today comprises six volumes and about a thousand pages of single spaced typescript.
    I do not yet know how the perpetrators of the electronic and mind control assault “hooked” my brain by remote. I have had many inoculations, much dental work, and several minor medical procedures performed over the years in various locations. However, as the reader will later see, whatever method was used, it had been employed in my case by the early 1990’s and probably long before, perhaps even dating back to the 1970’s.
    Targets and Non-targets
    Shortly after starting my journal, I began researching the topic and communicating with many other victims. Almost invariably those victims, like I, had ignored signs of electronic stalking and did not realize for a very long time that they had been targeted. That is one of the techniques that the stalkers use. The electronic torture and mind control activities are “progressive.” Electronic and mind control stalkers begin very slowly and gradually increase the intensity of the electronic and mind control effects until finally they are too obvious for targets to ignore. Although many of the effects are similar, they do vary from target to target. Many of the targets, for example, do not hear the voices. Nevertheless, they are there.
    Through my subsequent research and communications with victims, I learned that stalkers may target any person regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, social and economic status, religion, or age. Most of them are just plain law-abiding citizens who mind their own business. ESMC is not peculiar to only the United States. People in countries all over the world are reporting electronic and neurological assaults. However, this paper deals with only that which occurs in the United States.
    Strangely and perhaps suspiciously, some Americans appear exempt from electronic harassment and mind control:
    (1) Congresspersons and high ranking U. S. Government officials, including ambassadors. Lower ranking employees and ex-employees of government, however, are often targeted, especially “whistleblowers” and those discontented with the status quo. Postal workers very often become targets, which very well may explain the shooting sprees and rampages of some of those employees.
    (2) High ranking state-level officials.
    (3) The clergy, although members of Fundamentalist Protestant and Roman Catholic churches often become targets. Some of those victims complain that their churches may be involved in their harassment.
    (4) Law enforcement officers. Although I have heard obliquely of police officers being electronically assaulted, I have never actually corresponded with or read a complaint by a law enforcement target. The exclusion also applies to prison authorities, U. S. marshals, Border Patrol, DEA, the entire U. S. intelligence community, including the Secret Service, sheriffs, and sheriff’s deputies.
    (5) CEOs and very successful businesspersons.
    (6) High ranking military officials. Enlisted personnel are often targets; however, I have never seen any material about officer-level personnel having been targeted.
    (7) The medical community.
    (8) The wealthy. I have never read anything about a millionaire having been victimized by ESMC. Most of the targets are middle-class workers, small business owners, retirees, and sometimes financially- and socially-marginal persons.
    (9) Judges and lawyers. The perpetrators know that judges and lawyers possess credibility and also know the laws and would thus be able to leverage law enforcement into action.
    (10) Persons with expertise in radio and electronics, who could perhaps eventually figure out what device is being used and how.
    There are two logical and plausible reasons why most of those particular people are not targeted:
    (A) They are a part of the conspiracy, either directly or indirectly, and thus protected.
    (B) The perpetrators know that those targeted groups would possess the intellectual credibility and the power to command investigations of their attacks.
    Theories of Methods Used in ESMC
    It is indisputable that electronic and mind control assault operates by remote. That means that some object makes contact with the human body over a distance through the air. Thus, whatever method is used must operate along some type of frequency. Almost anything today can be controlled by remote using particular radio frequencies: satellites; rocket ships; less sophisticated free flying machines like military spy drones; garage doors, and indeed almost any other motorized equipment. To allow those frequencies to contact it, the human body must carry in or on it some object, substance, or characteristic that will attract those frequencies. Evidence of that is seen in a target’s being lasered while in the presence of others. In my case, certain voice inflections and tones of narrators on TV also cause jolts in my body; those sounds could only come from electromagnetic waves.
    Satellites now possess amazing capabilities, all performed by remote, and they may very well be utilized in electronic assaults and mind control. In a 2001 article called Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance, John Fleming wrote about the use of satellites in ESMC assault. Discussing the realities of satellite-driven ESMC, Fleming said: “The victim’s movements will be known, his conversations heard, his thoughts picked clean, and his whole life subjected to bogus moralizing, should his tormentor diabolically use the information gained. A sadist could harass his target with sound bites, or audio messages, directly broadcast into his room; with physical assault with a laser; with subliminal audio messages that disturb his sleep or manipulate persons around him into saying something that emotionally distresses him . . . .” The GPS [Global Positioning Satellite] almost certainly figures somehow in the electronic assault and mind control activities. At any rate, that a victim can be targeted regardless of his location and movement argues that a satellite must be involved.
    This paper does not explore in depth the methods used to zero in on a person’s mind. There are many schools of thought on that subject. Here are some of them.
    One popular theory states that victims are implanted with microchips. Scores of patents dealing with microchips in the human body have indeed been filed, many of which, in the wrong hands, could be utilized for electronic abuse. I have read of only one person who supposedly located microchips in his body, had them surgically removed, and then had them identified. My efforts to contact that individual failed. In my opinion, his claims have not been authenticated. We know, however, that many forms of microchips have been developed for the human body, most of them capable of being controlled by remote.
    Another theory believes that voices can be recorded, transferred to a computer, and the computer then used to lock onto that person’s brain. Experiments show that that can indeed be done. However, for a computer to connect with the brain requires some type of catalyst. One day when the handlers were vibrating me mercilessly, I tensed my throat, and the vibrations stopped. That caused me to remember an incident that occurred when I served in Africa in the 1980’s. One day while working in my office, the secretary from the embassy political section, the office that serves as a front for our CIA agents, called me to ask some question that anyone could have answered. I hardly knew the caller; thus, I instantly realized that the real purpose of her call was to record my voice. However, I believed that it was probably for security purposes in case of kidnap or being held hostage at some point. That our intelligence community was recording voices in the 1980’s makes me believe that there may be some validity to the theory that perpetrators of ESMC may be able to “hook” our brains by zeroing in on our voices. Voices give off distinct vibrations that are as peculiar to a person as his fingerprints and DNA.
    Concerning DNA, some evidence also suggests that targets’ minds can be “hooked” if the handlers know the targets’ DNA. If that is true, targets would not necessarily have to have a microchip or other object or substance in his body to be hooked. There may be some remote device that with the aid of the GPS will locate a person and “hook” him using his DNA. If DNA can be utilized, society is in deep trouble, for obtaining DNA samples of people is a very simple matter. Even touching a glass or a can will leave useable traces of DNA.
    Still another theory talks about small devices (nano-microchips) made so small that they can fit between molecules of water and other liquids and be injected into the body in shots and inoculations. Patents taken out by scientists describe that very procedure. Other theories include wiring in the ear that connects with the brain, pins that penetrate the skull, and some type of substance ingested into the body through normal food and drink.
    There is also evidence that even human breath or breathing somehow figures in electronic torture and mind control. Yet, we do not know whether it has any connection with “hooking” a target’s brain. I tend to believe that the breath, or perhaps the movement caused by breathing, enables or aids the handlers’ device, for I much later found out that when I hold my breath for a few seconds, the vibrations temporarily cease.

    In addition, MRI [Magnetic Resonant Imaging] machines have been successfully combined with computers and used by remote along radio frequencies to move digits and limbs, detect emotions, and “detect lying, racism, and even identify which image a person is looking at, suggesting [that] one could visualize scenes from a person’s dreams or memory” (Hospital Soup.com, June 10, 2008). The uses of a device such as that are endless if used on the brain’s wave lengths or frequencies.

    Similarly, neurotransmitters can be used by remote to communicate with brain cells through electrical impulses. That device can tap into the brain’s functions that cause body movement, thought, feelings (emotions), and communication. It could probably also influence the thalamus, or the inner part of the brain, which regulates body temperature and controls urges such as eating, sleeping, and sexual behavior.

    Laser guns may play a role in ESMC. A CNN news program on February 23, 2009, told that 148 incidents of lasers aimed at airplanes had already been reported since the beginning of the year. In the last incident, the laser was green in color and about the size of a pencil. If a laser beam can be focused to such a fine point over several miles of distance, imagine what it could do when trained on an individual or an object over a period of time.

    Mounting evidence suggests that a substance or an object can also be introduced sexually into a target’s body to “hook” his or her brain. Several of my correspondents mention that their ESMC began after having had an intimate relationship with somebody. Those relationships may have been set-ups. Spies and undercover agents often use
    to entrap individuals. Some such object or substance could possibly be introduced into targets vaginally, orally, or anally through sexual contact.

    All that said, pick a theory. In truth, we do not yet actually know how high-tech assailants capture a victim’s mind; neither do we know what instruments are used in the process. Both are highly guarded secrets shrouded in deception. In fact, there may be several methods of “hooking” the target.
    Once the brain is “hooked,” it is controlled by remote using a device connected to a computer. That computer has an amazing range of capabilities. We shall later see some of those capabilities and the effects they have on the human body and mind. Whatever the device and method that may be for “hooking” the brains of the targets, I suspect that when we discover the truth – and we will – the system will probably turn out to be far less sophisticated that we imagined, perhaps a laser gun used with the GPS along a certain frequency or something similar.
    Whatever the device may turn out to be, most of the symptoms in my case occur on the head, which leads me to believe that if there is an object in my body, it is probably located in that region. Here are some of the effects on my head: tinnitus (ringing in the ears); tops of ears oozing a colorless fluid; sensation of bubbles popping in mouth; salivating from the mouth at any time; pin pricks on the eyes and a loss of vision; the top of the nose coating over with a thick crust; tingling on the skin (as a result a brown spot has appeared on the right outside nostril and a sore-type depression, on the right side of my chin); clicking on my head and in my left ear; frequent, long-lasting, pin-like prick on the back of my neck; the sensation of flies crawling on my face; a psoriasis-like area on my cheek near the left eye; a very sharp sensation on or in several teeth (as if a dentist drill had hit a nerve); a heavy pounding, throbbing in the back of my head; an unnaturally intense itching in the corners of my eyes and on my eyelids; pin-like pricks in the depths of my ears that cause me to shudder violently; air that pushes my lips out as if I were snoring through my mouth; scratching of the throat, which causes either sneezing or coughing; a tingling inside my nostril that induces sneezing; blockage in my esophagus that makes it difficult to swallow; constant itching inside my nostrils that makes you want to “pick your nose;” and of course the voices that occur in my brain or ears. (More about symptoms later.)





    Nicholas Kirkland

    Educate-Yourself

    The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

    http://educate-yourself.org/mc/kirklandsilven...re1part14mar09.shtml

    (Edited by عبدالغفار محمد سعيد on 12-19-2011, 05:07 PM)

                  

Arabic Forum

12-19-2011, 05:23 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)
                  

Arabic Forum

12-19-2011, 05:37 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)
                  

Arabic Forum

12-19-2011, 07:19 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Good evening, London


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY


    Remember, Remember, the 5th of November

    Posted By gangstalking on November 5, 2011

    Quote: Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone’s death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.


    From:

    Gang Stalking World

    Without the players there can be no game. Don't play the game

    http://gangstalkingworld.com/Media/
                  

Arabic Forum

12-20-2011, 02:20 AM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Group (or Gang) Stalking, a Growing Menace

    Editor's Note:

    Quote: This type of stalking isn't about an obsessed person or former lover following around his old girlfriend. Group stalking is a group effort directed against a targeted individual in order to psychologically torture and demoralize the victim. People who have been targeted for psychotronic (electronic) torture are often also the victim of "street theater" and group stalking. A group of perpetrators act as a "team" to harass the target, but in subtle ways so as not to tip off passersby. A team member will get behind the victim in a grocery line, for instance, and say or do something that is disconcerting to the victim, but not so obvious that other people in the line can easily notice what is taking place. Team members will try to interfere with the victim in making new friends or create suspicions with their landlord or their neighbours, the mail carrier, etc. Perpetrators will move in next door to the victim or surround him on all sides as his "neighbours." There seems to be no limit to the amount of money and "team" members available to make the victim's life a daily ordeal. People in law enforcement are often involved with this activity either as perpetrators themselves or enablers. The idea is to make the target feel isolated and deprived in order to produce despondency and perhaps suicide.
    Whistle blowers, ex-cult members, corruption exposers in law enforcement, former government workers, former employees of certain corporations, trouble makers at universities, researchers or writers who get too close to sensitive topics are the type of people usually targeted, but some victims have no idea why they've been targeted. Sometimes, a family bloodline may be the deciding factor. While victims usually feel powerless to stop this activity, there is a technique called "boosting" that can be extremely effective in putting an end to this torment. Go to the Women's Warriors page (http://educate-yourself.org/ww/index.shtml) and read what transpires in a typical boosting session. Then contact Lilly Ochescu at and find out about setting up a "boosting" session to target the perpetrators. Victims are not helpless and they can stop this harassment if they take the time and effort to learn about orgone tools and 'etheric resistance'. The orgone movement is growing and more people are now becoming aware that we all have the power within -with the use of our minds and our emotions-to combat these diabolical scum bags and turn the tables on them. Read the information available at the Women Warriors web site (http://www.thewomenwarriors.net) and find out what is necessary to become an 'etheric warrior' and get on board. People who've been on the receiving end of this torment need to put their victimhood behind them and learn how to kick some butt themselves. It can do wonders for your morale!. ..Ken]






    Educate-Yourself

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/groupstalking17aug05.shtml
                  

Arabic Forum

12-20-2011, 08:43 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ORGANIZED STALKING:

    INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE FOR WHOM THIS CRIME IS A NEW ISSUE





    Quote: Let me say at this point that this booklet is written to introduce the general public, and public officials, to an old crime, "ganging up" on someone, which has been "improved" to the point where targets not only cannot escape it, but it can be done in ways that people around the target, who witness some of the harassing acts, will deny it is even happening

    While any type of "ganging up" is organized, the "organized stalking" described in this booklet
    makes use of instant electronic communication, and through-wall electronic harassment
    technology, and willingness of corrupt officials to look the other way, to achieve an
    environment in which the target can never escape some degree of harassment.

