www.COINTELPRO Continues Today.org

Legal advice and support as a counter-attack to the perpetration of non-consenual human experimentation and electronic crimes against defenseless citizens.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Bioethics Commission Q&A

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. Federal Crimes Question: How do you know it is COINTELPRO (i.e., Federal) Crimes being committed against us?

    The absence of physical break-ins is what identifies the criminals.  Only a government intelligence agency has the capability to bypass any lock or security device without breaking in. 

    Common criminals and “local” gangs do not have this capability and have no motive to avoid leaving evidence of a break-in. The COINTELPRO motive is to make the victim to be delusional and to give local police an excuse to refusing to investigate the crime.


  2. Harassment Not A Crime Question: Why is a TI's harassment not a crime?

    Separate acts of harassment by people in a group do not meet the penal definition of the crime of “stalking.”  Harassment is not a crime unless you can prove a series of harassing acts by a single person.  This constitutes the crime of stalking.  It is thus not only useless, but counterproductive to report activities that are not crimes and which will give police an excuse for treating you as delusional.  This is the purpose of street theater and other unbelievable forms of COINTELPRO harassment.

    Only a federal investigative or intelligence agency has the capability to perform these operations, and they have a very long proven history of having performed such operations for decades.

    If you report this to the FBI, as many TI’s have tried to do, they have always ignored all the reports and refused to investigate its own unconstitutional, criminal COINTELPRO operations.

    Anti-TI activists have been very successful in covering up the COINTELPRO truth with the “local stalking group” myth.  Also, “local stalking groups” could not possibly be doing this all over the U.S. and Canada to so many TI’s in so many different cities and states because they are, supposedly, LOCAL.  They are NOT local; they receive federal training.

     


  3. Harassment Not Violation of Penal Law: Why should I report these harassment activities, even if I don't refer to them as "local gang stalking"

    No matter what you call them, the harassment activities do not violate any penal law, unless you are a senior citizen;  in which case they are a violation of elder abuse laws.  The harassment activities are designed to make anyone who reports them appear to be paranoid and delusional.  This is the kind of police report you would get if you attempt to report the bizarre harassment forms of COINTELPRO operations.

    TI’s need to understand that local police are a part of the COINTELPRO machine.  They participate in COINTELPRO harassment, and they cover up COINTELPRO crimes.

  4. Lawsuit Won't Succeed: Why won't a lawsuit succeed in getting TI's help?

    The crimes being perpetrated against us are government crimes.  We are not prevented from exposing our knowledge of government crimes, but these crimes are state secrets.  We cannot access state secrets through court discovery procedures, but congress can access them.  It has done so in past investigations of COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, etc.:

    a.    A major congressional investigation of COINTELPRO OPERATIONS WAS CONDUCTED IN 1976-78 BY THE Church Committee, a U. S. Senate Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church.

    b.    An investigation of the 1981-85 COINTELPRO war against CISPES (Committee In Sympathy with the People of El Salvador) was conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1989.

  5. Congressional Investigation: What if we don't get a Congressional Investigation?

    If we cannot get a Congressional Investigation, we will publish the statements on the Internet with the identifying into removed.  We will respect privacy elsewhere for those who request it.

    We will send statements to journalists, to civil and constitutional rights organizations;  to all liberal activist organizations, such as 9-11 Truth.  These activist organizations may now be targeted or may have participants who are targeted, or they are subject to being targeted in the future.  It is very much in their interest to join with us in demanding congressional Investigation of today’s COINTELPRO operations.

    We can’t name all of the organizations and groups that we would contact.  We would try anything that might help once we have the evidence we need.  And that would be your testimonial.

  6. Topics in Testimonial: Why are you asking for certain topics on your sample testimonial?

    We need to join together many people who can confirm the truth of the same COINTELPRO crimes.  Any ONE person can be treated by police as a nut, but if several people in cities around the U.S. report the same crimes, we are more likely to paint the picture of federal COINTELPRO TACTICS.

  7. Where will you be taking my statement?

     (See FAQ #5:   “What if we don’t get a congressional Investigation?”


  8. FBI and COINTELPRO: Will you be taking my statement to the FBI?

     No, they are an intrinsic part of COINTELPRO.

  9. Private Statements: What happens if we choose to NOT have our personal information disclosed (i.e., privacy issue concerns)?

    We will respect the privacy of those who are fearful about identifying themselves.  We WOULD need to disclose names if we ask Congress to investigate specific harm to specific persons, but we can maintain anonymity even there for those who wish it, --but they will not get the possible benefit of an investigation of their personal experiences.

  10. Timeline: How long does this process take?

    The actual timeline is uncertain, and depends largely on the number of testimonials we receive, and how soon we receive them.

    It can’t happen at all if propagandists are able to continue making the entire TI community present a public image as paranoid and delusional, covering up the truth of COINTELPRO by claiming “organized stalking” is the problem.

  11. Public Support: My testimony, if submitted, may not guarantee a Congressional Investigation; is this true?

    We can’t get a Congressional Investigation by proving the need for it and the right to it.  That has never happened.  Only proving it to the public has ever forced an investigation.  Your statement will be used to arouse enough public pressure to force a Congressional Investigation. 

     

     

     

  12. Investigation vs. Lawsuit: Why do we need a Congressional Investigation, instead of a lawsuit against government officials or agencies?

    Congressional Investigation is the one and only way possible to access the classified government secrets that we must be able to prove in order to make successful litigation possible.  The two past Congressional Investigations of COINTELPRO were forced upon Congress by public pressure.   

    TI’s have never been able to obtain such investigation by making personal requests to Congress. What worked for TI’s twice in the past can work again now.

     


  13. Perhaps it would be better is instead of trying to help everyone at once., You concentrate in one or few T.I. cases and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court?

    (Full Question & BobS Response):

    Dear Bob S. so gang-stalking or organized Stalking might be or might not be a crime. When a stalking group member is arrested for breaking and entering, driving a T.I off the road at freeway speeds or for assaulting a targeted individual. Only that group member is charged with a specific crime. The rest of the stalking group is left to do as they please. Etc etc.. we all know all that.

    Once Again!... I realize that as an experienced Attorney you are trying to lead the whole T.I. community towards a New Era in this new Millenium.

    Perhaps it would be better is instead of trying to help everyone at once., You concentrate in one or few T.I. cases and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court? True, it would take a decade for your case to reach the Supremes. But you have spent about equal time trying to convince the T.I. community to convince Congress to launch an investigation.

    I am not... I repeat I am NOT a Lawyer NOR have any legal expertise... But I read the following in a work related publication.. it has nothing to do with T.I's but it was written by experienced Lawyers... just like you: Better fight a single or few cases Bob... Please:

    "Absent a legislative solution [by Congress], only a decission of the U.S. Supreme Court could settle this issue." by Roy Goldberg http://www.sheppardmullin.com/rgoldberg
    and by
    Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis Washington D.C. 20005 http://www.schnader.com/

    Go to the Supremes and state you case.
    Felix T.I.

