So, I have documented a distinct link between crisis PR narrative control and how organizations like the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals has deliberately blurred the line between so-called terrorism and domestic violence, and how auto-antonymal language and double entendre are used in “influence operations”which the ACLU has also noted; and how alternative media is under attack from the “deep state” and it’s hand maidens in civil conspiracy, the psychologists who gaslight TI’s, but who, by proxy, are also those who are causing mass shootings, suicides, social isolation, political corruption, and more.
I have also repeatedly documented the toxic blur between security contractors and police functions that operate in an “intelligence capacity,”as we see a link between the Yellow shirt security contractors and the Stephen Paddock shooting, as well as documented links between Omar Mateen and G4S concurrent with Mateen being “on the FBI radar,” directly because his father is an FBI asset/informant,but how these literally conspire under the ATAP “frame”work and also wage hidden terror and morality/coercion/social conformity/entrapment/social engineering campaigns “in darkness,” and without oversight.
It is these latter subjects who are what can rightfully be called the modern equivalent of Nazi Brownshirts, or Stalinist purge agents, or Israeli Sterns gang members, and the ‘whisper campaign’ is the tactic both groups used to cause strife in local populations. All of that whispering, starts in database abuse, and BOLO’s of various kinds.
Then, have a look at this Wiki site where the excesses of the unethical post 9-11 “information sharing environment” as we see security industry are documented in one specific community, Aspen Hill Maryland, as an organized gang. This Wiki has valuable information, but also some classic total time wasters like the “”Old Men from Out of Town” story started by private detective David Lawson, which, while interesting in the way that other locker room talk is interesting, has no merit in our Constitutional crisis era of total system failure.
From Aspen Hill Wiki:
Local law enforcement has a very effective and legitimate approach to dealing with localized crime problems. This is “PCAT” or “Police Community Action Teams” programs, in which officers from other areas are given significant opportunities to accrue overtime hours, by concentrating forces in one or a few beats. This effectively floods the streets with both uniformed and plainclothes officers.
Some Organized Stalking groups are well aware of this, and they will occasionally flood an area with their own staff during, or more commonly immediately after, periods of PCAT activity. They can expect cooperation from grateful shopkeepers, mall security, and other property-management types who are allowed to believe that these individuals are operating under, or personally possess, police authority. It’s possible that some persons affiliated with such organizations are in fact police officers, or more likely were at one time police officers. Yet the vast majority of these “Fake Cops” are in fact fake cops. Quite frequently they work with, or are part of, “security gangs”.
Some commercial facilities such as shopping centers or office campuses may be unable or unwilling to afford the level of security available through legitimate private security services. Some such may be approached by organizations offering their services to “help clean up the place”. These organizations are, effectively, unlicensed security officers and also often operate as private investigators with no permits. Or, they may possess permits or licenses which do not apply to this sort of work. For example, Bounty Hunters are in fact law-enforcement and may have special permits… which do not apply to any duties outside of seeking bail jumpers. Yet neither the property managers nor the people “apprehended” (usually beaten, intimidated, or frightened away, instead) by these individuals or groups are quite cognizant of the fact that these persons have no legitimate special authority nor license in these places and situations.
Certain specific shopkeepers or property-management people are quite cooperative with either “fake cops” or “security gangs”. To such groups, such enablers are golden. In the rare case that the “fake cops” or “security gang” operatives feel that they are at risk and choose to hide their presence rather than risk the exposure of their operations, such shopkeepers or comparable staffers can act as eyes and ears for the fake cops and/or security gangs. Indeed, given enough time in place, and they may come to manage them, if not in exactly a capacity of being a management-level employee of a corporation or company. Yet they can direct the operations of such organizations, in effect, picking victims.
What makes the documentation of “organized gang stalking” significant in this case is that we see how elements in policing trickle information to security contractors, and “cop wannabees” who then form literal gangs, and use technology and tactics of OGS to seize turf, and “run neighborhoods,” in the disguise of authority; and this, which is a recipe for corruption.
Then, take a look at how “security guards” were an integral feature of “narrative control” in an ever changing story about the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock in order to understand how similar mass shootings are to activities in the Hitler era with Brownshirt marauders corrupting Democracy; and other periods of history where the Constitution of a nation was suspended, diminished, or eradicated entirely.
So, the Maryland Wiki from Aspen Hill has great information, and names some names to some degree, and can help point the researcher, the psychologist, the criminal defense or civil attorney into the right direction in pursuing cases against gang stalkers.
As I have noted, my personal case of OGS began distinctly in 2003-4, and progressed throughout decades, and went into full swing in 2008, and I worked with great lawyers, and began and prevailed in a lawsuit that blossomed to five other independent litigants to literally take a cowardly security contractor OUT OF BUSINESS. As you can see, I am taking my time this time around, and making sure I get it right for everybody.