    This is new. This is why I am writing this booklet. The world needs to know that some
    citizens are experiencing Hell on Earth which uses highly developed tactics and silent, no trace technology. Stalking has been brought to new level of both impact on the target, and
    deniability.
    "Organized stalking", in the current-day sense, is surveillance and harassment of a designated target by stalkers who are members of groups, which are networked.
    Organized stalking has three essential elements as the term is applied in this booklet:
    1 - Organized stalking is harassment by a substantial number of people, not by an obsessed single stalker, nor by helpers recruited by an obsessed single stalker
    2 - Organized stalking group members are given targets' names and/or have the target identified for them; they do not usually know the target beforehand
    3 - Organized stalking community groups are tightly networked with stalking groups in other communities.



    http://www.stopos.info
                  

Arabic Forum

12-20-2011, 08:49 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ORGANIZED STALKING:

    INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE FOR WHOM THIS CRIME IS A NEW ISSUE


    The Apparently Conflicting Stories and Theories


    Quote: The reader needs to understand that the tactics and technologies used by today's organized
    stalkers are customized, taking elements from a huge "master menu," for each individual
    Target. This, in turn, means that targets will tell different stories, and relate many different
    theories as to who is responsible, why they, personally, are being targeted, and how the
    technological harassment is being carried out. Readers should understand that these
    Sometimes seemingly conflicting reports by targets are not an indication that organized
    stalking "isn't real," but rather a result of the customization of individual harassment
    programs.

    IMPORTANT: Although the “master menu” is large, the harassment methods are very
    consistent among thousands of targets in different countries who have never met.


    Readers also need to understand that organized stalking has been designed to operate in a
    fashion where any one casual observer will see only a tiny part of the full stalking regimen.
    Stalking attacks which are visible are always designed to appear to a casual observer as
    "life's normal breaks."
    This is deliberate. It is done to make the target appear to be "complaining about nothing" to
    people who know the target.

    Secrecy Makes It All Work

    Secrecy is the reason why organized stalking has continued and grown for over two decades, as of the time of writing, and why targets can hardly ever get public officials to take organized stalking as seriously as they do single stalker stalking. It is time for the anti-stalking laws of the early 1990s to finally be applied to organized stalking groups.
    Legislators should facilitate this by adding specific references to organized stalking, and
    related tactics, into the stalking laws.
    This writer believes that if organized stalking were to become sufficiently well known to the
    general public, it's unlikely this crime could continue, as it depends on secrecy and the nonbelief of members of the public and public officials.



    http://www.stopos.info
                  

Arabic Forum

12-20-2011, 09:20 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ARE YOU REALLY CRAZY, OR ARE YOU BEING GANG-STALKED?

    By Lynn Stuter

    January 10, 2006

    NewsWithViews.com


    (1 )

    Quote: Over the past ten years, a phenomenon has become apparent that more recently has been given a name:—gang-stalking, also known as group-stalking, vigilante-stalking and predatory gang-stalking.
    Over a period of time gang-stalking has produced some commonalities among those targeted or victimized:
    1. The target is likely seen as a threat to a cause;
    2. The target most likely does not know the perpetrators [1] of the gang-stalking;
    3. Those involved in the gang-stalking do not know the target;
    4. Those involved in the gang-stalking do not necessarily know why they are gang-stalking an individual;
    5. The stalking is subtle but targeted and can be seen as inconsequential or everyday such as …
    a. drive-by honking of horns,
    b. drive-by yelling of obscenities,
    c. hand gestures generally considered to be hostile in nature;
    d. vehicles stopping and standing on the street in front of the target’s home;
    e. trash strewn on the target’s lawn, driveway and property in such manner as to make it obvious that it was a deliberate act;
    f. shining lights in the windows of the target’s home;
    g. an increase in noise in the area of the target’s home;
    h. tailgating the target then dropping back repeatedly;
    i. sending the target messages that let the target know they are being watched such as…
    i. the names of family pets;
    ii. the names of children;
    iii. stores visited frequently;
    iv. schools the children attend;
    j. day-in and day-out hang-up calls or wrong number calls;
    k. vandalism to the home or property of the target;
    l. graffiti in proximity to the target’s home;
    6. The gang-stalking takes place over a period of time or number of years;
    7. The faces of those involved in gang-stalking change frequently but the perpetrators often remain constant.



    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter78.htm
                  

Arabic Forum

12-20-2011, 09:27 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ARE YOU REALLY CRAZY, OR ARE YOU BEING GANG-STALKED?

    By Lynn Stuter

    January 10, 2006

    NewsWithViews.com


    (2)

    Quote: The intent of gang-stalking is to …
    1. render the target, the victim, psychologically demoralized even to the point of committing suicide;
    2. make the target appear, to the larger community, to be mentally unstable for the purposes of … a. discrediting and psychologically demoralizing the target; b. ensuring no one will believe the target when they claim they are being targeted;
    3. alienate and marginalize the target from the larger community, even family, making it easier to psychologically demoralize and discredit the target.

    The number of reported incidences of gang-stalking has increased measurably since the early 1990s when the transformation of American society to systems philosophy began in earnest.
    Gang-stalking holds no political association with those targeted covering the political spectrum of liberal, centrist, conservative, ultra-left and ultra-right. People involved in gang-stalking display a common trait of needing to feel that they have power over the target even though they may not know that person.
    Group dynamics, how individuals interact in a group, a general need of an individual for human contact and interaction, plays a key role in the structure of gang-stalking.
    One high-ranking law enforcement official, on the condition of anonymity, has stated that …
    1. law enforcement is under strict orders that they are to ignore all cases of gang-stalking, and if possible to provide evidence that the victim is criminally insane; and
    One high-ranking law enforcement official, on the condition of anonymity, has stated that …
    1. law enforcement is under strict orders that they are to ignore all cases of gang-stalking, and if possible to provide evidence that the victim is criminally insane; and
    2. the criminal justice system is strictly under the control of a small elite who ensure that no charges are pressed against the instigators of gang-stalking.
    Gang-stalking relies heavily on …
    1. the target becoming so psychologically demoralized that he/she believes there must be something wrong with him/her and is, therefore, afraid to say anything for fear others will think them crazy;
    2. the target will have no evidence beyond his/her word that the gang-stalking is happening;
    3. the target will have no detailed records or documentation showing what, when, where, and to what extent;
    4. the target will not be able to find out who the perpetrators are or those involved in the gang-stalking.
    Anyone who believes they are being gang-stalked should …
    1. Keep detailed records and documentation of times, dates, and details; making those records as soon as the incident is apparent so details are not lost over time.
    2. Take pictures of any evidence left by the perpetrators making sure to include a point of reference in the picture for identification purposes. For instance, if trash is strewn on the lawn, take close ups but then take pictures showing the house, garage, or even a car in the picture as a point of reference that the garbage was actually where you claim it was.
    3. Keep detailed records of any interaction with law enforcement; even when law enforcement are friendly and appear to be empathetic. Keep track of who the responding officer is, what department he works for, what he tells you, what he does. If he removes evidence from the scene, note how he handles it, what he does with it. Know the procedures for preserving evidence and observe if the officer follows those procedures. Write it all down so details aren’t lost over time. Ask for an event number and incident number.


    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter78.htm
                  

Arabic Forum

12-23-2011, 10:27 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)


    Robert Wood:

    Victim of ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO


    Feb 2010 (updated Sept 2010)


    Quote:

    (1)
    To Whom It May Concern....

    My name is Robert Wood and this is my true life story regarding being an ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO target/victim in the United States of America. This is only a partial account as I could write a large book about my experiences, but do not have the time or resources at the present time to do so.

    First let me state..., I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist. I have not been charged with a crime, nor am I connected to anyone who is, to my knowledge.

    There are covert crimes being committed against innocent and virtually defenseless American citizens and citizens of other countries as well. I am one of these persons.

    These crimes all follow a similar pattern and are advanced technology based. The foundation for these crimes is COVERT SURVEILLANCE. Once the TARGET/VICTIM has been CHOSEN, they are put under covert surveillance. This includes, their residence, vehicle, place of employment or anywhere else. As much information as possible is gained through that surveillance or in any other manner, i.e.... illegally going through target/victims journals, personal papers, possessions, interrogation of friends, relatives, employers or anyone else connected to the target/victim. After a period of time what can only be described as "a campaign of terror and assaults" begins. These crimes run the gamut from what is called "ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO" operations to "DIRECTED-ENERGY-WEAPONS-ASSAULTS". The end result of these CRIMES can range from virtually ruining someones life, institutionalization, to death. Considering the severity of these crimes, it's a wonder anyone survives at all. There is almost complete secrecy surrounding this horrendous situation.

    There is much information about these crimes on the Internet and elsewhere. Simply research ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO - DIRECTED-ENERGY-WEAPONS. Also, many of the tactics used are documented in government records i.e.... COINTELPRO, MK ULTRA and many other programs. There is ample documentation regarding ALL the advanced technology referred to in this statement/report, including "DIRECTED-ENERGY-WEAPONS" or DEW. Patents exist and can be found. These weapons are a standard part of the military arsenal and are advancing all the time.

    The tactics and technology used on targets have been pulled out of these various government programs, COINTELPRO, MK ULTRA etc, and the military, and are being used across the board on anyone put on the LIST.


    In essence these are covert-government/military-counterinsurgency-operations being run on/against private citizens. The recipe or formula for each target is different which adds to the confusion.

    I WELCOME/CHALLENGE ANYONE TO RESEARCH THIS FOR THEM SELF

                  

Arabic Forum

12-23-2011, 10:33 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ( 2)


    MY STORY



    Quote: My story starts about ten years ago. Though at the time I had NO idea what was happening or what I was in for.

    I started noticing that someone had been entering my truck at various times. I would come back to my truck and SOMETHING would be left inside the cab that had not been there before, the truck had been locked at the time. This is the first thing I remember and goes back about ten years. Obviously the perpetrators wanted me to know they had payed me a visit...things progressed from there.

    I remember feeling angry, violated and fear, but at the time didn't think too much more of it.

    I then started noticing OBJECTS being left in and around my truck or anywhere I went. They were usually the same objects..., so it seemed obvious they were left there for me. This increased until there were objects left everywhere I went. Also, around the residence where I lived. There was no place I could go where this did not happen, things were escalating.

    I was becoming alarmed, something was definitely going on.

    About nine years ago [12/01] the stalking activity increased dramatically. That's when the residence I live in was electronically bugged or I was put under audio and visual surveillance inside the so-called home I live in. [how depends on the technology] And apparently, when the perpetrators gained access to my home.[the perpetrators have keys to my car and residence]

    At this time I started noticing strange things happening INSIDE the residence I was living in, my HOME. Personal things started showing signs of having been gone through by someone. My books, personal papers, journals etc..., had pages folded, were marked in various places or in some cases were actually missing. Other items began to disappear..., keys, things from my wallet, etc... , also various items were moved around. Now I was really starting to become concerned. I talked to the people I was living with at the time, family, no one knew anything about it.

    Anything I did inside my residence was subject to feedback when I left or at a later date or time.

    Things continued to progress...

    All these things were happening multiple times a day. It was negatively impacting me mentally, emotionally, psychically, spiritually and physically. I was getting physically sick at times. No one I talked to knew anything about it or could offer an explanation or help.

    I can not at this time go into all the tactics of ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING /COINTELPRO operations, there are too many. A quick Internet search will reveal a great deal of them, again, research ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO. I have been tortured with almost all of the classic tactics plus a few. For the sake of brevity I will quickly list some of what I have been assaulted with.