    --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Bob1954nyu@aol.com

    COINTELPRO remained secret until a large number of documents were stolen from the FBI office in the town of Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971. Lawsuits brought by political groups who believed that they were being observed and disrupted by the FBI soon produced other COINTELPRO-related documents. In 1975, a Senate committee—the Select Committee to Study Governmental Relations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church Committee after its chair, Senator Frank Church (D, Idaho)—was appointed to investigate COINTELPRO and other domestic espionage and disruption programs conducted by the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, Army intelligence, and the Internal Revenue Service. The Church Committee concluded in 1976 that "the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens," and stated that the
    FBI had gathered information by illegal means, disseminated that information illegally, and otherwise violated the law in its efforts to disrupt political activities that it considered subversive. The committee's report stated that "the abusive techniques used by the FBI in COINTELPRO from 1956 to 1971 included violations of both federal and state statutes prohibiting mail fraud, wire fraud, incitement to violence, sending obscene material through the mail, and extortion. More fundamentally, theharassment of innocent citizens engaged in lawful forms of political expression did serious injury to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
    Disruption techniques used by the FBI during COINTELPRO, according to the findings of the Church Committee, included burglaries; illegal opening and photographing of first-class mail; planting of forged documents to make it appear that individuals were government informants; anonymous letters to spouses, designed to break up marriages; secretly communicating with employers in order to get individuals fired; planting of news articles and editorials (covertlyauthored by FBI agents) in U.S. magazines and newspapers; anonymous letters containing false statements designed to encourage violence between street gangs and the Black Panthers; anonymous letters denouncing Catholic priests who allowed their churches to be used for Black Panther breakfasts sent to their bishops; requests for selective tax audits; encouragement of violent tactics by paid FBI informants posing as members of antiwar groups in order todiscredit those groups; and others.



  14. There are no federal laws against COINTELPRO even though there should be.

    (Complete Q&A)
    alberta-judgebusters@hotmail.com writes:

    Dear Bob:

    As an attorney making bold statements that the only way to slue the galiath "Cointelpro" is by way of Congressional Investigation concerns me greatly

    there are no federal laws against "Cointelpro" even though there should be


    --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Bob1954nyu@aol.com wrote:

    Dear Alberta:

    In my email, I said that we don't need to prove that COINTELPRO harassment is a crime. Government torture of citizens by COINTELPRO methods is a violation of their constitutional rights even if the harassment is not a crime.

    For violation of their constitutional rights consisting merely of a false arrest and an illegal search, COINTELPRO targets Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney were awarded damages of $4.4 million by an Oakland court in 2002.

    There was no claim that the false arrest and illegal search were crimes. The only claim by plaintiffs was that these COINTELPRO forms of harassment were violations of their constitutional rights.

    The government violation of each TI's constitutional rights consists of years of "cruel and unusual punishment" inflicted without "due process of law." If Judi and Darrlyl received $4.4 million for only a false arrest and an illegal search, how much do you think each TI should get for years of extreme government torture?

    BobS

  15. gang stalking on the other hand there are laws against it and there are federal laws against it

    (Complete Q&A)

    Alberta Continues in her Above Email to BobS:

    gang stalking on the other hand there are laws against it and there are federal laws against it

    it's called "a conspiracy"

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 ..... ReportCivil Rights Violations …

    gang stalking is a conspiracy

    BobS Responds:

    This sounds like the kind of irrational argument that Derrick or Eleanor would make.

    When people conspire to commit a crime, the law makes the conspiracy itself a crime regardless of whether or not the crime is committed, but if people conspire to engage in activities that are not a crime, they are not conspiring to commit a crime. So their conspiracy is not a crime.

    I've explained why the activity mistakenly called "gang-stalking" is not a crime of stalking and not any other kind of crime. If people conspire to engage in this non-criminal activity, they are not conspiring to commit a crime. So they cannot be guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime.

    Why are you trying to turn a non-criminal activity into a crime? Why do you want to follow this very bad legal strategy for which you have absolutely no chance of success when I have given you the best legal strategy with the best chance of success?

    This is what Derrick and Eleanor have spent years training TI's to do. You've learned a lot from their training. They will be proud of you, Alberta.

    Bob S

  16. I don't know what proving COINTELPRO will do nor if I got it right what Bob S. is doing, because they already know COINTELPRO is a reality.

    (Full Q&A)

    In a message dated 1/28/2011 8:08:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, suzelectrowell@yahoo.com writes: I don't know what proving COINTELPRO will do nor if I got it right what Bob S. is doing, because they already know COINTELPRO is a reality.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan 30, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Bob1954nyu@aol.com wrote:

