The First Amendment versus the cumulative effect of decades of Fusion Center Spying: time to test drive our rights.

The ROGS reader will note that I have been a target of “the war on pure speech” and due process via “high policing” since 2004, but also, that I saw this coming in 1993 (search this blog for links to these years).

The reader will also note that I have endured decades of harm because I consistently stand on first amendment rights to speech, and have been 1) shot 2) tracked 3) surveilled 4) jailed 5) black bagged 6) slandered 7) much more, because I have stood for speech online and off since forever-but especially after I published stories in 2003-4 that were critical of how internet spyng and offline surveillance were then ad are now measureably worse than anything Joseph McCarthy, COINTELPRO 1, MHCHAOS, or Adolph Hitler EVER did to news media or propaganda and speakers of prtected first amendment speech.

This is all well documented in the record-some Americans are violent animals, who have manipulated the dialectic so abusively that it defies logic, in a lop-sided narrative that pits us against them, women against men, blacks against whites, etc-and “they” all belong to some insider club or another as they do this, in the pure cowardice of secrecy. some, have it far worse than others and some have plainly never been on the downside of our nation’s.

And for the record, ROGS has no more tears to weep for “progressive” white females in power who whinge on about their troubles with guys like Al Franken as if they actually HAVE troubles-these are little more than what Edward Bernay’s did as he manufactured women as pseudo feminist “Liberty Torches“; the handmaidens of the subversion of the Constitution and due process. And NONE of them have ever seen the inside of the jails they built, but should.

I have no tolerance for the one percent, racist zionist’s, dominionists, and others who who work for the One Percent, or new arrivals from India, and other places who have seized the American dialectic of race and forgone any awareness of class issues; or black billionaires like Oprah, for whom no end of derision, or destruction of black men could ever be enough too satisfy her power hunger.

The facts are that white women, for the most part, simply have no burden. Fakerape is a cover for the atrocities that these same wage on primarily low income black, white, and Hispanic men (who they birthed for a state check, and then fed into the prison pipeline), and not just in America; but also, their jaded narrative incessantly murders others around the world.

And too, all of the new arrivals from India, the Middle East, China, or other places have no right whatsoever to wade into the complex dialectic of race in America, without examining who the One Percent are, and how their propaganda system works-and most of them are egregiously wealthy and jaded-not at all the poverty stricken immigrants of decades ago.

These all are co-conspirators in the modern peonage systems of the DVIC, the MIC, and the PIC that targets our own fathers and sons, brothers and friends. Here is more on who these handmaidens off the police state are, from John Whitehead, describing the new peonage system’s in America, and debt bondage:

A Tale of Two America’s  “Despite prior attempts on the federal level and across the country to prevent the profound injustice of locking people in cages because they are too poor to pay a debt,” concludes The Atlantic, “the practice persists every day.”

Related Story: Who are “they”? One of the word games that psychologists/social workers/judges/litigators who are on the state teat like to play is asking you “who are “they”-why are you so important that someone would do this to you?” As if one NEEDS to be important-this is how distorted and out of touch political psychiatry is with the reality of modern policing and political targeting. So tell them to read this post here first, and these here, here, and here in order to understand the diabolical and enormous and unfathomable burden that was foist upon our people after 911

And- who are the One Percent that mocks us, and pits us against each other one generation after the next, in every century, and especially now that our Cnstitution has been suspended, and our own agencies target our citizens every word online, and stalk us in various ways offline?

And so: those who currently milk the DVIC teats (those who get paid hundreds of billions per year) get paid for this, more than anything else. They are complete psychopathic word twisters, and bullies, much as we see with all of this manufactured terrorism that targets the low income, the mentally ill, or the easily manipulated.

SO, in order to understand ROGS’ Thoreau styled peaceful, non-violent resistance to this fully blossomed “security state” that seems to think law does not apply to it, as it applies bizarre, scret, hidden interpretations of law to me/us/you, it is important to understand how long cases are dragged around in hidden dossiere’s and databases that are inaccessible to the public or to those who have been targeted by federal state and local agencies for decades.

And, how this all started at the NSA, when they decided to use a 4 BILLION dollar program to target the speech of American’s, instead of a 3.4 MILLION dollar program, that protected “our” rights (this in and of itself indicates “intent” on the part of government to violate the Constitution, to selectively target individuals and groups, and is prima facie evidence that these speakers were and are targeted; and PRISM, XKEYSCORE, Moonshoot CVE type programs, corporate-government sector collusion, and thousands of other government speech policing activities as well.)

And so, I can state with empirical evidence that  yet another state, federal, or internationalist NGO paid moron who derives their income from speech suppression is reading through stuff I wrote online four years ago, and cross reading other material that I wrote equally long ago. This IS what online gang stalking and speech policing IS-“they” literally databases our communications online, stalk you offline in community policing schemes, for years and years, passing you from one database or Fusion Center to another, without the benefit of a court trial or  court challenge to these practices.