    (Edited by عبدالغفار محمد سعيد on 12-23-2011, 10:53 PM)

                  

Arabic Forum

12-23-2011, 10:33 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)
                  

Arabic Forum

12-23-2011, 10:39 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    (3)

    TACTICS



    Quote:
    Twenty-four-hour-seven-day-a-week surveillance, including the so called home I live in. I live in an ELECTRONIC-CONCENTRATION-CAMP.

    Feedback from that surveillance.

    GPS or "Global-Positioning-System" on vehicle, for tracking.

    Followed, watched, harassed and/or assaulted everywhere I go, including nine states.

    Residence and car illegally entered and items moved, marked, broken or stolen. [The perpetrators have keys to both the residence I live in and the vehicle I drive]. I now have a sophisticated surveillance and alarm system in the residence and use combination padlocks for the car.

    Land-based phone at residence tapped.


    Cell-Phone hacked into.

    Outgoing and incoming mail tampered with.

    Email and Internet interference.

    Harassing phone calls.

    Vehicle-Tampering: Water removed from the radiator, gas removed from the gas tank, bulbs removed, tires slashed, scratches and various other things. [I now have a locking gas cap and lock the car with combination pad-locks]

    Feedback: This constitutes a wide variety of ways of letting me know I am being watched. Anything I do anywhere including the residence I live in is subject to feedback.

    Directed-Conversation: [a type of feedback] This is where people talk about your personal business [knowledge gained through covert criminal surveillance] out loud in public places around you, like grocery stores, gas stations or anywhere else.

    License-Plates: License plates have been and are used as weapons and tools for harassment. I have found at least six other target/victims that license plates have been used on. My tormentors have made these one of their favorite tools.

    Street-Theater: This has been used extensively by my stalkers. Street Theater is a fairly common ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO tactic. It involves setting up or staging various situations[skits].... including, but not limited to, vehicle accidents or potential accidents. This can involve all sorts of possible scenarios , here are a FEW I have encountered... vehicles coming at me the wrong way on a one way street [many times], vehicles trying to run me off the road [many times], various staged potential accidents where I had to take quick-action to avoid contact/crash [many times] . And lots of other incidents..., too numerous to mention here, I can't even remember them all. At times this happened on an almost daily basis... very stressful.

    Psyops-Tactics [Psychological-Warfare-Operations-Tactics]: This includes a variety of psychological tactics including but not limited to sensitization to various stimuli. If necessary I can go into detail.


    Friends, acquaintances, neighbors and family members have all been coerced/recruited into going along with the plan. This is common in ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO operations.


    There is no place I can go and nothing I can do where I am not followed, watched, harassed and/or assaulted.


    Again..., this is not a complete list as this is not a complete report/statement. If necessary I can go into or list in detail anything not complete in this report/statement.

    I have gone to the Police and they have been no help what-so-ever... OF-COURSE. Since ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO operations are perpetrated and condoned by the government, the police are involved. They may not perform all the deeds/tactics but they are at least partly responsible. And they get many others to cooperate... that is how these operations function. The police will do everything in their power to try to discredit the target/victim and try to provide evidence that the target/victim is mentally ill.


    The government does not recognize ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO operations and related technologies because THEY PERPETRATE IT AND PROTECT OTHERS THAT PERPETRATE IT.


                  

Arabic Forum

12-23-2011, 10:43 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    (4)


    IMPACT


    Quote: The effects of this type of treatment obviously are devastating:

    One is harmed mentally.

    One is harmed emotionally.

    One is harmed psychically.

    One is harmed psychologically.

    One is harmed spiritually.

    One is harmed physically.

    Ones nervous system is harmed. [tremendous stress]

    One loses TRUST in people.

    I am afraid to put certain items down or leave them for fear they will disappear. [as has happened numerous times before]. I keep an extra set of keys around my neck, and lock my car with combination pad-locks, this seems to have helped. [ I now have a sophisticated surveillance/alarm system in the residence]

    There was at least a two year period where I got little or no sleep, sleeping is still a major problem.

    I left a job I had because at the time I didn't know what was going on. It is only the last four years that I found some of the websites that expose these atrocities and am now in touch with other target/victims. I dealt with this situation alone, not knowing what was going on, for almost six years, damage was done.

    The ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO operation has cost me and my family at least tens of thousands of dollars.

    I have had various physical ailments [sickness] as a result of being an ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO target.


    As stated above, if necessary, I can go into detail about anything not complete or clear in this statement/report.

    I am treated like an animal or insect in a science experiment..., NOT HUMAN!

    I have not had a day off in over eight years.

    EVERY AREA OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN AND IS AFFECTED!


    I CAN NOT ACCURATELY BEGIN TO ASSESS THE TOTAL COST/IMPACT/DAMAGE OF BEING AN ORGANIZED/GANG STALKING/COINTELPRO TARGET/VICTIM. IT IS BEYOND MY CAPABILITIES.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-23-2011, 10:47 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    (5)

    CONCLUSION



    Quote:
    I AM LIVING AN ORWELLIAN EXISTENCE. I AM LIVING THIS ORWELLIAN EXISTENCE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


    For a long time I did not know what was going on and damage was done. Recently, thanks to the Internet and contacts with other target/victims I have been able to put some of the pieces of this nightmarish puzzle together and put a face on this otherwise faceless monster.

    As stated earlier in this statement/report many target/victims are being hit harder than I am. Many are being assaulted with Directed-Energy-Weapons [DEW]. Right now I don't believe I am, but it is possible I'm being hit with some form of microwave or RFR [Radio-Frequency-Radiation] waves. All part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM WHICH HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED.

    All this cowardly, deceit based criminality is being done covertly/remotely. It is all done behind the target/victims back, when they are not there or from a distance. The target/victim is basically helpless and defenseless. If the target/victim complains to the appropriate authorities they are likely to be labeled "mentally-ill", or worse, thus giving the target/victim no recourse [credibility], and making the situation that much worse. This is all part of the master plan, of course, it is an almost perfect trap. This is not an accident, it is all done by design, the formula is basically the same for ALL target/victims.

    The target/victim can be harassed, abused, assaulted, and even killed in ways that are only limited by the imagination and technology... and there is virtually nothing the target/victim can do about it.

    If these same tactics were used on a foreign citizen they would be considered an "act-of-war" as it is... it is treason. It is one or the other.

    All this is nothing short of what went on in Nazi Germany before and during World War Two. Or Stalin's Soviet Union or other authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Only in the year 2010 it can be done much more effectively because of advancements in technology.

    This is an outrage to say the least, something has to be done about it, people need to be informed about what is going on and it must be stopped. Innocent Americans are being tortured to death in their own homes and country. I believe the vast majority of Americans do not know this is happening. It can and will be done to you or a loved one if something is not done to stop it now.

    Truly,
    Robert Wood
    USA
    Email: [email protected]
    [email protected]




    From:

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

Arabic Forum

12-25-2011, 08:10 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Case in the court


    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    HOUSTON DIVISION
    Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Pro-se Plaintiff
    Case NO. 4:05MC00003
    Honorable Kenneth Hoyt US District Judge V.
    Michael James Lindquist,
    Christopher T. Lohden,
    Diane K. Smedley, and
    Ruth Watkins, Defendants. Jury Demand


    PRO-SE PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT


    ( 1)
    Quote: 1. Pro-se plaintiff, Jesus Mendoza Maldonado is a citizen of the United States of America. Plaintiff is a Mexican-American with Mexico as national origin.


    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1331, 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 42 U.S.C. 1986.

    2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over named defendants. Named defendants reside within the State of Texas, conduct business within the Sate of Texas, and the actionable acts and omissions stated in this complaint occurred within the Sate of Texas.

    3. Venue is proper in the US District for the Southern District of Texas, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Texas.

    4. Defendant Michael James Lindquist may be served with service of process at 2503 E. 28th St. Mission, Texas, 78574.

    5. Defendant Christopher T. Lohden may be served with service of process at 2004 E. 25th St., Mission, Texas, 78574.

    6. Defendant Diane K. Smedley may be served with service of process at 2020 E 27th St. Mission, Texas, 78574. Defendant Ruth Watkins may be served with service of process at 2217 E. 28th St., Mission, Texas, 78574.

    7. Unless otherwise specified in this complaint, the term “defendants” refers to named defendants, and unidentified John and Mary Doe defendants.

    8. Defendants are being sued on their individual, personal, capacity.

    9. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff has been a party and a witness in federal court while litigating a case of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and fraud of federal funds against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, some of its officers, and others, collectively the Cooley defendants.

    10. Plaintiff law suit against the Cooley defendants included a claim that the Cooley defendants operated a scheme to defraud more than seventy- percent of minorities of their federal loans halting their education while on the other hand, the Cooley defendants were giving away law degrees to their affiliates.

    11. At several times when plaintiff was a law student at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Shawn Gannon and other law students claimed to be related to prominency within the Central Investigation Agency and other federal law enforcement agencies.

    12. Plaintiff lawsuit against the Cooley defendants included a claim that the Cooley defendants incited a federal investigation and an electronic aggression against plaintiff which caused plaintiff severe injuries including an electrical sensitivity.

    13. Plaintiff is sensitive to electricity. Plaintiff exposure to electricity causes among other things pain, swelling of vital organs, breathing, speech and concentration problems. Plaintiff’s ability to work, to travel long distances, and to be inside a building has been substantially impaired.

    14. At several times relevant to this case an electronic aggression has caused plaintiff to be critically ill. The electronic aggression causes plaintiff to be in pain most of the time.

    15. The next day plaintiff attempted to file a criminal complaint against the Cooley defendants, three identified agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were found in a restricted area of an elementary school, and around plaintiff’s vehicle. One door of plaintiff’s vehicle was found unlocked.

    16. The principal of the elementary school who witnessed the incident, claimed that the local FBI office had directed him to destroy the information gathered by plaintiff.

    17. At no time the US Attorney General has engaged the evidence in support of this claims.

    18. The case against the Cooley defendants was dismissed after aggravation of plaintiff’s condition prevented him from attending depositions.

    19. Before the lawsuit against the Cooley defendants was dismissed, the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s electrical sensitivity and mental stability were established as a matter of law.

    20. The US court of appeals affirmed the dismissal and further aggravation of plaintiff’s condition prevented plaintiff from appealing to the US Supreme Court.

    21. Aggravation of plaintiff health condition forced plaintiff to dismiss a case of disability discrimination that had been filed in State court.

    22. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of non ionizing and ionizing radiation around plaintiff, (microwave and x-ray radiation, “radiation” hereafter), has increased during critical stages of federal, and State court proceedings, aggravating plaintiff’s health condition.

    23. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of radiation has impaired plaintiff health condition during State administrative hearings in which plaintiff has been seeking rehabilitation services.

    24. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of the electronic aggression has increased when plaintiff explains to others the discriminatory motive of the electronic aggression.

    25. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff’s three -year-old son and four -year-old daughter suffered pain with convulsions when a meter showed high intensities of radiation inside plaintiff’s home.

    26. At several times a microwave meter has detected several beams merging on the head of plaintiff’s three- year-old son.

    27. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff’s three-year-old son has collapsed crying in pain when a microwave meter has shown several beams merging on his head.

    28. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has recorded on videotape the electronic aggressions.

    29. At several times relevant to this case, a microwave meter has shown several beams merging on the bed of plaintiff and on the bed of plaintiff’s children.

    30. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s children have complained of pain when intense radiation has been found inside plaintiff’s home,

    31. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s children have suffered convulsions while asleep.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-25-2011, 08:13 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ( 2)


    Quote: 32. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s children tremble on their sleep before the telephone rings.

    33. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff’s children have asked for medicine while crying in pain when intense radiation have been found inside plaintiff’s home.

    34. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff and his children have had convulsions almost at the same time.

    35. At several times relevant to this case the intensity of radiation increases when plaintiff approaches his children and his pregnant wife.

    36. On December 29, 2004, the intensity of radiation increased dramatically at the time plaintiff was with his wife during surgery during the birth of plaintiff’s daughter.

    37. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff anticipates to his wife the screaming of his children when plaintiff approaches their bed at night.

    38. At several times relevant to this case the intensity of radiation increases when plaintiff attempts to read stories to his children.

    39. At several times relevant to this case, a meter has registered high intensities of ionizing radiation when plaintiff is driving, or walking with his children around the neighborhood.

    40. At several times relevant to this case, the levels of radiation increase before the telephone rings, during telephone conversations, when plaintiff has visitors, before someone enters or exits plaintiff’s home, when plaintiff moves around inside plaintiff’s home, when plaintiff’s children or wife approach plaintiff, and when plaintiff is doing legal work.

    41. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff feels pain and his children tremble on their sleep before the telephone rings.

    42. At several times relevant a meter has shown several beams of radiation merging on plaintiff’s workbench. 43. The electronic aggression has prevented plaintiff to work on his repair shop.