    Suz, whom are you referring to as "they"?
    The public doesn't know that COINTELPRO is a continuing, present reality. This is what we need to prove to the public in order to create pressure to produce a new congressional investigation of present government COINTELPRO operations.
    If “they” refers to TI's, most of them have been deceived into believing that they are victims of "organized stalking groups" instead of being COINTELPRO targets. They don't call their experience “COINTELPRO.” They call it “gang-stalking” or “organized stalking.”
    The bad news
    Many TI's, including you, do realize that they are targeted by a federal agency, but they still use “organized stalking group” and “gang-stalking” terminology. This is a fatal mistake that Derrick and Eleanor White have been knowingly and intentionally training TI's to make for years. They both know that they are defeating TI rights by using the wrong terminology. I have repeatedly explained this to them for years. They can give no justification for continuing to advocate bad legal strategy that necessitates defeat of all TI's who follow them, but they have both shown their determination to continue to knowingly and intentionally work against TI interests.
    Neither Derrick nor Eleanor claims to have any knowledge or understanding of law but they both stubbornly reject, for no apparent reason, the best legal advice that I or any other lawyer can give them. They have proved over and over that they are dedicated to defeating the rights of the TI's that they pretend to be helping. That is why I call them “Anti-TI Activists.”
    “Organized stalking” and “gang stalking” are terms that are misused only within the TI community. These terms are unknown to the outside world, and they are contradictions of established legal terminology outside the TI community.
    The legal definition of the crime of “stalking” in every state and federal law is “a series of harassing acts by a single person.” Normal TI experiences do not come within the criminal definitions of “stalking.” TI's rarely encounter “a series of harassing acts by a single person. TI experience consist instead of separate acts of harassment by many different people. The law does not permit us to combine separate acts of harassment by separate people so as to make them all guilty of the crime of stalking.
    There is no such thing as a crime “group stalking.” The law only recognizes the crime of single-person stalking. So if a group of 100 perps each commits a single act of harassment against the same TI, no one has committed a crime. No one is subject to arrest or to prosecution. The TI is not entitled to police investigation.
    Arrests cannot be justified and prosecutions cannot succeed for the non-criminal activity mistakenly described as “organized stalking.” Such harassment may meet the definition of torture, but torture is not a crime unless it comes within the definition of an established crime. This form of torture does not meet the definition of “stalking” nor the definition of any other crime.
    Police are not supposed to be investigating non-criminal, non-prosecutable activities. It is useless for them to do so since arrests and prosecutions would be contrary to the law and would ultimately fail. Yet this is what TI's keep uselessly asking police and even the FBI to do.
    TI's may not like the law. They may think that it ought to be changed, but that is the way the law stands. There are good legal and constitutional reasons why the law cannot be changed to what TI's think it ought to be, but I won't get into that long explanation.
    TI's can spend years trying vainly to get the law changed to what they think it ought to be, but they need to understand that under existing law, it is utterly useless to ask for investigation and prosecution of “organized stalking” or of “group stalking” or of “gang stalking” since the activities that TI's describe with these mistake terms do not meet the legal definition of the crime of stalking.
    TI's follow this useless strategy because they have been deceived by Eleanor and Derrick into believing that these non-criminal activities are crimes. It is impossible to achieve success by following a strategy that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
    That's the bad news. The good news is that there is a remedy that can stop these activities if we correctly describe them as “COINTELPRO operations” instead of mistakenly describing them as “organized stalking.”
    If we stop using the false “organized stalking” terminology and correctly describe our experience as the COINTELPRO operations of a federal agency, we will then be talking about government violation of our constitutional rights. COINTELPRO torture is government infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment” without due process of law. This is a clear and unquestionable violation of our constitutional rights even though it does not violate any criminal law.
    By thoroughly documenting evidence proving government agency violations of our constitutional rights through COINTELPRO operations, we clearly establish our right to obtain congressional investigation of these violations by a federal agency. By taking this approach, we have no need to prove that the operations violated any criminal law.
    One example of COINTELPRO operations that can only be performed by a federal agency is the interception and tampering with mail. An “organized stalking group cannot do this. Only a federal agency can do it. The Church Committee proved that USPS had illegally granted the FBI access to mail in 1940. Since 1940, the FBI has used this illegal access to our mail as a method of COINTELPRO harassment.
    Many times over the last 7 years, I have sent to TI's detailed explanations of how to document COINTELPRO evidence that can achieve this purpose. I will again send a copy of this explanation to anyone who requests it.
    If hundreds of TI's document proof of government responsibility for their COINTELPRO experiences, we will be making a powerful case for our right to congressional investigation of our experiences. However, I don't expect congress to voluntarily grant us this right. Congress knows about present COINTELPRO and covers it up. The past congressional investigations of COINTELPRO were forced upon congress by public pressure when TI's took their evidence to the public and created the public pressure which forced congress to undertake the two previous COINTELPRO investigations of 1976-78 and 1989.
    We must obtain congressional investigations of current COINTELPRO because this is our only possible means of accessing the classified evidence needed for successful litigation. We are prohibited by law from accessing and litigating government state secrets. Government agency COINTELPRO torture of citizens is TOP SECRET information that we are legally prohibited from reaching. Only congress has the power to access and expose these state secrets.
    When these state secrets are exposed by congressional investigation, as they have been twice in the past, the federal COINTELPRO agency can no longer claim the state secret privilege for these operations. Exposed secrets are no longer protected secrets.
    We will then have the evidence that we need to obtain legal representation on a contingency basis and to succeed with the litigation. The exposed COINTELPRO truth can be fully litigated using the evidence uncovered by congressional investigation and with the right to use legal discovery procedures to obtain further detailed evidence concerning the exposed secrets. TI's will be entitled to recover compensation for past harm, and we can seek legislation to provide adequate protection against future harm.
    There is no reason why the strategy that worked for TI's in producing the two past congressional investigations will not work for us now. The only reason that this strategy has not been used in the past 7 years is that Derrick and Eleanor have been blocking a solution to the true COINTELPRO problem by creating the false problem of “organized stalking.”
    Great success is possible with effective legal strategy. As recently as 2002, a jury in Oakland awarded to COINTELPRO targets Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney $4.4 million in damages for violations of their constitutional rights. The limited violations found by the jury were very mild compared to the COINTELPRO torture that TI's suffer for many years.
    There will be nothing but continuing failure as long as TI's continue to follow the lead of Anti-TI Activists like Derrick and Eleanor. These two infiltrators have worked systematically over the years to cover up the COINTELPRO truth with the “gang-stalking” myth. They have trained and conditioned TI's to defeat themselves and to deny their own constitutional rights by using “organized stalking” mythology to disguise COINTELPRO reality.
    TI's who have fallen for the “gang-stalking” strategy of self-defeat have been denying themselves the only real remedy for their true problem. I have explained this over and over to TI's, for 7 years, but they still keep following the Anti-TI Activists who lead them to follow strategies of certain failure. As hard as I've tried, I have not been able to persuade TI's to take responsibility for their own lives and for their own future by separating themselves from false and destructive leaders and by following the one and only strategy that can achieve an end to their torture.
    CONCLUSION:
    The bad news is that the “organized stalking” strategies of Derrick and Eleanor and their supporters will ensure continuing defeat as long as these strategies are followed by TI's who have been deceived into believing that they are entitled to investigation and prosecution of the non-criminal activity mistakenly described as “organized stalking.”
    The good news is that if TI's will stop following enemies disguised as friends and stop using the wrong terms and the wrong explanation for their COINTELPRO experiences, they can document evidence that will establish their right to congressional investigation of their true problem, and they can obtain the evidence needed for successful litigation to compensate them for past harm and to stop future harm.
    The bad news is that after 7 years of repeating this explanation to TI's who don't listen, it has been impossible for me to make them understand the fatal, fundamental mistake in legal strategy that the Anti-TI Activist leaders keep persuading them to make.
    The good news is that TI''s have the freedom to stop making this fatal, fundamental mistake at any time and to start working toward an achievable solution. The choice has always been theirs. A solution has always been possible. And it still is

  17. How Was COINTELPRO Exposed in the 1970s?

    COINTELPRO remained secret until a large number of documents were stolen from the FBI office in the town of Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971. Lawsuits brought by political groups who believed that they were being observed and disrupted by the FBI soon produced other COINTELPRO-related documents. In 1975, a Senate committee—the Select Committee to Study Governmental Relations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church Committee after its chair, Senator Frank Church (D, Idaho)—was appointed to investigate COINTELPRO and other domestic espionage and disruption programs conducted by the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, Army intelligence, and the Internal Revenue Service. The Church Committee concluded in 1976 that "the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens," and stated that the FBI had gathered information by illegal means, disseminated that information illegally, and otherwise violated the law in its efforts to disrupt political activities that it considered subversive. The committee's report stated that "the abusive techniques used by the FBI in COINTELPRO from 1956 to 1971 included violations of both federal and state statutes prohibiting mail fraud, wire fraud, incitement to violence, sending obscene material through the mail, and extortion. More fundamentally, the harassment of innocent citizens engaged in lawful forms of political expression did serious injury to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    Disruption techniques used by the FBI during COINTELPRO, according to the findings of the Church Committee, included burglaries; illegal opening and photographing of first-class mail; planting of forged documents to make it appear that individuals were government informants; anonymous letters to spouses, designed to break up marriages; secretly communicating with employers in order to get individuals fired; planting of news articles and editorials (covertly authored by FBI agents) in U.S. magazines and newspapers; anonymous letters containing false statements designed to encourage violence between street gangs and the Black Panthers; anonymous letters denouncing Catholic priests who allowed their churches to be used for Black Panther breakfasts sent to their bishops; requests for selective tax audits; encouragement of violent tactics by paid FBI informants posing as members of antiwar groups in order todiscredit those groups; and others.