Because, only two people in the world know what my blogs even are, and one of them is my lawyer. The other, is the guy’s/gal’s who listened to my phone in 2004-2016. While on the surface, this will seem a paranoid, or unrealistic claim, I ask the reader to know this: I wrote it here, now, for that EXACT reason, because proving NSA/Fusion Center/DHS/FBI/CIA/FiveEyes/JTRIG data theft and harassment is perhaps one of the most difficult things one could ever attempt to do, but that I attempt it reluctantly, because I have literally had existential threats otherwise. Here- have a look at one of my existential threats, and compare it to this, and this, then, note how I use an underground journalism style here,  and then, decide for yourself.

But this is how online speech policing works, and how it comes offline-this IS what organized gang stalking IS. And, it is against the law, against due process, and against substantive due process-but only if it gets seen in a court room, and sadly, “they” are murdering those of “us” who know this. And-who can afford such a fight in court? This is why fascism is prevailing, on both sides f the political aisle, and in all religious/cultic/sectarian elements in our society. They literaly are DVIC deep in it, together.

One might wonder how I know this about my readers-that they read across blogs, and some of those written half a decade ago? The answer is this: my writing is, primarily, an exercise in pure speech, which has been under attack by federal forces and state actors who hide like cancer along the internet backbone since 2001 (you can easily find my example and today’s proof by Googling “gang stalking” and “psychic driving.”)

In that year, 2001, deep state cults and bankers and states dependent upon federal handouts (otherwise known as “the Cult of Intelligence,”conspired in the sense of true conspiracy to limit our rights of privacy, and every right that could come after that. We are literally in an advanced phase of MHCHAOS, which is a CIA/bankster program to control dissent. And according to the intent of the Constitutional Framers, this is anathema to democracy. But I am one of many who this happens to, and some have it worse than me.

Here is a peek at how this plays itself out online: another blogger was recently imprisoned because some DVIC teat sucking narcissistic prick at the FBI wanted to privacy rape him, and did so because the guy used A SINGLE EMOJI. Then the state paid pathological narcissists kicked in his door, and traumatized his three children-FOR LIFE. His kids are literally scared to open their blinds now. This IS what a police state IS, nearly by definition. Not coincidentally, it is also one of the tactics used during the Palestinian exodus of 1948 and Hitler’s pogroms as well.

Here below is a case that demonstrates how far into the sh!tter pure speech online has been dropped by federal agents and the massive bureaucracy that is the NSA/DHS/FBI/CIA/FiveEyes data rape scheme, where agencies that manufacture terror, use funds to target speakers instead. In other words-the war hasn’t merely morphed from “fightin’ turrerriss'”, but now has openly fired yet another shot across the bow of one of nearly all of the pillars of American Democracy, which is the emoji, expressed in anonymity (….)

From Mike Masnick of (Masnick is the inventor of the Streisand Effect, and also the Shirky-Masnick Bureaucracy Perpetuation Principle-that states “police states don’t just go away overnight“):

The DOJ’s Bizarre Subpoena Over An Emoji Highlights Its Ridiculous Vendetta Against A Security Researcher

from the lawlessness-under-the-guise-of-law-enforcement dept

Yesterday we broke the crazy story of how the DOJ issued a subpoena to Twitter attempting to identify five Twitter users, not because of anything they had done, but because someone else the DOJ disliked — a security researcher named Justin Shafer — had tweeted an emoji at them in response to a discussion about a different case. You can read all the details in that original post, in case you missed it yesterday. There was so much craziness in that story that I didn’t even get to cover all of it. Some of those named in the subpoena have posted their thoughts — including Ken “Popehat” White and Keith Lee. I suggest reading both, as the subpoena directed at each of them was particularly silly, given that both freely make their identities public. The DOJ didn’t seem to do even the slightest research into the accounts it was demanding info on, or it would have known just how easy it was to “unmask” White and Lee.

As for the other three Twitter accountholders — all of them are anonymous. But the DOJ certainly has zero legal basis for unmasking them. As we’ve discussed repeatedly in the past, anonymous speech is also protected by the First Amendment, and there’s a very high bar for law enforcement to get past to unmask anonymous speakers. EFF’s Kurt Opsahl pointed to a concise statement on this in a recent ruling in the Awtry v. Glassdoor case, which Lee also reposts in his blog:

The Supreme Court has recognized that “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995). Indeed, “[t]he right to speak anonymously was of fundamental importance to the establishment of our Constitution.” Doe v. Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (citing McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42). In particular, “Justice Black . . . reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 342 (citing Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960)). So too were the responses of the anti-federalists, which were published by authors who used such fictitious names as “Centinel,” “Brutus” and “The Federal Farmer.” In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2011).