    44. The electronic aggression has prevented plaintiff from working or staying outside of his home.

    45. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has found bleeding on stool, on urine and on saliva after exposures to intense radiation.

    46. At several times relevant to this case, the intensity of radiation has increased during critical stages of the litigation impairing plaintiff’s ability to prosecute his claims.

    47. Plaintiff moved to the home of Gustavo Ramirez to spare pain and suffering to his children.

    48. The level of radiation in the area around Ramirez home increased after plaintiff moved into his place.

    49. Days after plaintiff’s health aggravated while Ramirez complained of pain, while Ramirez’ brother-in- law complained of feeling his eyes about to pop out.

    50. On February of 2003, plaintiff filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a cause of action against the US Attorney General seeking an order to cease and desist from directing radiation into plaintiff and his family on the ground that the electronic aggression has caused severe physical harm to plaintiff and his children, and on the ground that plaintiff’s investigation is retaliation for bringing claims of discrimination and fraud against the Cooley defendants. Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v the US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, Case No. M 03-038.

    51. US district Judge Ricardo Hinojosa assigned the case to US Magistrate Dorina Ramos.

    52. The US Attorney General has not denied the fact that plaintiff is the subject of an investigation and active electronic surveillance.

    53. At several times relevant to this case the US Attorney General, has claimed that others may be involved in electronic aggression of plaintiff, and has claimed that the federal government has no duty to protect plaintiff against these aggressions.

    54. On April 4, 2003, judge Ramos reset the hearing scheduled for the same day impairing plaintiff’s ability to present expert and lay witness in support of immediate injunctive relief.

    55. On April 7, 2003, plaintiff filed a motion to recuse judge Ramos on the ground that judge Ramos had ignored false statements made by the Cooley defendants to defraud of venue the district court and had ignored evidence of the legitimacy of plaintiff’s disability, displaying a deep-seated favoritism toward the Cooley defendants and a deep-seated antagonism toward plaintiff that made fair judgment impossible.

    56. Judge Ramos recused herself and judge Hinojosa reversed judge Ramos recusal.

    57. On May 15, 2003, plaintiff’s wife testified before judge Ramos to the swelling, pain, and breathing difficulties caused on plaintiff by exposure to electricity and how this has affected daily activities, to the suffering of their children when they are exposed to electromagnetic radiation inside their home, and as to how high readings on radiation meters inside the home decrease when plaintiff attempts to record the occurrence in a video camera.

    58. Plaintiff’s brother testified as to the pain and suffering, experienced by Ramirez and Ramirez brother-in- law after plaintiff moved into Ramirez place.

    59. Plaintiff’s wife, daughter, and brother testified before judge Ramos to plaintiff’s mental stability and law- abiding conduct. (Maldonado v Ashcroft, case No. M 03-038, Audiotape of hearing, Docket No. 29).

    60. During the telephonic hearing, a dramatic increase of radiation aggravated plaintiff’s condition and plaintiff sought a continuance on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

    61. Without a hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss judge Ramos issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s claims as frivolous.

    62. Judge Ramos modified the testimony of plaintiff’s wife in which she testified to how high readings on radiation meters inside the home decrease when plaintiff attempts to record the occurrence in a video camera into: “Silvia Mendoza, who is Plaintiff’s wife, testified that Plaintiff’s has trouble breathing, among other things. She also testified that Plaintiff’s difficulty seems to subside when he operates a camera.” (Docket No. 32, at five, Statement of Evidence, Affidavit of plaintiff’s wife in which she denies giving that testimony, Docket No. 40, and audiotape of hearing, Docket No. 29 ).
                  

Arabic Forum

12-25-2011, 08:18 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    (3)


    Quote: 1. Judge Hinojosa adopted the recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and plaintiff appealed.

    2. Plaintiff’s appeal was based on the claim that a district judge cannot adopt a Report and Recommendation to dismiss a case when the disqualification of the magistrate judge has been established as a matter of law.

    3. Judge Hinojosa and judge Ramos declined an invitation by the Judicial Council of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to engage plaintiff’s complaint of judicial misconduct.

    4. The US Attorney General did not object to the claims and evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims of judicial disqualification.

    5. In support of a motion to expedite the appeal, plaintiff filed on the Court of Appeals videotape showing the pain and suffering caused on plaintiff and on plaintiff’s children by the malicious exposure to radiation inside plaintiff’s home. The US Attorney General did not challenge the evidence.

    6. Plaintiff filed a petition for hearing in banc after a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not address the issue presented to the Court.

    7. On an Order dated December 13, 2004, the Panel of the Court denied plaintiff’s petition for hearing in banc.

    8. On November 17, of 2004, defendant Christopher T. Lohden attempted to ram on the rear plaintiff’s vehicle.

    9. Plaintiff asked defendant Lohden why Lohden attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle.

    10. Defendant Lohden answered by saying that he was to call the police.

    11. After defendant Lohden called the police on a cellular telephone, a lady came from the front door of the house and asked defendant Lohden what was going on.

    12. Defendant Lohden answered “I called the police, this guy says that I tried to ram his car.”

    13. The lady said, “You did! Why are you calling the police?! Don’t call the police!” The lady then walked back inside the house.

    14. Plaintiff then asked Lohden to tell the police that plaintiff was coming back.

    15. At that time defendant Lohden asked where plaintiff lived.

    16. Plaintiff said ”You know where I live, and you know me, this is not the first time that you engage in this kind of harassment.”

    17. Defendant Lohden did not reply to plaintiff’s statement.

    18. Plaintiff returned when a police car was parked at the home of defendant Lohden.

    19. Plaintiff explained to Mr. Hernandez and to Mr. Paniagua, officers of the Mission Police Department, the fact that Mr. Lohden had attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle.

    20. Defendant Lohden did not deny plaintiff’s claim and instead said that plaintiff was doing thirty miles an hour on the road.

    21. Officer Paniagua asked plaintiff to come across the street.

    22. There, plaintiff explained to officer Paniagua and to officer Hernandez about the defendant’s attempts to ram plaintiff’s car; about the statements made by the lady that came out of the house; about the fact that defendant Lohden had attempted to run over plaintiff and plaintiff’s children when they were crossing the street; about the fact that everyday plaintiff was subjected to this type of harassment; about the fact that other individuals in the neighborhood have engaged in the same harassment; and about the fact that this harassment was the result of racism.

    23. At several times relevant to this case defendant Ruth Watkins has come into convenience sores, followed by other individuals, who engage in acts of intimidation against plaintiff and then leave leaving without buying anything.

    24. A several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has led the way to a number of individuals who have engaged in harassing and intimidating acts against plaintiff and his children including the pushing, placing their hands on plaintiff’s vehicle while looking at plaintiff’s children seated inside plaintiff’s vehicle.

    25. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has communicated to these individuals by gestures and hand signals to some of these individuals.

    26. At several times relevant to this case, defendant Watkins has acted in concert with other individuals in a course of repeated physical proximity and threatening behavior against plaintiff and his children.

    27. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has claimed that this conduct is not harassment.

    28. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has refused to identify others involved in this harassment.

    29. At several times relevant to this case high intensifies of radiation have been detected when plaintiff is approaching and passing by Watkins’ home.

    30. At several times relevant to this case, furtive high intensities of radiation have been detected to come from the direction of Watkins’ home into plaintiff’s home.

    31. At several times relevant to this case defendant Diane K. Smedley has attempted to run over plaintiff and his children when plaintiff and his children were crossing the street.

    32. At several times relevant to this case defendant Smedley has engaged in street harassment of plaintiff and his children.

    33. On or about December 6, 2004, plaintiff complained to the Chief of Police of the Mission Police Department Lio Longoria about named defendants gang stalking, and Longoria claimed starting an investigation of plaintiff’s claims.

    34. The road harassment ceased afterward.

    35. On December 10, 2004, an ionizing meter collected a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation inside plaintiff’s home, causing on plaintiff among other things swelling, and pain.

    36. The same day plaintiff showed to Jose Gonzales, investigator of the Mission Police department, video tapes of the increase in ionizing radiation inside plaintiff’s home, and the pain and suffering caused by the radiation to plaintiff’s three-year-old son.

    37. On or about December 20, 2004, Ezquiel Navarro an investigator of the Mission Police Department notified to plaintiff that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had instructed Navarro not to disclose any information about the investigation because of a pending investigation of plaintiff by the Central Intelligence Agency.

    38. Navarro claimed knowing about agents that take x- ray devices home.

    39. The levels of ionizing radiation at points around the neighborhood resumed, while the intensity of radiation inside and outside plaintiff’s home increased.

    40. Plaintiff’s ability to be with his family became more limited.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-25-2011, 08:19 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    (3)


    Quote: 1. Judge Hinojosa adopted the recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and plaintiff appealed.

    2. Plaintiff’s appeal was based on the claim that a district judge cannot adopt a Report and Recommendation to dismiss a case when the disqualification of the magistrate judge has been established as a matter of law.

    3. Judge Hinojosa and judge Ramos declined an invitation by the Judicial Council of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to engage plaintiff’s complaint of judicial misconduct.

    4. The US Attorney General did not object to the claims and evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims of judicial disqualification.

    5. In support of a motion to expedite the appeal, plaintiff filed on the Court of Appeals videotape showing the pain and suffering caused on plaintiff and on plaintiff’s children by the malicious exposure to radiation inside plaintiff’s home. The US Attorney General did not challenge the evidence.

    6. Plaintiff filed a petition for hearing in banc after a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not address the issue presented to the Court.

    7. On an Order dated December 13, 2004, the Panel of the Court denied plaintiff’s petition for hearing in banc.

    8. On November 17, of 2004, defendant Christopher T. Lohden attempted to ram on the rear plaintiff’s vehicle.

    9. Plaintiff asked defendant Lohden why Lohden attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle.

    10. Defendant Lohden answered by saying that he was to call the police.

    11. After defendant Lohden called the police on a cellular telephone, a lady came from the front door of the house and asked defendant Lohden what was going on.

    12. Defendant Lohden answered “I called the police, this guy says that I tried to ram his car.”

    13. The lady said, “You did! Why are you calling the police?! Don’t call the police!” The lady then walked back inside the house.

    14. Plaintiff then asked Lohden to tell the police that plaintiff was coming back.

    15. At that time defendant Lohden asked where plaintiff lived.

    16. Plaintiff said ”You know where I live, and you know me, this is not the first time that you engage in this kind of harassment.”

    17. Defendant Lohden did not reply to plaintiff’s statement.

    18. Plaintiff returned when a police car was parked at the home of defendant Lohden.

    19. Plaintiff explained to Mr. Hernandez and to Mr. Paniagua, officers of the Mission Police Department, the fact that Mr. Lohden had attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle.

    20. Defendant Lohden did not deny plaintiff’s claim and instead said that plaintiff was doing thirty miles an hour on the road.

    21. Officer Paniagua asked plaintiff to come across the street.

    22. There, plaintiff explained to officer Paniagua and to officer Hernandez about the defendant’s attempts to ram plaintiff’s car; about the statements made by the lady that came out of the house; about the fact that defendant Lohden had attempted to run over plaintiff and plaintiff’s children when they were crossing the street; about the fact that everyday plaintiff was subjected to this type of harassment; about the fact that other individuals in the neighborhood have engaged in the same harassment; and about the fact that this harassment was the result of racism.

    23. At several times relevant to this case defendant Ruth Watkins has come into convenience sores, followed by other individuals, who engage in acts of intimidation against plaintiff and then leave leaving without buying anything.

    24. A several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has led the way to a number of individuals who have engaged in harassing and intimidating acts against plaintiff and his children including the pushing, placing their hands on plaintiff’s vehicle while looking at plaintiff’s children seated inside plaintiff’s vehicle.

    25. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has communicated to these individuals by gestures and hand signals to some of these individuals.

    26. At several times relevant to this case, defendant Watkins has acted in concert with other individuals in a course of repeated physical proximity and threatening behavior against plaintiff and his children.

    27. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has claimed that this conduct is not harassment.

    28. At several times relevant to this case defendant Watkins has refused to identify others involved in this harassment.

    29. At several times relevant to this case high intensifies of radiation have been detected when plaintiff is approaching and passing by Watkins’ home.

    30. At several times relevant to this case, furtive high intensities of radiation have been detected to come from the direction of Watkins’ home into plaintiff’s home.

    31. At several times relevant to this case defendant Diane K. Smedley has attempted to run over plaintiff and his children when plaintiff and his children were crossing the street.

    32. At several times relevant to this case defendant Smedley has engaged in street harassment of plaintiff and his children.

    33. On or about December 6, 2004, plaintiff complained to the Chief of Police of the Mission Police Department Lio Longoria about named defendants gang stalking, and Longoria claimed starting an investigation of plaintiff’s claims.

    34. The road harassment ceased afterward.

    35. On December 10, 2004, an ionizing meter collected a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation inside plaintiff’s home, causing on plaintiff among other things swelling, and pain.