  18. earthaswitness@yahoo.com writes: BobS, I am reviewing some of your older emails.........I just noticed this one. Should the words "targeted" and "Targeted Individuals" be removed from the website?

    From: "Bob1954nyu@aol.com" <Bob1954nyu@aol.com>

    To: earthaswitness@yahoo.com; lklucy@att.net; lynnandmarie@live.com; dunl254@aol.com; genamason@genamason.com; lkjohnson007@gmail.com; massie@massieglobal.com; quen2005@gmail.com

    Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 10:51 PM

    Subject: Right and wrong TI terminology

     

    BobS Responds:   No.  That limitation applied only to communications to the Commission or to bioethics professionals.  The Commission has authority to investigate only experiments causing incidental harm, not targeting causing intentional harm.  Complaints about "targeting" gave the Commission an excuse for rejecting our evidence.   This distinction between targeting and experimenting does not apply to congress nor to others from whom we might seek help.   So there is no reason to avoid using "targeted" generally.   Terms that cause us big problems with everyone and which should never be used by TI's are "gang-stalking" and "organized stalking" or even "stalking."  COINTELPRO operations do not meet the definition of the crime of "stalking."   TI's very rarely experience the crime of "staling."  This crime occurs only when there is a series of harassing acts by a single person.  The normal TI experience of a series of harassing acts by separate perps is not a crime under any state or federal law.  COINTELPRO harassment was cleverly designed to torture the victims without violating any laws.   However, such activities do violate elder abuse laws when performed on senior citizens.  Harassing seniors is a crime, but Adult Protective Services and police refuse to investigate these violations of elder abuse laws.   It is ok for TI's to use "surveillance" if that is what they actually mean.  "COINTELPRO crime and harassment" or "COINTELPRO operations" are appropriate terms.   "Stalking" is a false  and damaging  term that should never be used to describe TI experiences.

     


  19. Why is the term "stalking" to describe our abuse a false and damaging term that should never be used to describe TI experiences.

    BobS Responds:   See above question & answer immediately preceding this question.

  20. Why shouldn't the term "stalking" & "targeted" be used at the Bioethics Commission meetings?

    From: "Bob1954nyu@aol.com" <Bob1954nyu@aol.com>
    Subject: Right and wrong TI terminology

     

    The Commission has authority to investigate only experiments causing incidental harm, not targeting causing intentional harm.  Complaints about "targeting" gave the Commission an excuse for rejecting our evidence.   This distinction between targeting and experimenting does not apply to congress nor to others from whom we might seek help.   So there is no reason to avoid using "targeted" generally.   Terms that cause us big problems with everyone and which should never be used by TI's are "gang-stalking" and "organized stalking" or even "stalking."  COINTELPRO operations do not meet the definition of the crime of "stalking."   TI's very rarely experience the crime of "staling."  This crime occurs only when there is a series of harassing acts by a single person.  The normal TI experience of a series of harassing acts by separate perps is not a crime under any state or federal law.  COINTELPRO harassment was cleverly designed to torture the victims without violating any laws.   However, such activities do violate elder abuse laws when performed on senior citizens.  Harassing seniors is a crime, but Adult Protective Services and police refuse to investigate these violations of elder abuse laws.   It is ok for TI's to use "surveillance" if that is what they actually mean.  "COINTELPRO crime and harassment" or "COINTELPRO operations" are appropriate terms.   "Stalking" is a false  and damaging  term that should never be used to describe TI experiences.   

     


  21. What laws cover the separate and serial acts committed by perpetrators against a target?

    (Excerpted from BobS email):   However, such activities do violate elder abuse laws when performed on senior citizens.  Harassing seniors is a crime, but Adult Protective Services and police refuse to investigate these violations of elder abuse laws.

  22. I think the only way we'll ever get this to stop is to change the laws ?

    On 8/18/2011 11:43 AM, brad _____ wrote:

    Response by BobS:

    Brad, they were doing the same things before the Patriot Act. This Act does not legalize the torture of citizens. Government criminals would be doing the same things if the Patriot Act were repealed. Enacting new laws cannot stop them because there is no one to investigate violations of such laws.

    How much protection would you get from laws against murder if we had no detectives to investigate murders and obtain evidence for prosecution? That's our situation.

    Laws are useless when there is no one to enforce them.

    Bob

    Hi Bob, Thanks, I agree that it seems like we are moving backwards... So Now What can we do to move forward.? I think the only way we are ever going to be able to get this stopped is to change the laws... As you know this is all made legal because of the way the patriot act is worded... though they were doing it before it was legal , now it has become more of a world wide population control agenda, With the birds dropping from the sky because they fly through a cloud of phosgene gas being dropped on citizens to neutralize and and sicken the old and weak, preparing to drop the avion flu to further ravage our already damaged lungs, and eliminate the old and weak so the government won't have to pay social security and will appear innocent of the genocide that they are perpetrating on us. If the public realize what was happening I believe that most would demand that this be stopped... unfortunately this has perpetuated for so long now that even if everyone realizes what is happening, it may already be to late to stop this... The "Patriot Act" is just that... an act... it needs to be abolished.
Back to top

Bioethics Commission Q&A

  1. 8/7/11, Anon Writes: I don't believe there are any government experiments performed without obtaining advance, informed consent

    If this were so, the agencies would be unable to test their advanced, non-lethal, directed energy weapons and other electronics far more advanced than directed energy. No one would give advance, informed consent to the painful, destructive experiments that are being done, but it is proven history that the CIA, the Defense Dept, the Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies have never let such requirements prevent them from doing experiments on involuntary subjects.

     

    I can tell you most definitely that Delia (my domestic partner) and I are being zapped repeatedly every day with highly advanced electronics that can do things no known form of electronics can do. They have completely wiped out decades of Delia's memory and reduced her to a nearly helpless condition.

     

    If you don't believe that government agencies would do such things, it is proven fact that they have in fact been doing such things since at least 1950. A presidential commission is now investigating whether present safeguards are adequate protection.

     

    The proven and documented fact is that there has never been any effective means for the victims to prevent them or stop them. See the history summary at the end of the letter below.

     

    The Dept. of Health and Human Services has responsibility for investigating complaints of experiments that do not obtain advance, informed consent, but it will only investigate non-compliance if the victims can identify the government experiment being performed on them and name the agency that is performing it, but we have no way of obtaining this information.  So the experiments continue, and we have no way of stopping them.

     

    DHHS makes the ridiculous assumption that people who are violating the law by performing experiments without obtaining advance, informed consent will comply with the part of the law that requires them to notify their victims of the details about the experiment in which they did not agree to participate.

     

    This is a meaningless law, which the victims have no possible way of enforcing. Even if it could be enforced, there is no penalty for violation. So the government people who engage in the illegal experiments are taking no personal risk in doing so. The victims of these experiments often suffer permanent harm as well as extreme pain that incapacitates them and destroys their entire lives. Some have committed suicide as the only way to end the torture.

     

    The Bioethics Commission is a Presidential Commission now investigating whether present Federal Regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government. The answer to that question is that federal regulations and international standards may provide adequate protection to voluntary participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government, but that they provide no protection whatsoever to hundreds of present involuntary participants in federal agency experiments.