Further, it is well-established that anonymous speech on the Internet, like other types of anonymous speech, enjoys First Amendment protection. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)(“online speech stands on the same footing as other speech—there is `no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied’ to online speech”) (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without `fear of economic or official retaliation . . . [or] concern about social ostracism.’” Id.(quoting McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42).

First Amendment protection of anonymous speech “is not unlimited, however, and the degree of scrutiny varies depending on the circumstances and the type of speech at issue.” Id. Political speech is considered to be “core” speech and is afforded the highest level of First Amendment protection. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 346. Online messages such as the ones at issue here are also entitled to some level of First Amendment protection, even if the hurdle for overcoming that protection is less stringent than it is for political speech. See In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 at 1177; see also Highfields Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that identity of individual who anonymously posted derogatory comments about a company on an online message board was protected from disclosure under the First Amendment); Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10, No. 10-cv-5022 LHK, 2011 WL 5444622, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (finding the standard articulated in Highfields applied to anonymously posted online commentary criticizing the plaintiff’s organization).

That the Assistant US Attoreny, Douglas Gardner, who signed off on the subpoena, either didn’t know this or didn’t care is hugely troubling and problematic. As Scott Greenfield colorfully summarizes of the federal agents involved in this case, looking at the details, “this situation is so utterly idiotic as to make one wonder how they can get out of bed without hurting themselves.”

It is important to note that in the one extant study cited online, that “targeted individuals are trapped into an echo chamber” it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for he average targeted individual to prove that they are indeed targeted and that their experiences are the cause of hidden actors. Because what is happening is tha one hidden actor passes your data to another hidden actor,,  and across state lines and across databases for years and years, as “they” build dossiers and tabulate potential speech crimes online.

SO it is beyond a doubt that these hidden actors are what I say they are-and that online speech itself is under attack. In fact, “they” have engineered an entire generation of online speakers who were entrapped at the internet switch from birth, as any kid born in 2001, who woke up to internet use between 2005-2017 has had their ENTIRE ONLINE ACTIVITY recorded at the NSA, and then, that data was given to 16 other US agencies to cull through, as well as Israel, which is a theocratic apartheid state.

Best of all, all of that data that was captured is now stored in Utah, at the Utah Data Center, which is controlled by Mormons. Does that make you think a bit about what is pure speech? What is “free” speech? And what is Online speech?” And especially “can speech be leveraged against a person’s other rights aka blackmail?”

I will let you answer that question yourself, but also leave you to ponder: what if all of your child’s data was kept at the Catholic Vatican; or in Saudi Arabia’s Mecca-maybe at the Forbidden City? Would you trust THOSE people with your data-and all of the back doors they have demonstrated that they use to manipulate you and your choices? So why do you trust the NSA/CIA/Zio-dominionists and their Mormon pets in Utah with it?

Yup-without a doubt, we see certain theocratic interests working from within secular cover to mediate the future of your child, from hidden positions along the cancerous internet backbone. It is extremely hard to document this link.

Related Story: How The NSA Hides Section 702 Surveillance with no oversight, or meaningful reform. Or “the definition of an un-Constitutional surveillance state.”

So-what CAN be documented is the ROGS model of using honeynets to catch stalkers in action. As I have documented- I have ad death threats, rape threats, and worse for many years for just speaking up. And, I have had many people before today’s special reader try to mis-use my words, or otherwise construe their meaning as potentially harmful. Obviously, I am not in this for fun.

Here, have a look at were my actual gang stalking began, in 2003-4, which was a “pure speech” related series of events, as opposed to a bunch of crooked people from various cults and sects of American society harassing me previous to that. And here is when it went into overdrive, and also centered around free speech expressed online.

See how long they-whoever “they” are can drag these things out? Yup. It is an insidious and completely new form of harassment that has up until ROGS avoided being named properly, because it is an overwhelming form of social dysfunction that has been enabled by the total surveillance state. And by design, it is nearly impossible to challenge, in life, or in a court room. But is IS what gang stalking IS online.

Well, as we see today the trend is that the “deep state” has sought by every hook and crook to stop speech at the switch using initiatives and pretexts ranging from “save the 16 year old girls of Japan (so that international bankers and white females can pimp them); to the nefarious Save Eastern Sex Traders Act, which seeks to keep online speech relegated to the middle ages, so that the same tribes and groups can profit from the control women, AND control narratives after that. Because boogiemen, of course. And scapegoating-lots of scapegoating.

And, stealing my GPS here and there too; or working from within public and private sectors and corporate “partnerships” to obfuscate rights; or black bag a reporters notes here and there. Don’t forget that.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s