    36. The same day plaintiff showed to Jose Gonzales, investigator of the Mission Police department, video tapes of the increase in ionizing radiation inside plaintiff’s home, and the pain and suffering caused by the radiation to plaintiff’s three-year-old son.

    37. On or about December 20, 2004, Ezquiel Navarro an investigator of the Mission Police Department notified to plaintiff that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had instructed Navarro not to disclose any information about the investigation because of a pending investigation of plaintiff by the Central Intelligence Agency.

    38. Navarro claimed knowing about agents that take x- ray devices home.

    39. The levels of ionizing radiation at points around the neighborhood resumed, while the intensity of radiation inside and outside plaintiff’s home increased.

    40. Plaintiff’s ability to be with his family became more limited.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-25-2011, 08:26 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ( 4)

    Quote: 41. Defendant Michael James Lindquist calls himself Apostle of the congregation.

    42. At several times relevant to this case defendant Lindquist has led the way to some individuals who have been engaged in gang stalking of plaintiff and his children.

    43. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has notified defendant that some individuals on the congregation and running team have been involved in gang stalking of plaintiff and his children.

    44. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has asked defendant Lindquist to identify and to ask those who have been engaged in this wrongdoing to cease and desist from this type of harassment, and Lindquist has refused to do so.

    45. On January 2, 2005, during worshiping services, an individual that has been harassing plaintiff walked into Lindquist’s office after he realized plaintiff had identified him. Plaintiff was not allowed to enter the office.

    46. At the end of the service the individual stayed at Lindquist office while his companions left without him.

    47. At several times relevant to this case high intensifies of radiation have been detected when plaintiff is passing across Lindquist’s home.

    48. At several times relevant to this case, furtive high intensities of radiation have been detected to come from the direction of Lindquist’s home into plaintiff’s home.

    49. Ruben Luna, plaintiff’s neighbor and a former government agent claims spending a week on the hospital after attesting before others to the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims of electronic aggression.

    50. At several times Luna has claimed to feel the effects of an electronic aggression.

    51. Luna claims spending two weeks on the hospital with internal bleeding.

    52. Luna had reassured plaintiff by telephone his willingness to testify in court as to the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims of electronic aggression before reassuring plaintiff of his willingness to testify as to the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims.

    53. Luna lives across the street from defendant Watkins.

    54. Lunas’ affidavit attesting to the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claims about an electronic aggression is part of the federal record.

    55. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s mother has been critically ill exhibiting the typical symptoms of an electronic aggression including sleep deprivation, loss of concentration, swelling of eyes, unexplained pain and fatigue, erratic blood pressure, and severe dizziness.

    56. At several times relevant to this case, meters have read intense amounts of non-ionizing and ionizing radiation inside the home of plaintiff’s mother.

    57. At several times relevant to this case, intense amounts of non ionizing and ionizing radiation have been found inside the home of plaintiff’s in-laws.

    58. Plaintiff’s father-in-law has been critically ill, displaying symptoms of overexposure to radiation including sleep deprivation, unexplained pain and fatigue, and erratic blood pressure.

    59. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s mother-in-law has been displaying symptoms of overexposure to radiation, including sleep deprivation, loss of concentration, and unexplained pain and fatigue. She is now terminally ill.

    60. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s neighbors have claimed suffering of sleep deprivation, pain and loss of concentration.

    61. Plaintiff’s next-door neighbor has been critically ill several times.

    62. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff’s pain has made plaintiff to walk out of the house in the middle of the night only to hear screams of joy coming from the neighborhood.

    63. At several times relevant to this case the gang stalking and electronic aggression against plaintiff and his children has intensified during the times plaintiff has filed complains describing the misconduct of judge Hinojosa and judge Ramos.

    64. Plaintiff has heard the same screams of joy from speeding vehicles attempting to run over plaintiff and his children.

    65. At several times relevant to this case, the lights on the side of the street turn off during the night and on during the day when plaintiff is driving or walking with his children.

    66. Plaintiff’s oldest daughter has witnessed streetlights turning off as plaintiff is driving by.

    67. At several times relevant to this case, family members of named defendants have engaged in harassing of plaintiff.

    68. At several times relevant to this case, named defendants have shared information to use in furtherance of the conspiracies to injure plaintiff and his children.

    69. At several times relevant to this case vehicles have darted to plaintiff and to plaintiff’s children when plaintiff and his children have been walking around the neighborhood.

    70. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has been thrown of the road by unidentified vehicles. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has been the subject of gang and electronic harassment by named defendants.

    71. At several times relevant to this case speeding vehicles have attempted to ram plaintiff’s vehicle running red lights to avoid identification.

    72. At several times relevant to this case defendant has darted her vehicle towards plaintiff and his children when they are walking around the neighborhood.

    73. At several times relevant to this case, unidentified vehicles have attempted to ram the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle.

    74. At several times relevant to this case plaintiff has been subjected to electronic harassment by named, unnamed, and unidentified individuals.

    75. Two shots have been fired into plaintiff’s direction, and plaintiff filed a report with the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department.

    76. At several times relevant to this case high levels of ionizing radiation have occurred when plaintiff is attending church services on minority congregations, while the same intensities do not occur when plaintiff attends non-minority congregations.

    77. At several times relevant to this case the street and electronic harassment compelled plaintiff to leave the state of Michigan, and the State of Texas.

    78. The gang stalking and electronic aggression is more intense when plaintiff is with his children.

    79. At several times relevant to this case, plaintiff has found lose or over tight lug nuts on the front wheels of plaintiff’s car.

    80. The harassment has intensified during and after critical stages of litigation.



                  

Arabic Forum

12-25-2011, 09:16 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ( 5)

    Quote:
    81. At several times relevant to this case, defendant engaged in electronic surveillance of plaintiff with intent of harassing, intimidate and cause harm to plaintiff.

    82. At several times plaintiff has heard racial slurs by speeding vehicles when he is with his children around the area.

    83. On January 2, of 2004, around 1:30 a.m., another sudden dramatic increase of radiation occurred a the time plaintiff approached the bed of his children and wife.

    84. Plaintiff warned his wife about the increase in radiation seconds before plaintiff’s newborn daughter and five-daughter year old started to cry.

    85. The aggression has intensified during the drafting of this complaint.

    86. Furtive high densities of directed radiation is a daily occurrence at plaintiff’s home.

    87. COUNT ONE. VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1985(2).

    88. Plaintiff incorporates hereby all paragraphs of this complaint.

    89. Defendants conspired to deter plaintiff by force, intimidation, and threat, form attending courts of the United States, as a party and witness.

    90. Defendants conspired to deter by force, intimidation and force, from testifying freely and fully in courts of the United States,

    91. Defendants conspired by force, intimidation, and threat, to injure plaintiff in his person and property on account of plaintiff being a party, having attended and testified in a court of the United States.

    92. Defendants conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering obstructing, and defeating in several manners the due course of justice in the State of Texas and a court of the State of Texas.

    93. Defendants conspired with intent to deny plaintiff the equal protection of the laws, and injured plaintiff and his property for lawfully enforcing and attempting to enforce the right of plaintiff and the right of plaintiff as a citizen of the United States and member of a class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.

    94. Defendants conspired to interfere with plaintiff’s family relationship.

    95. Plaintiff suffered injury as proximate result of defendants’ misconduct.

    96. Therefore, defendants are liable to plaintiff.

    97. Therefore, named defendants are liable to plaintiff.

    98. COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).

    99. Plaintiff incorporates hereby all paragraphs of this complaint.

    100. Defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws and of the equal privileges as described by 42 U.S.C. 1985 because plaintiff’s race and national origin.

    101. Defendants conspired with the purpose of preventing and hindering the constituted authorities of the State of Texas from giving and securing persons within the State of Texas the equal protection of the laws. The purpose of defendants’ conspiracy is to influence the activity of the State.

    102. Defendant’s conspired to injure plaintiff on his person and property because of plaintiff’s race and national origin.

    103. Defendant’s engaged in a course of conduct which purpose is to injure plaintiff and plaintiff’s children.

    104. Defendants’ conspired to retaliate against plaintiff for plaintiff litigating claims of racial and national origin discrimination.

    105. Defendants’ conspired to deprive plaintiff of right to access the courts.

    106. Defendants’ conspired to interfere with plaintiff’s right to interstate travel.

    107. Defendants’ conspired to violate plaintiff’s right to be free from public and private racist violence.

    108. Defendants’ conspired to deprive plaintiff of the right to be free from the conduct described by 42 U.S.C. 1985(2).

    109. Defendants’ engaged in several overts acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to deprive plaintiff’s rights described by 42 U.S.C. 1985(2)(3).

    110. Defendants reached a conspiratorial agreement to violate plaintiff’s protected rights.

    111. Defendants caused acts in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s rights, whereby plaintiff was injured in his person and property and plaintiff was deprived of having exercised rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States.

    112. Defendants conspired to retaliate against plaintiff for plaintiff bringing claims of discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985, and 42 U.S.C. 1986.

    113. Defendants engaged in racist conspiracies to deprive plaintiff of his right to obtain reasonable accommodations because of his disability.

    114. Plaintiff suffered injury as proximate result of defendants’ conspiracies.

    115. Therefore, defendants are liable to plaintiff.

    116. COUNT THREE VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1986.

    117. Plaintiff incorporates hereby all paragraphs of this complaint.

    118. Defendants have actual knowledge of a conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s rights as described by 42 U.S.C. 1985.

    119. Defendants breached a duty to disclose to plaintiff the identity of those by failing to prevent the conspiracy.

    120. Defendants knew or had reasons to know about a conspiracy to injure plaintiff and failed to prevent a conspiracy.

    121. Defendants have a duty and the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the conspiracies described by 42 U.S.C. 1985, and defendants failed to do so.

    122. Plaintiff suffered damages caused by the misconduct of defendants.

    123. Defendants are joint and severally liable to plaintiff.

    124. JURY DEMAND

    125. Plaintiff hereby demands for trial by jury of all disputed issues of fact.

    126. RELIEF

    127. Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court for an Order compelling defendants to cease and desist form engaging in the conduct described herein.

    128. Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to compel named defendants to disclose to plaintiff the identities of individuals and entities that have engaged, participated encouraged, supported directly or indirectly in any way in the conduct described herein.

    129. Plaintiff respectfully ask this Court to render judgment in favor of plaintiff and find defendants jointly and severally liable for all relief, in law and in equity to which plaintiff may be entitled including general and special damages, aggravation of preexisting condition, cost of technology to accommodate impairment, past and future pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of earning capacity, loss of consortium, loss of household services, loss of companionship and society, loss of enjoyment of life, punitive damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, interest, court costs, and cost of expert witnesses.

    Respectfully Submitted
    ______________________________
    Pro se Plaintiff
    Jesus Mendoza Maldonado
    2202 E. 28th St.
    Mission, TX 78572
    956/ 519 7140
    Received 01-13-2005
                  

Arabic Forum

12-27-2011, 05:00 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Jane Clift Case

    Quote: Then last year the case of a woman in England named Jane Clift was brought to light as she made headlines in the U.K., and beyond. Ms. Clift tried to perform what was her citizens duty in reporting a man that had become angry and violent with her. In reporting this man, she herself was embroiled in a verbal altercation with the community worker that she tried to report his anti-social behaviours to. Ms. Clift followed up their heated discussion with a letter, and for this simple act, Ms. Clift was placed on a list with perverts, and other criminals. She was placed on what the U.K. calls the violent persons registry. It’s a listing for individuals who have displayed violent or other inappropriate behaviour. Ms. Clift found that being under the spotlight of this flagging system was too much and she was forced to move from the area that she had lived in for over 10 years.
    Ms. Clift unlike many targets had been given notification that she was to be placed on such a list. The nature of her perceived offence, and the length of time she would be on such a list. She described her experience, which in some pivotal ways matched some of what Targeted Individuals had mentioned in their harassment.
    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’.” 2
    Ms Clift’s targeting if not identical was at least fraternal to what targets had described. People collaborating. Whispers, scurrying, life disruption that had caused her to move. In Ms. Clifts case the warning markers, and flags had been sent out to quite a few agencies, and thus everywhere she want this warning marker followed her.
    The question then became was such a system, or similar system available in other countries? Which laws were being used and who was responsible for keeping or organizing such information?
    Further research showed that under occupations health and safety laws, there was such a structure in place, that would allow an individual to receive a warning marker, or flag on their files for various perceived offences. The structure matched and covered all the various markers that targets had complained about. The structure also allowed for those around the accused to be fully aware of what was ongoing, while it allowed the accused to be unaware, unable to defend themselves. This structure upon further and deeper examination fit extremely well with what was ongoing.
    Under the Occupational health and safety, or community health and safety laws, which have been established in many countries, individuals can be flagged and a notification about them can be sent out to the community at large, all without the targets awareness. These laws give workers the right to be made aware if they are about to encounter potentially violent situations or individuals. These laws however do not give the target any foreknowledge of the violence, and harassment they will soon receive from the community, once placed on such a notification system.
    Workers have the ’ right to know ‘ all risks and safe work procedures associated with the job. This may involve identifying individuals with a history of unpredictable or violent behaviour.
    Training workers to recognize escalating behaviour that has the potential to result in violence is a common way to minimize risk. Five warning signs of escalating behaviour and possible responses are listed in Appendix C.
    In the service sector this may require identifying to employees persons who have a history of aggressive or inappropriate behaviour 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. 3
    Workers do have a right to know if they are going to encounter violent situations or individuals. On the surface this sounds like a good thing, and if used properly should be a good thing, yet the innocent were and are being targeted by this system. How were innocent individuals, whistle-blowers, and others ending up on such lists without any kind of warning or notification? Even convicted prisoners get warnings if they are going to be placed on a notification system, thus legally it would be presumed that other individuals would have the same rights and protections if there lives were going to be disrupted in a similar manner. This does not seem to be the case.
    Under these occupational health and safety laws, incidents must be reported. They can range anywhere from threatening looks, yelling, to actual physical aggression and everything in between. They can also include other inappropriate behaviours. Eg. Acts of sexual aggression, harassment, intimidation, inappropriate lewdness, etc.
    Once a worker files a report, if the workplace has an Employee Assistance Program then this matter might be discussed with that department. If the behaviour is deemed to be a real concern, then it might be forwarded to a Threat Assessment Team. This team is where designation, warning markers, and notifications can be determined and applied to an individuals file, depending on the structure of the organization.