     

    I fear that this is a cover-up Commission. It is operating as a part of DHHS, which has been covering up these experiments for years.  Here is a letter that I wrote to the Bioethics Commission on this subject. Please let me know if it changes your views to some degree.

     

    Bob S.

    (Bob's March 2, 2011 Bioethics Letter followed this email)

     

     


  2. Anon Writes: I was wondering, how soon you'll be responding to my second question? I'm in the process of doing a overhaul on my activism but I'll like your response before I decide what direction to go on.

    Bob S. wrote: Briefly, COINTELPRO was the name of an FBI program in the 1950's, but the FBI dropped the name while continuing the same operations until at least 1990. That much has been officially proven.  Since the 1950's, “COINTELPRO” has been used as an adjective to describe the unique operations originally developed by the FBI.

     

    We have no proof that the FBI is responsible for the COINTELPRO operations that we have experienced after 1990. They might be performed by any intelligence or investigative agency that has the capability to operate in secret, but it is likely that the FBI is still performing COINTELPRO and that the electronic experiments are being done by the CIA or DOD. At least 2 agencies are involved in the US. Equivalent agencies are doing the same in other countries.

     

    Derrick wants to prevent an investigation of COINTELPRO by calling it “organized stalking.” He knows that congress has no responsibility to investigate what he falsely calls “organized stalking” for reasons that I've explained to him numerous times for 5 years. Congress does have responsibility to investigate present COINTELPRO operations of a federal agency.

     

    The purpose of Derrick and other Anti-TI Activists in misnaming COINTELPRO as “organized stalking” is to prevent investigation by congress or by anyone else. That is a sure way to deny us any possibility of a solution.


  3. Anon Writes: Also, I'll like to know your opinion on whether the Joint Select Committee could affect our chances of getting an congressional investigation. I've been hearing from others that the committee is basically an oligarchy

    Bob S. wrote: We have no possibility whatsoever of getting an investigation of "organized stalking" by anyone for several reasons.  TI's who have misused this term have made us all appear paranoid, delusional, and irrational. They have been killing all hope of congressional investigation, and they have now defeated us with the Bioethics Commission.

     

    Derrick and other Anti-TI Activists have been enormously effective in defeating TI's by changing COINTELPRO to "organized stalking." I've been explaining this for 8 years, but I've only been able to make a few people understand it. Those two words will defeat TI's as long as they continue to use them.

     

    Bob S

         Direct link to the bill:

     

        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-365


  4. Anon Writes: How Should I Present My Case to the Commission?

    From Bob S. to (anon):

     

    (May 3, 2011)Hello _____,

    You should takeyour story to the Commission as an example of how citizens are being veryseverely harmed, almost certainly by involuntary government experimentation,but with no legal remedies to prevent the experiments from continuing or torecover compensation for the past harm done to them.

     

    Here is myletter to the Commission explaining how our government is free to commit atrocitieson citizens who have no legal remedy available to them.  The Commission isonly investigating the question of whether present safeguards areavailable.  It cannot provide direct help to government victims.  

     

    We must explainthat there are no safeguards to protect us against the kind of harm thatyou experience, and that we need the appointment of an Independent Prosecutorto investigate specific government responsibility for the harm we are sufferingand to give us a means for ending it.

     

    Feel free to useanything in my letter when you present your case to the Commission.

    Bob S.


  5. Do federal regulations and international standards provide adequate protection to prevent nonconsensual human experimentation?

    From Bob S. to TIs in an email:

     

    (May 4, 2011) Strategiesvary depending on the goal.  The COINTELPRO strategy is the only way totry to create public pressure for a congressional investigation. COINTELPRO evidence can be used to prove to the public that governmentCOINTELPRO crime and harassment is continuing and that it must be investigatedagain by congress.  We can't prove to the publc that DEW is coming fromgovernment.

     

    Strategy for the Commission is different.  It should be based on the one issuebefore the Commission:   Do federal regulations and internationalstandards provide adequate protection to prevent nonconsensual humanexperimentation.  It is not necessary to go into COINTELPRO to answer thatquestion. 

     

    Theanswer is that there is no protection at all since there is no possible way foran involuntary, uninformed participant to obtain investigation and aremedy.  DHHS has the responsibility to investigate complaints, but itwill only investigate complaints from participants who have been informed as towhat experiment they are participating  It won't investigate complaintsfrom participants who have not been so informed.  If everyone is informed,there is no need for investigation, but when participants are not informed, itis impossible for them to obtain investigation. 

     

    Wecan include COINTELPRO evidence with the Commission, but it isn't essential. It helps to prove targeting, but it also raises questions ofparanoia.  We had to include it because the Commission will hearabout "gangstalking" from the websites and from other TI's.  Sowe have to explain that "gangstalking" is really the reality of COINTELPROand not the delusion that Derrick and Eleanor are selling to TI's.

     

    Whatwe must avoid with the Commission is anything about targeting since theCommission is only investigating experiments.  Targeting is not anexperiment. 

     

    Bob S.


  6. 7/17/2011, Anon Writes: It may be that we need to get past the emotional appeal, and start talking what the bioethics commission understands: When TIs show up at the next couple of bioethics commission meetings, instead of them speaking about the tortur

    July 17, 2011, Bob S. replied: 

     

    What you say below is still not dealing with thequestion that the Commission is investigating:  Are present safeguardsadequate?

     

    We need to show that the effects experienced are the result of governmentexperiments and then show that there are no adequate safeguard toprevent these experiments from being performed on involuntary subjects.

     

    If the experiences are described as DEW or electromagnetic technology, we haveno evidence that it is coming from government since this technology isavailable to the private sector.  The way that I have been trying to provethis is by documenting the association of the experiments with those forms ofCOINTELPRO operations that can only be performed by a government agency. 

     

    A second argument that I have not tried is that the technology is so faradvanced that it has not yet reached the public.  We need to argue thatthe technology is something new that is unknown outside government.  Youhave said that the new technology differs from the known technology in theability to go through walls and the impossibility of finding any kind ofadequate shielding for it. 

     

    However, many TI's say that they have found shielding that does provide someprotection.  So I'm afraid to use this argument.  Can you find any documentation to support the argument that the known technologies cannot go through walls?    

     

    Don't ordinary radio and TV waves go through walls?  We can get receptioninside our homes without using an outside antennae.  If those waves canget through why wouldn't DEW waves get through? 

     

    Is there any other way to distinguish between the known technology availableoutside government and the unknown technology that we want to prove exists onlywithin government? 

     

    How do we refer to this technology?  Should we call it "Advanced WaveTechnology" or "Super Wave Technology" or "Z WaveTechnology" or "Advanced Unknown Technology"?  We need togive it some kind of name.  What would be most appropriate?

     

    Bob S.

     

     

     

     


  7. Question: Researching other past human rights movements, it appears that the path they took to Congress was through the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if it won't be the same for the TI community?

    BobS Replies:   No.  You don't go to congress through the Supreme Court.  Those are two separate paths. 

     

     

     

    Wehave no case to take to court because we have no evidence to prove whois harming us.  If we had the evidence to prove responsibility, we wouldwin in a lower court.  There would be no issues of law for the SupremeCourt to decide.  You only appeal to anappellate court on issues of law, not normally on issues of fact.   