Without coincidence, 2008 is also when the Department of Homeland Security, working under the “intelligence sharing” platforms where the DEA/FBI/DHS/CIA waged hidden database backdoor searches across agencies, and began to target individuals with ferocity, and devoid of any due process, or even anything resembling due process protections.
In other words, systemic denial of substantive due process became the norm in 2008, as well as a host of other institutional practices that require a separate essay, but simply put: information sharing became indiscriminate, political, slanderous, and frequently sought targets that refused to participate in such a social scheme, which is well documented all over the web as one TI after another becomes targeted with “hidden operations” of many kinds.
Have a look at another of my encounters with hidden internet operators in 2011, which was another big year for DHS backdoor black operations. Like Rose McGwan and tens of tousands of others, we can begin to envision how civil conspiracies of deprivation of rights are traceable to both private contractors, who can be sued for actual damages, and the DHS which can be sued for complicity and reform, which won’t come easy as major senators sitting on the intelligence committees continue to derive substantial kickbacks under the watchful eyes of the FBI and other agencies.
But because the federal government has managed to skirt color of law claims, due process claims, ad substantive due process claims bu claiming state secrets, FISA exceptions, section 702 loopholes and more, I will leave it to actual lawyers to make the larger arguments.
It is at this point, beyond a reasonable doubt that the government acts pre-emptively in these cases with actual prejudice, maliciously, and with selective enforcement, and that the government has excercised bad faith by using back door searches and OTB methods. But for the lay reader, here below is basic Due Process, 14th Amendment where the federal scheme has shifted the burden of proof to the citizen to bring claims:
Every Due Process Clause analysis begins with the question “Has the government deprived some person of life, liberty, or property?” If there has been no government action, or if there has been no deprivation, then there cannot be a Due Process issue; substantive or procedural.
Substantive Due Process issues involve the states’ power to regulate certain activities.
Procedural Due Process issues involve an analysis of the procedure required by the Constitution when states seek to deprive people of life, liberty or property.
While the majority of persons targeted with these hidden schemes that are waged from behind the DHS and other agencies target low status, low income individuals, a savvy civil or criminal lawyer will see the merits of pursuing redress in cases of OGS because there are other venues whereby proving substantive due process has been occurring on a massive and industrial scale, as we are now faced, literally, with predatory “law enforcement” that is actually not enforcing any laws, but rather, seizing property in record numbers, framing suspects, and using intelligence agency tactics in local communities to create the appearance of crimes instead.
So, OGS has morphed into real estate red-lining, and a CIA styled asset forfeiture racket; but in many other ways too. ANd here is a case from a local community where a citizen has documented other real estate related claims, as did Bob Krlich.
Up until ROGS, few would risk speaking out about ths form of corruption, and worse, the actual language didn’t even exist in many cases, which is by design of the corrupt, and the corruption itself. Look through ROGS foor more links to the dialectic itself-search for tags with “linguistics” and “para-language” and “semantics” and “jargon” for examples.
One of the chief and main reasons this is allowed to continue is because “security gangs” and “private contractors” are not held accountable to the public, and as we see on an industrial scale, the public doesn’t even know what any of the many “hidden operators” online are even doing. And how can you litigate for a client, or in a class action lawsuit of the proof of such a diabolical state-level brownshirt scheme remains under authoritarian control, disguised by “state secrets” and other unchallenged privileges?
Well, it helps to have a starting point, but as we see pre-ROGS, there was a dearth of data that verifies OGS as an actual complaint. Fightgangstalking.com is one of the few who has stuck with the facts, and occasionally whistle blowers step forwards; and there are some highly credible online testimonials and a few court attempts like the case of Jeffrey Kantor, but other than that, where to start?!
So-start with the private security contractors and their chain of oversight. and work your way up, combined with other data that proves patterns of state conduct, substantive due process violations that stem directly from the DHS scheme, and the hidden data about back door searches and the electronic trails they leave that became available since Edward Snowden and corporate collusion at the database level.
Further Reading: What is substantive Due Process?
Due Process Clause:
The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part, that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This applies to the states and to local governments. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government. Most Due Process issues involve state laws.
The two sources of law are statutory law and common law. The common law is that body of rules and principles developed through the courts over time. While legislatures often overrule an area of common law by enacting a statute, and while courts often overrule an area of common law by refusing to follow it further or by handing down a decision which makes use of a competing principle, the common law carries with it the force of law and is generally binding on courts within that jurisdiction.
Burden of Proof:
In every case one party or another has the onus of demonstrating the truth of some fact or another. The party who must so demonstrate is said to have the burden of proof. In addition to who carries the burden, the burden can be of different loads. For example, in a criminal case the prosecution carries the burden of proof and must prove every element of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In most civil cases the plaintiff generally carries the burden of proof but must prove every element of her claim only by “a preponderance of the evidence,” which is far short of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”