    From:

    http://gangstalking.wordpress.com/category/covert-investigations/
                  

Arabic Forum

12-27-2011, 05:18 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Organized stalking in UK, Jane Clift Case

    Quote:
    A woman named Jane Clift in the U.K. went through a very similar type of flagging system. A warning marker was placed against her name designating her as potentially violent.
    Ms Clift said she was horrified at being entered on the register and, eight months later, left Slough, where she had lived for 10 years, as it was impossible to function normally. 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'." She felt she could not pursue her application to be a foster parent. Telling the jury that what had happened to her could happen to anyone, she said: "I'm nothing special, no qualifications, don't have a fancy job, but I don't go getting into trouble. It cuts across class, race, everything. "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. "Please put yourself in my position and consider what I feel to be the calibre of public employees who, at the end of the day, are paid for out of council tax. "What right do they have to do this to members of the public? What possible right? Consider it can happen to anybody. It's happening right now and shouldn't be allowed to happen."
    Violent Persons Registry Jane Clift was targeted this way and spent four year clearing her name.

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

    The individual is then placed under overt and covert forms of surveillance. Everywhere the Targeted Individual goes, their name is flagged. In a big city this could mean that thousands upon thousands of people are getting a flagged warning about the target. The person is followed around 24/7. Foot patrols and vehicle patrols are used to follow the Individual around, as part of the monitoring process. During these patrols a one handed sign language is used to assist the citizen informants with communicating to each other. They will use this to silently communicate to any business the target enters, or other areas.

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

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

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


    From:

    http://www.harassment101.com/Information15.html
                  

Arabic Forum

12-27-2011, 05:44 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)


    Case Law: “Clift v Slough Borough Council – Qualified Privilege meets Article 8″
    Lorna Skinner and Edward Craven

    • Date : January 9, 2011


    Jane Clift


    ( 1)

    Quote: The influence of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the law of breach of confidence and the development of a domestic tort of “misuse of private information” has been well documented. By contrast, the influence of Article 8 upon the law of defamation has been much less pronounced. Just before the Christmas break, however, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Clift v Slough Borough Council ([2010] EWCA Civ 1484). In Clift the Court of Appeal grappled with the issue of how, if at all, the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) has affected the availability of the defence of qualified privilege to public authorities in defamation cases.
    The Court concluded that the HRA has had a profound affect. Since a public authority is required (by virtue of section 6 of the HRA) to act compatibly with Convention rights, and since the right to reputation is protected by Article 8, any publication that interferes with that right must be justified as necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim under Article 8(2). Furthermore, there can and will be no defence of qualified privilege where a public authority has acted incompatibly with its public duties under the Convention, – in this case, where the interference with an individual’s Article 8 rights could not be justified under Article 8(2).
    In ruling in favour of an approach that accords primacy to a public authority’s HRA obligations, the Court has not only laid down an important marker about the role of Article 8 in future libel cases involving public authority defendants and the defence of qualified privilege, but also in relation to the availability of other defences to such defendants. The case also raises interesting questions about the future development of the law as between private individuals given the potential horizontal effect of section 6 of the HRA. The decision is therefore of interest to libel lawyers, administrative law practitioners and public authorities alike.
    The Claimant, Jane Clift, had brought a libel claim against Slough Borough Council (“the Council”) and its Head of Public Protection arising out of the publication of the Council’s Violent Persons Register (“VPR”) which named her as a person who posed a “medium risk” of violence following an incident described as “threatening behaviour on several occasions”. Although no incident of violence had ever taken place, Ms Clift had made a number of comments about a particular employee of the Council in communications with it that were treated as constituting credible threats of violence. As a result it was decided to add Ms Clift’s name to the VPR.
    An email headed “Violent Persons Register – Ms Jane Clift” and attaching the VPR (“the Email”), was sent by the Head of Public Protection to 54 individuals who were officers or employees of the Council with a further 12 hard copies to be circulated to 12 Council Community Wardens, bringing the total number of publishees of the email to 66. Copies of the VPR were also sent to several external “Partner Organisations that provide a service on [the Council’s behalf]” including organisations providing refuse collection and road sweeping services, maintenance on Council-owned properties and estates, the NHS Primary Care Trust and about 50 business members of the Community Safety Partnership. Evidence was given at the trial that the VPR would have been circulated to not more than 150 people.
    The Council relied on defences of justification and qualified privilege to which Ms Clift responded with a plea of malice. At trial, the jury rejected both the defence of justification and the plea of malice. In relation to qualified privilege, Tugendhat J ruled ([2009] EWHC 1550 (QB)), in relation to publication of both the email and the VPR that publication to employees of the Council who were “customer facing staff” that may come in to contact with Ms Clift was protected, but that publication to employees in other council departments or to any external “partner organisations”, was not, since it was not reasonable to conclude that any risk existed to those individuals. Publication to those employees and organisations was not proportionate or fair.
    The effect of these rulings was that the jury were directed that damages were to be assessed on the basis that the VPR was circulated to 150 people and the email to 30 people (the publication to the other 36 being protected by qualified privilege). The jury awarded Ms Clift damages of £12,000. The Council appealed.
    At the heart of the appeal was a tension between two well established legal principles. On the one hand there was the conventional common law concept of qualified privilege as a public policy defence designed to facilitate the uninhibited exchange of (non-malicious) communications for the common convenience and welfare of society. On the other there is the duty of public authorities to act compatibly with individuals’ Convention rights – in this case the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life, which the Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court have recognised as including a degree of protection for an individual’s reputation (see In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1).
    In Kearns v General Council of the Bar ([2003] 1 WLR 1357), the Bar Council had published a seriously defamatory statement circulated to all of chambers, senior clerks and practice managers in England and Wales. In upholding the defence of qualified privilege, Simon Brown LJ said that it did not matter whether one characterised the Bar Council as owing a duty to the recipients of the communications or whether the situation was characterised as one where the parties shared a common interest in maintaining professional standards. Instead, what mattered was that
    “the relationship between them is an established one which plainly requires the flow of free and frank communications in both directions on all questions relevant to the discharge of the Bar Council’s functions” [39].
    The Council in Clift contended that it had an analogous “established” relationship with the recipients of the email and the VPR and that all communications with those recipients that were relevant to the discharge of its functions should therefore be protected by qualified privilege.
    In Wood v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police ([2005] EMLR 20) a police officer responsible for investigating a series of car thefts had informed members of the insurance industry that the claimant’s business partner was guilty of the thefts. The business partner was subsequently acquitted of all criminal charges. The claimant then sued the police for libel, contending that the communications meant and were understood to mean that he had aided and abetted the commission of serious criminal offences. The defence of qualified privilege was struck out by the court on the basis that there was no lawful justification, let alone any duty, for the defendant to disclose the information about the claimant, the Court of Appeal holding that the performance of a public duty was relevant to the question of whether or not the defendant had a sufficient duty or interest to publish the defamatory material.
    Ms Clift contended that the Council, as a public authority, should only be entitled to rely on the defence of qualified privilege if it was consistent with its public law duties. Its public law duties required it to publish information only to the extent necessary for the performance of those duties and in accordance with its obligations under the HRA. Since the information published was damaging to Ms Clift’s reputation, her Article 8 rights were engaged and in consequence the Council were under a duty not to interfere with her Article 8(1) rights unless this could be justified under Article 8(2) as necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim. Whilst it was accepted for Ms Clift that protection of Council employees and employees of partner organisations was a “legitimate aim” sufficiently important to justify interference with her Article 8 rights and that the inclusion of her name on the VPR was rationally connected to that legitimate aim, the important question, was whether or not publication to those who were not likely to be directly approached by Ms Clift was proportionate. Applying this analysis, the Judge’s rulings on qualified privilege were correct.
    The Court of Appeal therefore had to decide whether proof of an established, existing relationship was of itself sufficient to justify the free flow of information between the parties to the relationship (as per Kearns) or whether the absence of a public law duty to communicate deprived the public authority defendant of its defence of qualified privilege (as per Wood).
    The answer to this question, said Ward LJ (with whom Thomas and Richards LJJ agreed), was located in the underlying reason for the defence, which is “rooted in public policy”. The nub of the court’s reasoning on this first question can be found at [31]:
    “The private interest in one’s reputation is to be preferred to the public convenience of unfettered communication where there is no duty to communicate at all.”
    It was held that Wood was binding on the Court. Kearns was distinguished on the basis that the defendant Bar Council was not a public authority and as such was not subject to any public law duties. In the absence of a positive duty to communicate the defamatory material, the council could not simply point to the fact that it had an established relationship with all of the recipients and assert that this in itself meant that the publication was privileged. As a public authority the Council was bound to act compatibly with Convention rights for it would be unlawful not to do so.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-27-2011, 05:50 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Case Law: “Clift v Slough Borough Council – Qualified Privilege meets Article 8″
    Lorna Skinner and Edward Craven


    • Date : January 9, 2011

    Jane Clift



    (2)

    Quote: The right to reputation falls within the scope of Article 8 and was engaged, and the Council were accordingly bound to respect it unless its interference with it (namely the publication of the Email and VPR) could be justified under Article 8(2). As to the Council’s argument that this would create immense practical difficulties for local authority officials required to make an individual assessment of the propriety of each and every proposed publication, Ward LJ concluded:
    “Ill-considered and indiscriminate disclosure is bound to be disproportionate and no plea of administrative difficulty in verifying the information and limiting publication to those who truly have the need to know or those reasonably thought to be at risk can outweigh the substantial inference with the right to protect reputations. In my judgment the judge’s ruling on proportionality is beyond challenge. To publish as widely as the Council did was to breach Ms Clift’s Article 8 rights. [35]
    …If the Council were in breach of Article 8, it would be unlawful to publish the information. If it was unlawful to publish the information, then the Council’s duty was not to publish. If the duty was not to publish, the Council could no longer claim to be under a duty to impart the information to those who did not need to know it. Not being under a duty to publish, the foundation of the claim to qualified privilege falls away. [36]”
    The question was therefore whether or not the Council had a duty to publish the material as widely as it had done. Answering this question required consideration of the proportionality of the Council’s actions. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that the decision to publish the material about the claimant as widely as the Council had done was disproportionate and dismissed the appeal.
    The remainder of the Council’s arguments were swiftly disposed of. The Court of Appeal held that the Judge had not failed to take into account the Article 8 rights of the publishees since any risk to them was not significant enough to engage Article 8. Nor did Ms Clift’s case invoke Convention rights to create a new ‘defence’ (an approach that had been rejected by the House of Lords in Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police ([2008] UKHL 50) in the context of common law negligence claims against the police). The argument that Ms Clift should have been confined to bringing a freestanding claim under the HRA for breach of her Convention rights was also rejected on the basis that damages under the HRA are less generous than damages in defamation claims and in any event the effect of section 6 of the HRA upon the Court as a public authority required to act compatibly with the Convention, was to require the Court to tackle the issue head on.
    An number of points arise out of the decision in Clift. First, it is clear that a local authority’s HRA obligations condition the circumstances in which the authority will be able to invoke the defence of qualified privilege in a defamation claim: the defence will not be available if the claimant’s Convention rights were engaged and the decision to publish the defamatory material constituted a disproportionate infringement of those rights. Public authorities must therefore think even more carefully before circulating potentially defamatory material amongst “interested” parties.
    Second, does it mean that all public authority defences to defamation claims must pass the proportionality test in order to succeed?
    Third, does this approach extend to affect the availability to a public authority of defences to other causes of action where a claimant’s Convention rights are engaged. If not, why not?
    Fourth and finally, the decision gives rise to important questions about the impact of Convention rights in claims between private individuals – the so-called “horizontal effect” issue. In relation to misuse of private information, Lord Nicholls in Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] UKHL 22) stated that:
    “The values embodied in articles 8 and 10 are as much applicable in disputes between individuals or between an individual and a non-governmental body such as a newspaper as they are in disputes between individuals and a public authority” [17].
    The decision in Clift brings the issue of whether Article 8 will begin to infuse the defence of qualified privileged in cases brought by one private party against another in to sharp focus. This raises the spectre of proportionality decisions being taken on the newsroom floor. Whilst journalists and editors already have to deal with these issues in the privacy context, the prospect of having to do so in relation to defamation issues as well is likely to send a chill down the spine of the media, many sections of which are already convinced that English libel laws are excessively claimant-friendly.
    Of course the Court of Appeal in Clift did not seek to answer (or even ask) any of these questions. And on one view, Clift does little more than follow the well trodden path whereby the Convention is used to afford strong protection to the interests of individuals in defamation cases involving public authorities (see Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers [1993] AC 534). Yet it is difficult to see how an argument of logic and/or principle for confining it in this way would be formulated. Doubtless the courts will soon face some of the above questions. And, as the case law in the privacy arena has shown, the consequences of the courts doing so are potentially far reaching indeed.