     

    As an example of an issue of law that had to be taken to the Supreme Court was the old Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Fergusonwhere the Supreme Court had held that "separate but equal" educationalfacilities were constitutional.  It was necessary to go to the SupremeCourt again to get this president reversed in 1954 in Brown v. Board ofEducation when the court overruled to old Supreme Court decision andheld that separate facilities were inherently unequal.

     

    Wedon't have any such issues of law to be decided.  Government can't claimthat it is constitutional to torture citizens.  If we prove governmentresponsibility for COINTELPRO torture in the trial court, we win. 

     

    Ourbig problem is obtaining proof of government responsibility fortorturing citizens.  That is why we need a congressional investigationto access such evidence.  Congress can access the classified statesecrets that we cannot access. 

     If we get the evidence of responsibility, we win.  There is no issue oflaw to be decided about our constitutional rights to be free of crueland unusual punishment nor about our right to due process of law before any kind of punishment can be imposed.

     

     

     

     

     

  8. Can you contact me directly about legal assistance?

    BobS:   We are not representing anyone legally, and we are not providing any kind of legal services.  We are only working to obtain evidence so that a legal solution will become possible. 

     The solution that we hope to make possible will be a legal action against responsible government agencies, not against local perps who harassed you.


  9. Will we be able to get heard by the Congress using our evidence and why should we tell our true names instead of submitting our testimonies anonymously?

    BobS:  I have always said that we can't get a congressional investigation by simply asking Congress for it.  This is not a realistic hope regardless of how much testimony we have from victims.

     We can only get a congressional investigation in the way that the two past COINTELPRO investigations were produced -- by proving the truth about COINTELPRO to the public and creating public pressure that forced congress to undertake the investigations.

     

    The congressional investigations of FBI misconduct at Waco and Ruby Ridge were also forced on congress by public pressure.  Members of congress don't dare to say an unkind word about the FBI unless the public becomes aware of gross abuse of power and demands an investigation by congress.

     

    I have written over 50 letters to members of congress, and I have received only a few evasive answers.  I know that there is no chance of getting a voluntary investigation by congress.  I will try again when we have enough statements, but I am quite sure that this won't work and that the only way we can get congressional investigation is by taking our story to the public.

     

    This is the strategy that I have always recommended to TI's.  It's in my strategy explanation to Wilson and in other writing where I have explained my strategy.  We need to make that strategy clear at the websites and in our correspondence with TI's.  You imply above that we hope to get an investigation by simply taking evidence to congress.  I have no such hope.

     

    We should try to get permission from TI's now to take their stories to media instead of waiting to ask them at some time in the future when we may not be able to contact them.  Every time I send a group email, I get back more failed delivery notices because the addresses are no longer valid.  We are wasting a lot of time in editing stories if we are later unable to get permission to use them.  We may not be able to contact some of the people who have given us statements.

     

    So we should tell them now what we want to do and ask now for permission to take their stories to the Bioethics Commission, to congress, to the President, and other places where it might do some good, including other activist organizations who will join with us in working to bring this major story to the media.  If TI's don't want to give permission now, they won't give permission later.  We should work on getting statements from people who will give permission to communicate their stories and not make promises that restrict us in using the stories in the way that they must be used to try to force a congressional investigation.

     

    Their stories do not need to provide identifying info about other people and organizations, but TI's should be willing to identify themselves.  We cannot get media to write stories about anonymous people nor can we get congress to investigate what has been done by agencies to anonymous people.

     

    In order to get the evidence that will make a legal solution possible, it is necessary to ask congress to investigate what the agencies have been doing to specific, identified people.  If such evidence is obtained, those people will then have grounds for successful litigation to obtain compensation for the harm that has been done to them.  Government will want to settle their claims to avoid such litigation.

     

    Plaintiffs Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney were awarded by an Oakland jury $4.6 million in damages for 1990 COINTELPRO harm that was very mild compared to the COINTELPRO torture that has been inflicted on present TI's.  If today's TI's want to try to recover appropriate compensation for the harm they have suffered, they must be willing to go public with their stories when we have enough combined evidence to take the full story of COINTELPRO TODAY to the public.   

    Content copyright 2011. CointelproToday.org. All rights reserved. create a website


  10. Anon Writes, 5/13/11: Are you under massive mind control?, or bribed (I doubt it but what do I know) or threatened, to not mention ACHRE's recommendation, and President Clinton's [addressing their recommendation] Administrative order of governme

    You are very deliberately missing the point, Norman. You are trying to confuse the issue.  This is what you have always done.  I will comment more on this habit of yours later.

    There is no issue about the prohibition of federal experiments on human subjects without obtaining their advance, informed consent.  This is clearly stated in present Federal Regulations.  No one is arguing that advance, informed consent is not required. So I don't need to cite executive orders or other legal authorities as further proof of a legal requirement that everyone agrees on.

    The only issue before the Commission is whether there are adequate safeguards to prevent present federal agency experiments without complying with the legal requirement to obtain advance, informed consent. If I followed your recommendation of citing the additional places where advance, informed consent is required, I would only be supporting the Commission's view that present safeguards are adequate.  That is the opposite of what we want to do.

    The TI position should be that present safeguards are utterly inadequate. We are saying that regardless of the clear prohibitions against nonconsensual experimentation in the Regulations and elsewhere, there is no means available for TI victims to obtain enforcement of the Regulations.  We are saying that the requirement of advance, informed consent to experiments is being drastically violated on a massive scale and that the victims of these violations have no means for obtaining investigation of the violations and remedies to prevent the continuing violations.

    That is the point that I focused on in my May 2 letter to the Commission, and that is the point that I urged all speakers at the May 18 meeting to focus on.  Sadly, none of them did so. 

    The Commission assumes that all agencies are complying with the Regulations by obtaining advance informed consent.  It ignores complaints from people who say that they are targeted by government agencies.  Those who target someone for deliberate harm are not conducting experiments.  Intentional harm is outside the subject is not a subject that the Commission is investigating.  And "Gangstalking" has nothing to do with government experiments. 

    As far as the Commission is concerned, all the public commentary was irrelevant to its investigation. None of the speakers at either meeting told the Commission why the present safeguards are inadequate.

    We cannot force the Commission to broaden its investigation to go far beyond the limited question that Obama asked it to investigate.  If we want to obtain any benefit from the present investigation, it is incumbent upon us to make our complaints fit within the limited issue that the Commission is investigating. 

    I tried to explain this to all the TI's that I could reach in my May 2 group email:


  11. How do those of you who will testify at the NY meeting plan to give testimony to convince the Committee that you and hundreds of other TI's are involuntary participants in government scientific studies?

     

    Bob S:   If you know how to do this, you should be sharing your strategy with others who plan to testify.  If you don't know how to do it, you should be asking a lawyer how you can present testimony in a way that will be relevant to the Commission's investigation. I am a lawyer who can answer such questions, but instead of asking me how to present effective testimony, all the witnesses at the last meeting followed their own judgment and gave testimony that the Commission is justified in disregarding as being irrelevant to the Commission's investigation.

    The Commission does not have the authority to investigate any issue other than the issue for which the President requested an investigation and report. Not one witness at the first meeting addressed the real issue that the Commission is investigating. All the witnesses wasted the opportunity that they were given at that meeting to provide the kind of evidence that the Commission could not ignore.

    I have been giving legal strategy advice to TI's for 8 years. They have always ignored my legal advice and followed instead the advice of Anti-TI Activists who have told them to follow strategies that were useless and harmful. Any strategy that is useless is also harmful because it prevents TI's from using time and energy in following a strategy that is effective.

    Giving irrelevant testimony to the Commission is useless and also harmful because it prevents you from taking advantage of the rare opportunity to speak directly to people who have the power to help us. All of the witnesses wasted the opportunity that they had at the last meeting.

     

  12. BobS Asks: Are the witnesses at the next meeting going to do the same?

    BobS Writes:   You have no hope of achieving a solution if you try to be your own lawyers instead of following the advice of a real lawyer who understands the TI situation. Everyone outside the TI community understands the necessity of obtaining and following the best legal advice they can get. They pay a lot of money for good legal advice, but the results are worth the cost. Incredibly, TI's won't follow good legal advice even when they get it free. So they kept losing for 8 years when they could have been winning. And now they are setting themselves up to lose with the Bioethics Commission.

    All the witnesses at the last Commission meeting followed a losing strategy by giving testimony that seemed irrelevant to the Commission's investigation. It looks like witnesses at the next meeting are going to do the same. You are blowing the great opportunity that the Commission is giving you.

    This legal strategy explanation didn't accomplish anything.  TI's who spoke at the second Commission meeting did just what I feared.  They went to the NY meeting and repeated the same mistakes made at the Washington meeting. 

    Derrick was there, supposedly orchestrating the TI performances.  If he was trying to advance TI interests, he should not have let this happen, but as an infiltrator, Derrick got exactly what he wanted:  another lost TI opportunity. 

    I don't find anything in your comments, Norman, that deals with the specific issue that the Commission is investigating.  When you talk about additional prohibitions on nonconsensual experiments, which I did not cite, you sound like you are arguing on the side of the Commission by contending that we have adequate protection by the clear prohibition of nonconsensual experiments both in the Federal Regulations and in the other places you cite.

    If you want to be on the side of TI's who are arguing that present safeguards are inadequate, you should not be writing about additional existing prohibitions.  You should be writing instead about the failure of the present system to enforce any of the existing prohibitions.  That is what I did in my May 2 letter to the Commission.  It is not what any of the speakers did at either of the Commission meetings, and it is not what you are doing.

    The Commission members have said at both meetings that present safeguards are adequate.  None of the speakers at either meeting has explained why present safeguards are not adequate. 

    You don't deal with this issue in your email, and none of the speakers dealt with this issue at the two meetings. If TI's don't deal with the issue that the Commission is investigating, the Commission is going to ignore everything that they say on subjects outside their issue of investigation and report to Obama that present safeguards are quite adequate.

    In spite of all my explanations of what they did wrong at the first meeting and how to do it right at the second meeting.  TI's have blown their second big opportunity to address the Commission on the specific issue that it is investigating.

    People who don't know how to deal with the specific issue that the Commission is investigating should read my letter to the Commission where I focused on that issue.  People who are not willing to focus on this narrow issue should not be speaking and wasting whatever opportunity may still exist for TI's to deal with the only relevant issue at the third meeting of the Commission.

    The conclusion that the Commission members have expressed at both meetings is dead wrong, but this is a cover-up commission like the 9-11 Commission. That is what Presidential Commissions are usually for -- to cover up the truth, not to find the truth.

    If the Commission wanted to find the truth, it would have been asking questions of the speakers and contacting them to obtain further information. By ignoring everything the speakers say and expressing conclusions contrary to what the speakers say, this Commission has demonstrated that its mission is to cover up the truth and to reach the conclusion that Obama wants to hear – that present safeguards provide adequate protection.

    The only way to combat such a cover-up commission is by speaking out at the meetings on the specific issue that the Commission is investigating so that it will not be free to ignore us. Is there any way to persuade the speakers at the third meeting to do this?

    For eight years, TI's have been rejecting my legal strategy advice and following strategies that defeated them. They are doing the same thing again with the Bioethics Commission. The best legal advice that any attorney can give is wasted on people who always ignore the advice and do the opposite, thus defeating themselves and making a solution impossible to achieve.

    TI's have rejected all the legal advice that I have been giving them for 8 years. It was foolish of me to hope that they might suddenly change now.

     


  13. Anon Writes: I hope that my feedback/comments are welcome. Very Sincerely, Norman ____________

    There is nothing at all sincere about any of your comments, Norman.  Every email that I have ever received from you has contained irrelevant, distracting subjects that are designed by you to confuse the issues instead of to contribute in any way to better understanding and more effective dealing with the issues. 

    Your purpose of creating confusion and wasting my time in undoing your confusion has always been obvious to me.  It should be obvious to others who read your comments below.  They should ask what anything you say ever contributes to advancing TI interests.  The answer here and in all your past emails is:  Nothing at all.  You are only attempting to create confusion and distraction.

    We don't have any more time to waste on your diversionary tactics.  We need to identify people like you and deny each of you the opportunity to keep blocking TI progress.  That is what I am doing now.

    I am providing free legal service only for legitimate, sincere TI's who want to achieve a solution.  I am not providing free legal service to either the open Anti-TI Activists like Derrick and Eleanor or to the subtle Anti-TI Activists like you.  Your constantly demonstrated objective is to cause confusion with false issues and thus to bog down any progress toward a solution.  We can't let you waste our time like this any longer.

    Accordingly, I am taking people like you off our mailing list.  You will not receive any more email from us, and we will not answer any more disruptive email from you or from the others like you. 

    We do welcome comments from sincere TI's who want to contribute to achieving a solution.  I can easily recognize the difference between them and you. 

    You are not as blatantly obvious as Derrick in your Anti-TI Activism, but you have never fooled me for a minute, Norman.  I have tolerated your more subtle kind of interference with TI objectives far too long.  

    I am nearly 80 years old, and I don't have time to tolerate you any longer.

    Bob S

     


  14. May 31, 2011 from: Norman _______ Subject: Comments on Bob S.'s May 2, 2011 letter to PCSBI: [[as posted at: http://www.cointelprotoday.org/ ]] [[ Please confirm your receipt of this email. Thank you.]] Firstly, thank you so much for trying.

    There is no reply to the running commentary in the above question by BobS

  15. 6/1/2011, kenrhoades2008@yahoo.com writes: Bob, I was at the last two bioethics meetings, where were you, how come you didn't show up? You have all the answers and offer all of us dumb ti's this advice everyday, where's the action that yo

    No, Ken, my lungs were destroyed 3 years ago by a perp doctor,who knew that I had pneumonia, but gave me nothing but cough syrup for 3 weeksuntil so much damage was done that I can now only get a fraction of the oxygenI need.  I had no idea that such a thing could happen.  I only knewthat I had a bad cough and that I was seeing a doctor and doing what he told meto do.  Now if I try to go to the store to buy groceries, I'm collapsingbefore I can get checked out. 