    From:

    http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/case-...r-and-edward-craven/
                  

Arabic Forum

12-29-2011, 01:26 AM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Organized stalking in UK, Darim Case

    13th December 2011

    By John Allman.



    Quote: Darrim described himself as half English and half Iraqi. He was killed on 15 November 2009. He was only 34 years old. Please see this report of Darrim’s death in Crawley News.

    During the last few years of his life, Darrim claimed that he was a victim of organised stalking and electronic harassment using directed energy weapons. He organised a protest against organised stalking and electronic harassment on 14 October 2009, as part of the international day of protest announced in this press release. Darrim testified on several occasions during the final few weeks of his life, that he had been receiving threats to his life.

    The two types of harassment that Darrim alleged, were organised stalking, and torture inflicted from a distance by the deployment of non-lethal directed energy weapons, often called electronic harassment. Darrim designed a two-sided placard that he carried proudly on his “demonstration”, which was attended by eight people in all. At the top of this page, is displayed Darrim’s own artwork for the two sides of that two-sided placard. Darrim conducted an online survey of people who reported either of these two types of abuse, discovering that over 80% of those who reported either type of abuse, reported both types.

    Darrim alleged that this harassment was inflicted upon him by the British public sector. He asked me to intervene in any inquest into his death, if he was violently killed. He confirmed to me and others that he was not suicidal. At first, the police told the media that Darrim’s death was “non-suspicious”. I wrote this letter to West Sussex Coroner declaring my interest in the matter of Darrim’s death. West Sussex Coroner made this decision that I was not a properly interest person in the inquest into Darrim’s death. I had not been granted judicial review of that decision by the time of the inquest hearing on 5th – 6th May 2011, reported here. I attended the whole of the two day-long inquest.

    The first inquest jury heard evidence from a psychiatrist who had never met Darrim. That evidence is likely to have encouraged the jury to reach a conclusion that Darrim’s allegation of organised stalking and electronic harassment using directed energy weapons, perpetrated by the public sector, and including death threats, was the result of a “delusion” on Darrim’s part. I would have wished to ask the psychiatrist challenging questions after his oral evidence-in-chief, but I was not allowed to ask that witness any questions at all, because I was not considered to be a properly interested person at the first inquest.

    The jury saw this video that Darrim had made and uploaded onto You Tube the day before he was killed. The jury was also allowed to read selected emails and other material written by the deceased. For example, Darrim had written, the day before he was killed, “Facial burn received from directed energy weapons. I have also been prevented from having any sleep for 133 hours so far.”
    I was called to give evidence at the first inquest, but was expressly forbidden, despite an application in the absence of the jury, to bring evidence of the existence of directed energy capabilities of the infliction of sleep deprivation upon targeted individuals, a capability documented since the 1960s, for example, the LIDA Machine, documented towards the bottom of this page. The jury therefore heard no evidence that would have encouraged them to believe the deceased’s own allegation, made in the text accompanying his last uploaded You Tube video, that sleep deprivation lasting 133 hours had been inflicted upon him artificially during the final days of this life.

    The jury decided that Darrim had committed suicide “due to a disturbed state of mind.” There is evidence that this is a correct finding, at one level. However, the jury was not given evidence or directions on the possibility of unlawful killing, by the deliberate weakening of Darrim’s mind, and his will to continue living.

    This truth campaign is brought by me


    Please Watch this important video


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_e...bedded&v=p1qJqGbYdyg



    From:

    http://www.beulahbaruch.org.uk/killed.htm

    (Edited by عبدالغفار محمد سعيد on 12-29-2011, 11:56 AM)

                  

Arabic Forum

12-29-2011, 01:39 AM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Organized stalking in UK, Darim Case


    IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
    Case Number: CO/3590/2011
    The Queen (on the application of John Allman)

    versus

    HM Coroner for West Sussex

    Oral application for permission to apply for judicial review
    of the coroner's decision that the applicant is not a
    Properly Interest Person in the inquest
    touching the death of Darrim Daoud

    SKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT

    Background


    ( 1)



    Quote: 1. The applicant appears as a litigant in person. This skeleton argument has been prepared by the applicant in person.
    2. The written application for permission to apply for judicial review was rejected on the eve of a planned inquest. That inquest, herein referred to as “the first inquest”, was held. The applicant attended, and was called as a witness, but, despite being under oath to tell “the whole truth”, was unable to give certain of his testimony, because the coroner controlled the content of his testimony using her control of the questions she asked, and the applicant was not accorded the privilege of framing questions to himself, or other witnesses for that matter.
    3. Depending on which if either remedy the court grants to the applicant, there may need to be a fresh inquest. The coroner proceeded with the first inquest, indicating that she appreciated this, but that it was a risk she was prepared to take.

    Documents to be referenced

    4. Except where otherwise stated, any document to which the applicant may wish to refer and from which he may wish to quote, the learned judge therefore having a copy of that document before him, is a document that shall already have originated with, or been sent to or served upon the respondent coroner in plenty of time before the hearing of the oral application. Collectively I will refer to these documents, plus this skeleton argument, as “the bundle”. The documents of the bundle are all attached to the same email to the dedicated skeleton argument email address for the Administrative Court.
    5. The first exception to para 2 above, is that the applicant will wish to refer briefly to text that the deceased posted on You Tube the day before his death, in the context of his uploading the video that the coroner ensured that the first inquest jury watched, giving them the opportunity to read that text, which referred to the deceased's lack of sleep during the week before his death. The video and the text were evidence that the coroner introduced at the first inquest.
    6. The second exception to para 2 above, is the inclusion in the bundle of an image of one of the websites he edits, KILLED.org.uk.
    7. The applicant has mislaid a letter sent to him by the respondent coroner in late 2009 or early 2010, acknowledging (as he recalls) his “interest” in the matter, which misled him into believing that he had already been accorded Properly Interested Person status. He wishes to refer to this missing letter. He hopes that, on receipt of this skeleton argument, the coroner will furnish a copy from her files.

    8. There may be other documents to which the applicant may refer in passing and generically during his oral application, but from which he will not quote, and for which it would not assist for the judge to have copies. Such other documents consist mainly of the large number of emails and other such correspondence between the deceased and others, which the applicant provided to British Transport Police and/or the coroner at their express or implied request long before the first hearing. Any documents referred to in passing without quoting from them ought also to be in the possession of the respondent since before the date of the first inquest.

    9. The documents that make up the bundle are as follows:

    SkelArg.pdf = this skeleton argument

    CoronerLetter.pdf = a letter from the applicant to the coroner dated 3 December 2009

    JohnWitnessStatement.pdf = witness statement of the applicant dated 10 January 2011, supplied to the coroner prior to the pre-inquest review, and which the applicant expected would be handed to the jury at the first inquest, as his evidence-in-chief

    AmandaWitnessStatement.rtf = draft witness statement of Amanda Palmer dated 15 February 2011, supplied to the coroner as she directed; Ms Palmer was told that her testimony was not required at the first inquest; she was given permission to attend, but was unable to make the necessary arrangements at less than a day's notice, following the unexpected rejection of the applicant's written application for permission to apply for judicial review

    PreInquestHearingMinutesRuling.pdf, containing the written decision of the coroner of which judicial review is sought

    FACTS.rtf = section 8 of the written application for permission to apply for judicial review

    GROUNDS.rtf = section 5 of the written application for permission to apply for judicial review

    RefusalJRdarrim.pdf = the order refusing permission to apply for judicial review, the day before the first inquest

    Darrim86b.pdf = renewal application

    SecurityServicesAllegation.pdf = copy of email correspondence including the deceased's allegation that he was being “stalked”, “tortured” and “blackmailed”, and that he believed that the perpetrators were “the security services – either MI5 or some black ops organisation”, and showing that this information was supplied to the coroner

    killed.pdf = the image of the home page of the website KILLED.org.uk, served by email on the respondent in a copy of the email to the Administrative Court's dedicated skeleton arguments email address.
                  

Arabic Forum

12-29-2011, 01:46 AM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    ( 2)

    Quote: Facts

    10. The applicant will claim the facts set out in the document FACTS.rtf in the bundle. None of these facts are, to the applicant's knowledge, in dispute between the applicant and the respondent, except for the facts claimed by the applicant in paragraphs 7 and 13 of the document FACTS.rtf.
    11. The learned judge will appreciate that at the time the applicant drafted this statement of facts for his written application now renewed orally, namely FACTS.rtf, he was not privy to the information that emerged at the first inquest. The applicant would therefore wish to be allowed to comment briefly on his initial statement of facts, in the light of what took place at the first inquest.
    12. The coroner invited Properly Interested Persons to put questions to witnesses. It is a fact that the applicant had questions that he wished to put to witnesses, but was unable to put them. The questions are questions that the applicant is confident that the deceased would have wished him to ask. He respectfully submits that it is eminently possible that the verdict of the first inquest might have been different if those questions had been asked, and that press coverage of the first inquest might have been more befitting for the deceased's good reputation after his death.


    Caselaw to be cited

    13. The applicant wishes to draw the attention of the judge to the criminal convictions of Hatice Can and Kemi Ajose, in order to remind the judge of the principle that a deceased's actions being the immediate cause of his or her own death, and his or her death also amounting to his or her unlawful killing by another person or persons, are not mutually exclusive or contradictory possibilities at law. In the case cited, both sets of facts were found: the two findings of fact coexisted. The applicant has not yet obtained a copy of the trial judge's summing up to the the jury in that case, but hopes to be able to provide one to the court and the respondent before the hearing of his oral application. Failing this, he wishes to remind the judge of the case by mentioning press reports of some of the key facts.


    14. At the first inquest, the sitting deputy assistant coroner indulged the applicant, allowing him to make an application to her in the absence of the jury at the start of the second day, seeking permission to give further evidence about the known capabilities of electromagnetic weapons that might have assisted the jury to interpret the deceased's own evidence posted onto You Tube roughly a day before he was killed.

    15. Before rejecting that application, the sitting deputy assistant coroner declined to allow the applicant to make further representations as to directions she should put to the jury. The main direction that the applicant was not allowed to request, was the legal principle applied in R -v- Hatice Can and Kemi Ajose, mentioned in the previous paragraph of this skeleton argument. The applicant believes that the omission of any direction to the jury concerning the principle in Can, by way of comment upon any evidence the applicant gave about the capabilities of directed energy weapons, rendered the first inquest verdict unsafe, as regards the UK's compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the deceased's own allegations in SecurityServiceAllegation.pdf, on You Tube, and in various correspondence and conversations of his before he got killed.
    16. In support of his contention that there exists such a thing as what he called an “Article 2 inquest”, as distinct from a mere “Rule 36 inquest”, and that the deceased is entitled to the the former in the light of his allegations, the applicant may wish to refer to either or both of the following two cases, and to provide copies of the judgments if he is able to obtain them in time, with the limited resources available to a litigant in person:
    a) R (on the application of Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London & Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1440
    b) R v HM Coroner for the Western District of Somerset & Another, ex parte Middleton (FC) [2004] UKHL 10

    17. From Regina -v- Coroner for Southern District of Greater London, ex Parte Driscoll [1994] 159 JPR 45, a case which the respondent cited in her reasons for the decision of which judicial review is now sought, the applicant would like to draw attention to the following key sentence in a precis of the full judgment published by swarb.co.uk at http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Cornr19931993.php :
    “The test was whether an applicant's desire to participate went beyond the wish to give relevant evidence and extended to a genuine concern regarding the scope of the inquest with an associated need to put views to witnesses.”
    The applicant believes that he meets that criterion in abundance and par excellence.
    18. The applicant has been unable to find a copy of the full Driscoll judgment on the internet, including the passages to which the coroner referred, about candidates for class (h) PIP status under S. 20 (2) of the Coroners Rules 1984 having to have a relationship with the deceased that is analogous to one of the relationships in classes (a) thru (g). He will continue trying to obtain a copy. He hopes for the assistance of the respondent in obtaining one, since it was the respondent who first cited the case.
    19. The applicant does not seek to reference the Al Fayed case cited by the respondent.