    The perpsdidn't like the legal advice that I was giving to TI's.  They were afraidthat they might follow the advice and start winning instead oflosing.  Losing my lungs was the price I paid for spending years givingTI's legal advice that the perps didn't want them to have but which didn'tdo you any good because they didn't follow it. 

    The perpsneed not have feared.  Most of you are still defeating yourself byignoring good legal advice and playing the game to lose instead of to win.

    No waycould I physically make a trip to NY or wherever the next meeting is held, andI have no money left to make a trip after living on savings since 1988 when Istarted working full time on seeking a solution to the problems that I hadidentified by then as COINTELPRO. 

    For manyyears, I have searched for a solution and given free legal advice to TI's for 8years instead of working to earn a living.  How much more do you expect ofme?  I have lost most of my lung capacity as a penalty for trying to helpyou, and for no benefit to any of you.  You still won't follow my legaladvice. 

    So why doyou want me to go to a meeting if I could go?  Just to be the only one whotalks to the Commission about the issue it is investigating? 

    I alonecan't do anything for you.  I can only tell you what you need to do foryourselves in order to start winning and stop losing, but if you won't followlegal advice, you will always keep losing, and I have been a damn fool to giveup 8 years of my time, causing the perps to destroy my heath because Iwanted too much to help all of you.

    I'm theonly attorney you have to tell you how to follow a legal strategy that cansucceed.  I can tell you that you won't get anywhere with paranoidbillboards or by flying people to NY to talk to the Commission about irrelevantissues instead of the one issue that the Commission is investigating. 

    I sent youmy full letter to the Commission two weeks before the NY meeting so thatyou would know how to deal with the issue under investigation and so that youcould help others to do the same.  You ignored my letter and ignoredthe advice I gave in email to everyone.

    You arewasting your money and your time by making your own mistaken choices that willfail instead of following a lawyer's advice on what you need to do tosucceed.  It wouldn't do any good for me to be at a meeting talkingfor 90 seconds on the right issue if the rest of you are there talking on thewrong issues again. 

    You reallymake me regret that I have paid such an extremely high price in trying invain to help TI's for so long.  I wish I had it to do overagain.  I sure as hell would not have spent 8 years of my life givinglegal advice to people who got no benefit at all from it.  I would nothave brought on major retaliation from the perps so severe that I amnow reduced to a state of physical helplessness. 

    All ofthat loss to me and for no benefit to anyone.  How very stupid I havebeen!

    Bob S

     


  16. 5/30/2011, Anon Writes: Bob, Let's call it a given that in order to attempt to bring a lawsuit, one must know who their adversaries are and can substantiate their injuries are caused by, or are allowed to be caused by, those adverse parties. Gove

    BobS Writes:  If anyone can prove a case in court against specific perps, that's fine, but those perps will be replaced by other perps.  This does not bring us any closer to stopping COINTELPRO

  17. 5/30/2011, Anon Further Writes: Frankly, I would like to see all potential avenues pursued. I can't imagine what would make me happier than a new investigation of COINTELPRO and its continuing relationship to unauthorized, unwarranted surveillance

    BobS Writes:  All lawsuits against government have been dismissed with prejudice because there is no proof of responsibility for harm.  John Mecca's lawsuit was dismissed as "delusional" with the dismissal affirmed in a Circuit Court opinion and certiorari denied by the Supreme Court.  Each dismissal creates higher barriers for us to try to surmount if we ever get evidence to support a valid case.

  18. 5/30/11, Anon Further Writes: PS: Even tho many people are adverse to the term "gang stalking", it is a recognizable term for use in describing a whole new genre of human, constitutional and civil rights' violations.

    BobS Writes:  You can't get a congressional investigation of "a whole new genre of human, constitutional and civil rights' violations" by "gang stalkers.  Congress has no responsibility or capability to investigate "gang stalkers."  If you want a congressional investigation, you need to establish that it's the same old COINTELPRO operations that have been thoroughly proven to be the dirty work of the FBI from 1956 to 1990. 

    Why do you want to argue that our present experiences  are something new and different that requires a new name?  You are throwing away 50,000 pages of evidence proving FBI responsibility for all the COINTELPRO before 1990 and the highly likely FBI responsibility for all the COINTELPRO after 1990.


  19. 5/30/11, Anon Further Writes: Stalking is illegal already (if one meets the elements of the legally defined term). Gang stalking does depict an image of multiple stalkers pursuing the same target. Still, assault under any name is just a type of assault

    BobS Writes:  

    No, Barbara, when you call them "gangstalkers," you are denying that there has been a Sec. 1983 violation.  A Sec. 1983 violation can only occur when someone violates constitutional rights while acting under color of law.  "Gang stalkers" are not acting under color of law.

     

    You have been conditioned by years of propaganda to accept a term that sounds extremely paranoid and that covers up government responsibility.  How do you think we can ever produce public pressure for a third congressional investigation of government COINTELPRO when you are mislabeling COINTELPRO as "gangstalking" and thus denying government responsibility for

    COINTELPRO?

     

    TI's of the 1970's and 1980's proved government COINTELPRO operations to the public and thus caused public outrage that forced the two congressional investigations.  Present TI's are denying themselves any hope of a congressional investigation by disguising present COINTELPRO  as "gang stalking." 

     

    You tell me how happy you would be to have such a congressional investigation of COINTELPRO.  Then you tell me that you intend to keep covering up present COINTELPRO with the "gangstalking" disguise, thus eliminating any possibility of producing public pressure for the congressional investigation of COINTELPRO that would make you so happy.

     

    That's how confused you get after listening to Derrick and Eleanor for years.

     Bob S

     


    copyright 2011.   www.CointelproContinuesToday.org All Rights Reserved

  20. Why shouldn't the term "stalking" & "targeted" be used at the Bioethics Commission meetings?

    Should "targeted" and "Targeted Individuals" be removed from the website?

    BobS responds:   No.  That limitation applied only to communications to the Commission or to bioethics professionals.  The Commission has authority to investigate only experiments causing incidental harm, not targeting causing intentional harm.  Complaints about "targeting" gave the Commission an excuse for rejecting our evidence.   This distinction between targeting and experimenting does not apply to congress nor to others from whom we might seek help.   So there is no reason to avoid using "targeted" generally.   Terms that cause us big problems with everyone and which should never be used by TI's are "gang-stalking" and "organized stalking" or even "stalking."  COINTELPRO operations do not meet the definition of the crime of "stalking."   TI's very rarely experience the crime of "stalling."  This crime occurs only when there is a series of harassing acts by a single person.  The normal TI experience of a series of harassing acts by separate perps is not a crime under any state or federal law.  COINTELPRO harassment was cleverly designed to torture the victims without violating any laws.   However, such activities do violate elder abuse laws when performed on senior citizens.  Harassing seniors is a crime, but Adult Protective Services and police refuse to investigate these violations of elder abuse laws.   It is ok for TI's to use "surveillance" if that is what they actually mean.  "COINTELPRO crime and harassment" or "COINTELPRO operations" are appropriate terms.   "Stalking" is a false  and damaging  term that should never be used to describe TI experiences.   

Back to top