    Grounds

    20. The applicant will primarly expound and expand upon the reasons already set out, in GROUNDS.rtf, and in Darrim86b.pdf (q.v. both).
    21. The applicant will contend that it is admitted by the respondent that he has taken a sincere interest in the inquest from the outset, an interest that he was requested to take by none other than the deceased himself. It would be perverse, and certainly detrimental to the public reputation of the UK courts, to declare that such a serious and well-founded interest was improper. Therefore, giving the words “Properly Interested Person” their ordinary meaning (as the respondent coroner conceded that they should be given in her paragraph 18) the applicant cannot be anything other than a Properly Interested Person.
    22. The applicant would draw attention to his restraint in not attempting to turn this case into a cause celebre using the KILLED.org.uk website that has been kept, to date, thoroughly low-key and uncontroversial. Rather he has dealt with this dispute as an individual to date (rather than as rabble-rouser, as he might have done), in a dignified manner, as one who expects justice without needing to raise a following willing to demonstrate noisily outside this or the coroner's court.
    23. Yet others who correspond with the applicant would be apt to describe the first inquest, at which the applicant was not a PIP, as a stage-managed cover-up of the extra-judicial capital punishment of a part-Iraqi political dissident. The applicant will assert that there is a wider public than just himself that is interested in the deceased's death. It is therefore arguable that it is in the public interest for justice to be seen to be done, by allowing a jury at least to consider – and perhaps to reject, although that is not a foregone conclusion - the evidence for the “conspiracy theory” (as some might call it) of the deceased, the applicant and countless others.


    Conclusion

    24. The applicant contends that the possible grounds for judicial review that even he himself has been able to list, a mere litigant in person, might render judicial review possible and necessary.
    25. The applicant contends that even these grounds are far from being so weak as to render it safe, in matter touching the death of a dissident political activist with a following in his lifetime who alleged persecution by the state, for the court to reject today his application for permission to apply for judicial review at a later date, if possible, represented by counsel when that substantive application for judicial review is made.
    26. The applicant therefore renews orally his application for permission to apply for judicial review.




    From:

    http://www.beulahbaruch.org.uk/SkelArg.htm
                  

Arabic Forum

12-29-2011, 02:38 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    This is what all has been published in the Official Sussex local electronic newspaper about Darrim Daoud, case.



    Crawley man found dead next to railway line

    Tuesday, November 17, 2009


    Quote: A MAN'S body was spotted lying next to railway tracks by a train driver.
    Darrim Daoud, 34, from Pound Hill, was spotted by the driver lying near the track lose to Pease Pottage, just after 2pm.
    Emergency services were called but Mr Daoud was dead before they arrived.
    A British Transport Police spokesman said: "Officers were called to attend the railway line at Balcombe Tunnel, near to Parish Lane, Pease Pottage, after receiving reports of a body near the line.
    "The incident was reported to police at 2.04pm and was attended by our officers, Sussex Police and paramedics from the local ambulance service.
    "Upon attendance officers discovered the body of a man, who appeared to have suffered injuries consistent with being struck by a train.
    "The incident is being treated as non-suspicious and a file will be prepared for the coroner."
    An inquest was opened and adjourned at Haywards Heath Coroner's Court on Monday.
    Did you know Mr Daoud? Leave your tributes below or call our newsdesk on 012923 597600.




    From:

    http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Crawley-man-dea...05-detail/story.html
                  

Arabic Forum

12-29-2011, 02:48 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    Mr. John Allman the Human Right campaigner wrote to the paper with documents’ about the case,



    Mr. John Allman Human right activist, Letter to the Paper:


    Quote: From: John Allman
    Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:56 PM
    To: UK.general.news@...
    Subject: "Darrim Daoud Truth Campaign" oral application for permission to apply for judicial


    review


    PRESS RELEASE


    The Queen (on the application of John William Allman) -v- HM Coroner for West Sussex


    The hearing of this application is scheduled for 2 p.m. on Monday 28th November 2011, in one of the courtrooms (to be announced) of the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. The case concerns the coroner's decision that the applicant was not a Properly Interested Person at the May 2011 inquest into Darrim Daoud's death on 15th November 2009.

    The deceased, an anti-war activist, and a leading British activist against what he called "organised stalking", was of mixed parentage and therefore described himself as "half Iraqi". He alleged that his life was threatened more than once, by persons whom (he inferred) represented the British public sector intelligence and security industries. He posted a You Tube video just before his apparent and unexpected suicide. He alleged assault that was inflicted by the deployment of directed energy weapons, and which deprived him of sleep for 133 hours during his final week of life, and inflicted at least one burn mark on his body that was visible in his You Tube video. The inquest jury was not allowed to hear evidence of the feasibility of inflicting such harm on a single individual, from a distance, and through masonry. The applicant was not allowed to ask testing (or indeed any) questions of witnesses, who included a psychiatrist who had never actually met the deceased.

    The deceased purchased an airline ticket less than a week before he was killed.

    The deceased expressly asked the applicant to intervene in any inquest, in the event of the deceased's violent death, in order to publicise the deceased's allegations against the UK state, which the applicant contends engaged the deceased's right to life, under Article 2 of The European Convention on Human Rights.

    The applicant was a contributor to the 5th European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons in 2009, at a workshop of the symposium on Social Implications. The relevant class of directed energy weapons were the subject in 1999 of the best-selling ever Scientific and Technical Options Assessment (STOA) of the European Parliament, in which they were described as "the technology of political control". This STOA informed Paragraph 27 of European Parliament Resolution A4-0005/99, calling for a worldwide ban of weapons for the "manipulation of human beings". The author of that STOA was present at the symposium workshop when the applicant made his presentation

    Poignantly, the last time the applicant saw Darrim, was also in The Strand, where earlier in the afternoon of 14th October 2009, Darrim had been proudly carrying his two-sided placard on a stick, right outside the very law courts at which the applicant will be heard on Monday.

    The website on which the applicant has published ample information about the impending case is KILLED.org.uk.

    John Allman
    Trustee, Beulah Baruch Ministries, registered charity 1124651
    Applicant for permission to apply for judicial review
    Okehampton
    +44 7901 502538


    From:

    http://freedomfchs.hotblack.myfreeforum.org/J...m_Daoud_about39.html

    (Edited by عبدالغفار محمد سعيد on 12-29-2011, 03:00 PM)

                  

Arabic Forum

12-29-2011, 03:06 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    But they ignored the letter by Mr John Allman and did not publish or broadcast any news about this case from any media or human

    rights organization
    ???????????
                  

Arabic Forum

01-05-2012, 01:18 AM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    UK, Organized Stalking, Darrim Daoud Case


    Quote: Beulah Baruch Ministries
    1 Cotswold Court, Albert Street, Fleet, Hants. GU51 3XZ United Kingdom +44 1252 617778
    Registered Charity Number (England and Wales) 1124651 www.BeulahBaruch.org.uk



    3 December 2009
    Coroner R J Stone
    Police Station
    Bolnore
    Haywards Heath
    West Sussex



    Dear Sir
    Darrim Daoud – deceased 15 November 2009

    I am writing with the unanimous approval of the trustees of this Christian ministry.

    Accompanied by a colleague, I conducted a pastoral visit to Darrim Daoud’s home at his request on 4 October 2009. I established that Darrim Daoud was the victim of harassment, and had been receiving death threats. This charity entered into an agreement with Mr Daoud. He promised us that he would never commit suicide. In return, we promised him that if, as he feared, the death threats appeared to have been carried out, in that his body was found in the open with signs of a violent death, then we would intervene in the police investigation and coroner’s inquest, to carry out Mr Daoud’s own wishes, that a true verdict of unlawful killing should be reached, not a false verdict of suicide.

    We remained in direct, personal touch with Mr Daoud during the period between our first meeting with him until just over a week before his death, when he emailed us about a group holiday he wanted our charity to plan with him in 2010. We also are aware that he published (inter alia) a video on the You Tube website the day before his death, about some of the harassment he was receiving at that time. The video and other postings made no mention of any intention of self-harm that others appear to be assuming.

    Now that the worst has happened, in execution of our part of the bargain that we made with Mr Daoud before his death, please take notice that this charity wishes to be legally represented at the inquest into Mr Daoud’s death. We wish to call witnesses whose evidence is given under oath and tested under cross-examination, who had contact with Mr Daoud in the weeks and days immediately before his death. God willing, the witnesses called will include both myself and the colleague who accompanied me every time I met with Mr Daoud. My colleague is a fellow witness to the solemn promises that I made to Mr Daoud, on behalf of the charity, and to Mr Daoud’s testimony as to the harassment and death threats he had been receiving.

    Mr Daoud’s death follows his leadership of a political demonstration that I attended on 14 October, and prevents his leadership of a follow-up demonstration on the same issue that is planned for 10 December, Human Rights Day. The last death threat known to us was made on 14 October, when Mr Daoud was on the train home from the first demonstration he led, the only one he will now ever lead, as it now turns out. In the light of these facts, the decision of British Transport Police, that Mr Daoud’s violent death, when aged only 34, is “non-suspicious”, therefore strikes the trustees of this charity as ill-informed and mistaken.

    Yours faithfully,


    John Allman




    From:

    http://www.BeulahBaruch.org.uk/DarrimCoroner.doc
                  

Arabic Forum

01-05-2012, 04:00 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    What is interesting and I want to alert about, because it confirms what is already certain about the human rights organizations regarding this matter, Mr. John Allman is not an activist with any known human right organization, but he is a first Trustee of the ‘’Beulah Baruch Ministries’’, witch is the Evangelical Christian fellowship.

    (Edited by عبدالغفار محمد سعيد on 01-05-2012, 04:18 PM)

                  

Arabic Forum

01-05-2012, 05:03 PM
عبدالغفار محمد سعيد
<aعبدالغفار محمد سعيد
Registered: 04-17-2006
Total Posts: 10075





Re: Organized stalking ? (Re: عبدالغفار محمد سعيد)

    This is part of the Mr. John Allman CV:


    • Trustee at Beulah Baruch Ministries

    • Manager at Fleet Charity Shop .com

    • Convenor at The Alliance For Change

    • Director at Adept Computing Ltd

    • Principal Analyst Programmer at Tear Fund

    • Senior Lecturer in Computer Studies at the University of the West of England

    • Chief Programmer at ICL Dataskil

    • Executive Officer at Ministry of Defence

    • University of Wales, Lampeter

    • De Montfort University

    • The Open University

    Now Mr. John Allman is a Secretary at Christians against mental slavery
    /B]
                  

Arabic Forum

[Post A Reply] Page 1 of 1:   <<  1  >>

Comments of SudaneseOnline.com readers on that topic:

Organized stalking ?
at FaceBook
Report any abusive and or inappropriate material



Articles and Views
اراء حرة و مقالات
News and Press Releases
اخبار و بيانات
اخر المواضيع فى المنبر العام
Latest Posts in English Forum



فيس بوك جوجل بلس تويتر انستقرام يوتيوب بنتيريست Google News
الرسائل والمقالات و الآراء المنشورة في المنتدى بأسماء أصحابها أو بأسماء مستعارة لا تمثل بالضرورة الرأي الرسمي لصاحب الموقع أو سودانيز اون لاين بل تمثل وجهة نظر كاتبها
لا يمكنك نقل أو اقتباس اى مواد أعلامية من هذا الموقع الا بعد الحصول على اذن من الادارة
About Us
Contact Us
About Sudanese Online
اخبار و بيانات
اراء حرة و مقالات
صور سودانيزاونلاين
فيديوهات سودانيزاونلاين
ويكيبيديا سودانيز اون لاين
منتديات سودانيزاونلاين
News and Press Releases
Articles and Views
SudaneseOnline Images
Sudanese Online Videos
Sudanese Online Wikipedia
Sudanese Online Forums
If you're looking to submit News,Video,a Press Release or or Article please feel free to send it to [email protected]

© 2014 SudaneseOnline.com


Software Version 1.3.0 © 2N-com.de